Not the way to fund it

Voters will be asked to approve a half-percent sales tax for roads that will expire in 10 years. This tax will be imposed by amending the Arkansas Constitution. Concerns have been raised that our taxes are too high and that a sales tax unfairly burdens the poor. These may be legitimate concerns, but this proposal should also be viewed from a governmental-operations viewpoint.

The purpose of a constitution is to set forth general principles and the framework of the law and government. Statutory law, as enacted by our Legislature, provides the details of the government, such as specific taxes. If you amend the constitution to impose a tax, the only way to get rid of the tax is to amend the constitution again, an onerous task. This has great potential for reducing accountability of government.

This approach to raising taxes for a specific state commission is not unprecedented. In November of 1996, the voters of Arkansas narrowly approved

1 an amendment to impose a ⁄ percent

8 sales tax to go to certain agencies, including the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Within a few short years, the commission had more vehicles than employees. It also famously, and erroneously, declared itself not subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information law. Do we want to go down this road again?

The highway proposal is not as harsh as the 1996 amendment, as it will expire in 10 years. I simply point out that this is not a good way to fund government operations. Does the end justify the means? DAVID L. EDDY

Russellville