Shot: NH Senate President, Republican Chuck Morse – in implementing Obamacare’s Medicaid Expansion: this will protect NH Taxpayers
Chaser: NH Rep Dale Sprague (D-Somersworth) – in arguing that NH ought to have a choo-choo train to Boston: The House also ignored the fact that the $4 million project development phase can be completed without impacting New Hampshire taxpayers.
And of course, we all know both of these two are lying and the proof is simple – most NH taxpayers are also Federal taxpayers. These two think so poorly of the rest of us that they think we haven’t figured out that we Little People are on the hook for that “free money” that they want to spend because it is someone else’s money (and it it – OURS).
His entire Op-Ed is after the jump but so is one by Neal Kurk, John O’Connor, and Peter Leishman that take out his argument on “free money” to do this. Here’s the comment I left at his Op-Ed (slightly answering an earlier one that lambasted this love of 19th century technology to solve a supposed 21st century problem:
Not only that David, but what will the subsidy be? The Downeaster is already at 50% of the actual ticket – how can the Left claim that this is their most favoritist word – sustainable.
And of course, where is that “$4 million project development phase can be completed without impacting New Hampshire taxpayers” coming from? Oh yeah, the folks that have that oh so sustainable $20 Trillion in debt. Dale Sprague must think we are all morons and dunces, never thinking that WE are the Federal taxpayers he wishes to fleece for his daydreams of, as you say David, 19 century choo-choo trains. God helps us all as these nitwits keep spending our money that we just don’t have to benefit a small minority of folks.
This is the problem that these Big Government hacks have – the cost is NEVER the issue, only the “get it started rolling down the track”. They KNOW that once a government paid for program starts it is neigh on impossible to stop. That is their wish, their hope, and their determination. If they stick to it long enough, most of them get what they want and it never end because Government NEVER, EVER does a post-mortem to determine: did it meet its starting criteria? If that was ever honestly done, I bet we’d have far fewer fights over the size and cost of Government as it would be “self-deleting”.
****************
Dale Sprague: Senate should restore rail funding in transportation plan
Recently, the New Hampshire House of Representatives made a mistake in eliminating project development of the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor rail expansion project from the 10-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. In making this decision, the House ignored support from the governor, the House Public Works and Highways Committee, widespread business support, including the two largest chambers of commerce in the state, and 74 percent of New Hampshire residents. The House also ignored the fact that the $4 million project development phase can be completed without impacting New Hampshire taxpayers.
Project development is not another study. This critical phase entails establishing a detailed financial plan, preliminary engineering, environmental permitting and preparation of funding applications for submission to the federal transit and rail administrations. From a business standpoint, project development is a chance for the state to do its due diligence, without making a financial commitment. By relying on the state’s existing pool of surplus toll credits for a match, New Hampshire can access $4 million in existing federal funding, funding that cannot be used for other transportation projects, without asking New Hampshire taxpayers for a dime.
Toll credits, which are not real dollars, can only be used as a match for federal funding programs. They are not a rainy day fund for the Department of Transportation. Further, moving forward with project development does not commit New Hampshire to rail expansion. In fact, unlike other transportation projects, if New Hampshire completes the project development phase but ultimately decides not to move forward with the rail expansion, we do not need to pay the federal government back.
The economic impacts of bringing commuter rail to New Hampshire are profound. In terms of job creation alone, the project would generate 5,600 permanent jobs supporting 3,600 new residential units, with $750 million in real estate development added to the state’s output between 2021 and 2030, according to the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor study. The rail expansion project would create more than 3,000 construction jobs to build the real estate development generated by rail and, beginning in 2030, more than 1,700 jobs would be created every year thanks to the overall economic benefits of rail expansion.
With the promise of such significant economic benefits, shouldn’t we undertake a zero-cost, thorough exploration of the opportunity that’s before us? A growing, bipartisan coalition of business owners, elected officials and transportation experts think we should. We urge the Senate to restore funding for the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Project Development phase in the 10-Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
Rep. Dale Sprague (D-Somersworth) is a member of the Public Works and Highways Committee.
****************
Op-ed by Neal Kurk, John O’Connor, and Peter Leishman: Our state shouldn’t spend money on another rail study
Last month, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to remove $4 million of funding for a study of commuter rail from HB 2016, the legislation containing the state’s 10-year highway plan. There are several reasons why those who opposed the funding voted to remove it.
The proposal was not part of the Department of Transportation’s original 10-year highway plan proposal. Every two years, the department submits a plan with their proposed, prioritized list of projects, improvements and maintenance, and they chose not to include this study or any rail study as part of the plan. The Executive Council did not include the $4 million in its version of the plan that they sent to the governor. Yet, rather than move forward with the prescribed set of proposals from the department and Executive Council, Gov. Maggie Hassan chose to insert this into her proposed plan, which she delivered to the Legislature.
The funding plan for the study relied on utilizing federal toll credits. These toll credits, which can be characterized as the state’s highway rainy day fund, can be used as a match for New Hampshire’s share of project costs, including improvements to our roads and bridges. But despite our many other infrastructure concerns, the governor determined these resources would be best utilized for an additional commuter rail study. Many House members viewed the raiding of toll credits as irresponsible.
There have been countless other studies performed over the last 10 years, and this study didn’t necessarily purport to provide any new revelations about commuter rail. In fact, many of the most recent studies shed light on the exorbitant costs of the planning, construction, maintenance and continual operating subsidy that such a rail system would require.
One such study released in October 2015 concluded that commuter rail service from Massachusetts to Manchester would require $246 million to construct, and $11 million per year to subsidize the service. In context, the construction cost alone would be enough to fund the entire Department of Safety for over one year, and the annual operating subsidy is more than three times what we budget annually for the Governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery.
Reps. Neal Kurk (R-Weare), John O’Connor (R-Derry) and Peter Leishman (D-Peterborough) sponsored the amendment removing the commuter rail study from HB 2016.
