When I first ran for Alderman, I knew that Nashua, like many other cities, utilized FEDERAL grants. However, within my first few months in office, I realized the extent of our city’s dependency on them. As an increasing amount came through the chamber, I concluded that these were not exceptions—they had become the rule. I needed to find out why we needed them, how this process started, what the impact is on the city, the state, the country, my grandchildren, and all our futures.
After witnessing this level of dependency, I began pushing back by voting against the use of FEDERAL grants, except in cases of environmental catastrophes, such as the old tannery cleanup and, more recently, a PFAS pilot program for water management.
I needed to make it clear that my opposition was not to the projects themselves necessarily but rather the source of their funding. I have even voted against FEDERAL grants for our fire and police departments, and in both instances, I reached out to the fire and police chiefs to explain my position. I assured them of my full support for their departments, despite my opposition to accepting FEDERAL funds.
Why Elected Officials Should Oppose FEDERAL Dollars.
I oppose the acceptance of FEDERAL grants, and I believe other council members should as well. No matter how proud of an American we may be, there is an ugly truth we must all face, and that is that the United States is broke. It continues to operate on a growing national debt, borrowing money with no clear plan for repayment. Despite this, towns, cities, and states across the country continue to accept FEDERAL grants as though they are receiving “free money.” The truth is, there is no such thing as free money—every grant awarded adds to the national debt, a burden that will fall on the shoulders of our children’s children for generations to come.
The phrase “free money” is often used when discussing FEDERAL grants and subsidies. When I vote against a grant, other Aldermen would say they will not vote against “free money,” but this is misleading. The FEDERAL government does not generate its own money; it simply redistributes taxpayer dollars. Others have stated they will vote for FEDERAL funds to save taxpayers money. However, this idea is flawed because the largest source of federal revenue is the federal income tax paid for by the blood and sweat of hard-working Americans.
One of the most significant risks of FEDERAL grants is that they create an illusion of security. Many municipalities use these funds to start new departments, create or expand existing programs, or build infrastructure under the assumption that future funding will continue like the Nashua Transit System (NTS) that requires far greater than 50% of its roughly 4-million-dollar operating budget come from FEDERAL grants. Federal grants have no guarantees, and when they disappear, local governments are compelled to make tough decisions. There have been growing discussions regarding what the city will do if FEDERAL funds dry up, do we shut down the NTS? Do we make it a self-sufficient entity that would require ticket prices over $10? What happens to a town’s program or the associated staff when federal funding is reduced or cut? The options are limited but would fall into one of these categories,
1) Increase local taxes to replace the lost funding,
2) Cut essential services or employees to balance the budget, or
3) Plead for additional FEDERAL assistance, further deepening the cycle of dependency.
New Hampshire and other states that value their sovereignty must take steps to reduce reliance on FEDERAL grants by prioritizing local funding, If a project, program or service is truly necessary, it should be funded by the local community where residents have direct oversight and accountability, not the unpredictable FEDERAL government; a strong local economy reduces the need for outside funding, ensuring that towns and cities can support themselves. By taking these steps, communities can regain financial independence and make decisions based on what is best for their residents, not what Washington dictates.
The Growing Debt Crisis and Its Impact on Future Generations
Each time a FEDERAL grant is accepted, that money is borrowed against the future generations and the United States survives by building debt often with foreign countries and having no idea how to ever pay it back.
Every small project that uses FEDERAL funding contributes to the national deficit, which weakens the country’s financial standing and economic stability. Unlike local tax dollars, which are allocated and spent in real-time, FEDERAL grants are backed by borrowed money. This means that a sidewalk, a building restoration, or a municipal program funded by FEDERAL grants does not just cost money today; it will cost significantly more in the future, as interest on the national debt continues to rise. A locally funded project may temporarily increase taxes, but is paid off within a set time. FEDERAL grants, on the other hand, pass the financial burden onto future generations, who will have no say in how that money was historically spent but will still be responsible for paying it back.
This issue is particularly relevant in New Hampshire, where financial independence and limited government have always been highly valued, at least in belief, even if not in practice. While any projects funded by FEDERAL grants may be beneficial, the long-term consequences of relying on Washington’s money far outweigh any short-term gains. The acceptance of these grants does not just create financial debt, it also increases FEDERAL control over local decision-making, threatening the sovereignty of our state and municipalities. If a municipality cannot sustain itself without FEDERAL grants, is it financially stable? Isn’t it simply living on borrowed time?
Restoring Local Financial Responsibility
If a local municipality, town, or city has become dependent on FEDERAL funds, it is a sign that the entity is no longer financially self-sufficient. True fiscal responsibility means living within one’s means and prioritizing spending in a way that is sustainable exactly how we are supposed to act as individuals to sustain our families.
How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of FEDERAL Involvement
The FEDERAL government’s deep involvement in state and city affairs is a modern phenomenon. Prior to 1913, local and state governments primarily funded their own programs and infrastructure. That changed with the passage of the 16th Amendment, which introduced the FEDERAL income tax, providing Washington with a vast revenue stream that it could use to exert influence over states. During the Great Depression, the FEDERAL government significantly expanded its role in local affairs through relief programs and public works projects. While these were initially meant to be temporary, they laid the groundwork for a system in which states and municipalities became dependent on FEDERAL money. Over the decades, FEDERAL funding has only increased, and with it, the level of control the FEDERAL government exercises over local decisions. Today, many towns and cities struggle to operate without FEDERAL assistance, a clear sign that they have lost the financial independence they once had.
FEDERAL Grants as a Tool for Control
Beyond financial concerns, accepting FEDERAL grants comes with another major risk: loss of sovereignty. Every grant comes with strings attached, that allow the FEDERAL government to dictate policies that should only be decided by our local or state government. Most recently in Nashua regarding CDBG grants, HUD levied new regulations that would require recipients to have radon testing and potentially mitigation done before the awarding of these funds and some of last year’s recipients have withdrawn due to these new requirements. Below are a few other historical examples of how the government has used funds as leverage.
Highway Funding and the Drinking Age: In 1984, the FEDERAL government threatened to withhold highway funding from states that did not raise the drinking age to twenty-one. Rather than making decisions based on the needs of their citizens, states complied to avoid financial penalties.
Education Mandates: Many FEDERAL education grants require schools to follow specific policies, limiting the ability of states and local school boards to tailor education to their students’ needs.
Medicaid and Healthcare Regulations: FEDERAL healthcare funding often forces states to comply with Washington’s standards rather than crafting policies that best serve their residents.
The proper role of the FEDERAL government is not to micromanage states and cities but to focus on national defense and interstate matters. Local governments must take responsibility for their own finances, ensuring that they can sustain essential programs without relying on unpredictable FEDERAL assistance.
In conclusion, FEDERAL grants may seem like an easy solution for funding local projects, but they come at a significant cost. They contribute to the national debt, impose FEDERAL control over state and local decisions, and create a cycle of dependency that undermines financial stability.
By accepting FEDERAL grants, states and municipalities give up a portion of their autonomy. In New Hampshire, a state with the motto “Live Free or Die” and one that values independence, this should be an unacceptable trade-off. The more we rely on FEDERAL money, the more we allow the FEDERAL government to dictate our decisions.
New Hampshire and other states that value independence must reject FEDERAL grants and prioritize fiscal responsibility. Only by living within our means can we preserve our freedom and protect future generations from the burdens of debt and FEDERAL overreach. The choice is clear: financial independence or FEDERAL dependence. If we genuinely believe in self-governance, we must say no to FEDERAL grants, for our families now and generations to come.
