Free For Me But Not For Thee

by Steve MacDonald

NH House members want to ski for free

not Weeeeee but Freeeeee!

In reporting on New Hampshire House Bill HB 514 –An Act relating to giving legislators a free ride–WMUR reports that it a) came out of committee with instructions to kill it (this is good) but b) that supporters of the bill claim that Members skiing for free at Canon Mountain–the Bill’s real purpose–doesn’t add costs to the Ski areas.

Supporters argue that lawmakers have open access to state parks which promotes awareness of the locations.

They say skiing at Cannon doesn’t add costs to the ski area and encourages members to experience that part of New Hampshire culture.

Yes, of course.  And that is, after all, why we elected them.  Though I do have some lingering questions…

1) If using the ski area doesn’t add costs for legislators how or why does it add costs–requiring payment for use under penalty of law–by everyone else?

2) How does it look for elected officials to be voting themselves free stuff?

3) Is this a reflection of legislators who desire to experience other parts of New Hampshire like commuter rail boondoggles..another thing they want that they expect everyone else to pay for?

4) As a follow up to item 3, the very existence of some legislators, with or without voting themselves free stuff, adds costs…to everything else and everyone else, so why not Canon Mountain?

5) If equality of outcome really does matter of what possible benefit is this to legislators who can’t or don’t ski?

6) If use of the ski area by any other anthropomorphic being does add costs, what exactly could the self proclaimed zero impact presence of  House members at Canon Mountain say about the efficacy of those same state legislators as regards anything else they do? (see item 4)

7) How about we put a bit more focus on legislator awareness of the economy and the creeping tax burden and the weight of Federal actions moving toward us like a fiscal avalanche  as they make excuses to spend our money and nickel and dime us into poverty?


Leave a Comment

  • “If using the ski area doesn’t add costs for legislators how or why does it add costs–requiring payment for use under penalty of law–by everyone else?”

    Did you ever take Econ 101, Steve? Or Accounting 101? The marginal cost of letting a legislator hop on the lift and ski back down the slope is near zero. The fixed cost of running the ski area runs into the multimillions.

    • C. dog e. doG

      Oh no, here we have Tammy Notworthy trying to wax all economic and stuff again. Shall we just cut to the reductio ad absurdum? What if all those traveling to New Hamster’s last bastion of socialized skiing were to just “hop on the lift and ski back down the slope”? Not so near zero, anymore, eh Tamster? Maybe the way to fix this thing once and for all is for the Grate State not to run re-creation centers of mediocrity. Funny, I don’t recall the State being empowered to engage in this sort of frivolous commerce.
      – C. dog focused on the ABC’s of accounting for Sno Bunnies crossing dangerous slopes

      • nhsteve

        Or what C. dog said.

        • C. dog e. doG

          Or what Steve said.

    • nhsteve

      Obviously but this is about philosophy not economics. In the context of the entire post it represent an aristocratic state of mind and a human weakness to justify a trail of “meaningless” indulgences that eventually accumulate into privilege and then tyranny. (Free for thee but not for me.) You follow?

      The statement itself is allegory. (Not everything you can turn into a pull quote is literal)

  • Tim from Nashua

    When any bill comes up for a vote that effects BigSki Corporations, the BigSki Corporations will have their ‘Ski-for-Free’ legislators in their hip pocket.

  • C. dog e. doG

    I want to know a few things too:
    1. Will the Dept. of Cultured Affairs be available to assist in the cultural exchange between the esteemed legislators and Cannon Mtn? As we all know, these sorts of things can be quite tricky: what means donkey in the bible means something completely different under gilded domes across Amerika.
    2. Has New Hamster’s OEM calculated the incremental energy demand upon the Grate State’s mighty tramway precariously perched on the Cannon granite to lift the legislature’s collective BFA’s 2000 vertical feet? I think this no small consideration when debating the merits of this bill. Think of the chilt’ren at risk below.
    2-a. (reminds me of a certain amendment) As part of assessing their impact upon the White Mtn forests, how big is Cannon’s carbon footprint? Is it as svelte as Profile Lake, or perhaps more in line with matronly figure of Echo Lake?
    3. Can we expect to see the Lilac Lady up there anytime soon to enhance the experience of the Lofty Legislators as they schuss by in their skin-tight lycra outfits – be still my heart!
    4. How many suitors will be chasing Cyndi down the Front Five? Can we expect to see Gran’ma Horrigan and Jimbo Splaine making a go of it?
    5. Is there a non-stop train yet to transport these fine sausage makers from the Gilded Dome to these lofty slopes? No need for a $3.6 million study, we already know the demand exists!
    – C. dog clipping his Concord Moronitor coupons so he can ski for free, free I say!

Previous post:

Next post: