Utah legislators who want to override Gov. Gary Herbert's veto of a bill that would dedicate a percentage of the growth in state's sales tax revenue to the highway fund refer to their plan as a useful budgeting "tool." But it is not the sort of tool any self-respecting handyman would want in his box.

Tools make things easier. The bill that the governor wisely vetoed — SB229 — would make it harder for the state to allocate its always scarce resources around the always greater need for government services.

As a political smokescreen, though, the bill would be useful to lawmakers who don't like to do some of the things that government is supposed to do. Those things include making tough decisions, justifying those decisions to various groups and providing services to constituents who have needs other than driving on — or being paid to build — highways.

The push to override Herbert's veto, though, has unfortunately gained enough momentum that legislative leaders have set a rare veto session for May 6. Just the fact that the session has been scheduled, when the Utah Constitution requires the support of two-thirds of each house just to schedule the meeting, suggests that an override is highly likely.

But there is still time for lawmakers to think better of it and sustain the governor's action.

A law that would begin each year's budget process with a pre-cast decision to divert a certain percentage of the growth in state sales tax revenue — estimated to be some $60 million a year in the near future — will not, as its advocates claim, do anything to slow the growth of government. It will just ensure that it grows in a certain way, particularly by laying more concrete and encouraging more people to drive more cars more miles and burn more fuel each year.

All the other needs of government, from law enforcement to higher education to social services, would have to make do with less money than they would otherwise have. That would hurt many different people in many different stations of life. But it wouldn't cut anybody's taxes by a dime.

Legislators probably do realize, though, that bleeding the sales tax stream for highways is the most efficient alternative to what they really ought to be doing, which is raising the state's motor fuel tax rates. Tax-averse lawmakers haven't raised those rates since 1997, which is an awfully long time for a state that loves its cars so much and is growing so fast.

If any revenue source should be dedicated to highway projects, it is the fuel tax. It amounts to a user fee, with those who drive the most paying the most. The fuel tax, not the sales tax, is the tool the state needs for its highways.