I'll be on "Meet the New Press" Saturday morning at 9 on WEMJ.
You can listen online here.
Rock 101 will also be re-airing my segment with Charlie Sherman Sunday morning at 7am. Wake up with some Rockin' Public Affairs Programming, followed by a block of Aerosmith. If you can't wait, you can always download WGIR "News To Go".
Friday, January 30, 2009
UL Ed Page Bashes Stimulus
The Union Leader this morning dedicates serious real estate to bashing the stimulus bill passed by the House, both in its lead editorial...
And in an Op-Ed from former HHS Commissioner John Stephen:
We were told that it would keep people from winding up on the streets. Only $11 billion goes to housing assistance.
We were told that it would help Americans who got laid off. Only $4.6 billion goes to employment and training programs, and $27 billion to expand unemployment benefits. (By contrast, the bill raises Medicaid spending by $89 billion.)
We were told that it had to be passed immediately. But the Congressional Budget Office notes that large portions of the spending cannot even begin until spring and will take three to eight years to complete.
The Wall Street Journal calculated that only 12 percent of the bill's provisions can accurately be called stimulative. The rest is simply being thrown at favored constituencies by Congress. The bill even includes a provision forbidding the use of foreign steel in the construction projects it funds. Does no one in Congress remember Smoot-Hawley?
And in an Op-Ed from former HHS Commissioner John Stephen:
The premise behind the "stimulus" bill is a belief in the debunked Keynesian notion that government spending creates a multiplying effect that accelerates economic activity. This belief continues despite numerous failed attempts at this policy, including in Japan and during the New Deal.
What those proposing this irresponsible plan miss is that the money for this spending has to come from somewhere, and that means borrowing it. However, taking money out of the economy only to put it back into federal programs gets America right back to square one. The only way this will improve the economy is if the federal government can use that money more efficiently than the private sector can. Anyone who believes this should call me because I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'm trying to sell.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Gov. Lynch: The next state budget can't be balanced without layoffs
Tom Fahey breaks in the Union Leader that Governor John Lynch will seek layoffs in his proposed budget:
Layoffs among state workers will be unavoidable in the next two years if the state’s next budget is going to be balanced, Gov. John Lynch said this morning.
Lynch said he has been meeting six days a week with department heads across state government to find programs that are no longer necessary or can be combined with others. As those programs are cut or consolidated, some workers will lose their jobs, he said.
While he said he has not talked about any across-the-board layoffs, he said they must come as part of cost-saving moves for fiscal 2010 and 2011.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
NH has quietly built a mountain of debt
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
New Hampshire's budget deficit may be the worst in the modern history of the state, but it may not be the worst financial crisis we currently face. As the current budget eats away our financial reserves and puts enormous pressure on our budget structure, the state's long-term debt and obligations are rising to dangerous levels that make the budget deficit pale in comparison.
Like almost every government entity in the country, New Hampshire finances many of its capital projects with long-term debt or bonds. Twenty years ago, our general obligation debt was $349 million. Over 20 years, that number has risen to $738 million (as of June 2008) and is growing every year.
By federal standards, of course, $738 million is nothing. It's only $556 per capita. However, the trend is disturbing, as is the willingness to turn to debt whenever there's a problem. The most recent budget includes $40 million worth of items that had always been considered operating expenses before but which are now paid with debt. On top of that, we borrowed an additional $60 million to pay for highway fund expenses that used to be paid for with taxes.
The real problem isn't any one year of debt. The cumulative burden has been building for 20 years, slowly and inexorably. Stopping that growth is a long-term project.
Regular state debt is getting worrisome, but the hidden obligations of state government are the real problem. While nominal state debt is a little more than $700 million, the state's unfunded pension and similar obligations are almost 10 times that amount and growing rapidly.
Government accounting rules require a periodic statement of the state's pension liabilities and funding ratio. As recently as 1989, the state's unfunded liability was zero. We had enough assets in the system to cover our expected liabilities at projected growth rates.
Then the state's unfunded liability began to creep upward. By 1999, we were only 90 percent funded with a liability of $340 million. As of June 2008, the unfunded liability had exploded to $2.5 billion, and it's getting worse. The state reported that through October, the system lost almost $1.5 billion, making the unfunded liability $3.95 billion and growing. But that's only the beginning.
Recent accounting changes have forced the state to report the value of other benefit obligations. As of the last valuation two years ago, the state had no assets set aside for its "other post-employment benefits" (OPEB) obligation and had liabilities of $2.56 million.
In addition to the OPEB obligation, the state reports a separate health benefit liability of $495 million. Finally, the much-smaller judicial retirement system has dropped to 92 percent funding and has a liability of $4.3 million.
These four obligations combined have an unfunded liability of more than $7 billion, dwarfing the general state debt of $738 million. What's worse is that each of these obligations gets larger every year.
Our unfunded pension and benefits liabilities increase with serious declines in the stock market. During market retreats, they will look much worse than they are in the long term just as market booms will exaggerate their health.
But regardless of market distortions, we have among the worst-funded pensions in the country. We've gone from being more or less fully funded and keeping up with our growing obligation each year to having billions of dollars in debt.
For decades, debt and the long-term pension obligations were an insignificant part of policy debate. They were out of sight and out of mind. Finally, the growing shortfall had an impact on the state's annual contribution and therefore affected the state's operating budget.
There was a strong effort by the House to pass significant reforms to secure the long-term future of the retirement system. In the end, some changes were made, but there's much more work to do. The changes are not just about the solvency of the pension system. They're about the solvency of the state.
The debt problem is part of the whole budget-deficit problem, and the time to act is now. The new President of the debt-ridden federal government, Barack Obama, put it succinctly: "What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and not in a position to kick it any further."
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
New Hampshire's budget deficit may be the worst in the modern history of the state, but it may not be the worst financial crisis we currently face. As the current budget eats away our financial reserves and puts enormous pressure on our budget structure, the state's long-term debt and obligations are rising to dangerous levels that make the budget deficit pale in comparison.
Like almost every government entity in the country, New Hampshire finances many of its capital projects with long-term debt or bonds. Twenty years ago, our general obligation debt was $349 million. Over 20 years, that number has risen to $738 million (as of June 2008) and is growing every year.
By federal standards, of course, $738 million is nothing. It's only $556 per capita. However, the trend is disturbing, as is the willingness to turn to debt whenever there's a problem. The most recent budget includes $40 million worth of items that had always been considered operating expenses before but which are now paid with debt. On top of that, we borrowed an additional $60 million to pay for highway fund expenses that used to be paid for with taxes.
The real problem isn't any one year of debt. The cumulative burden has been building for 20 years, slowly and inexorably. Stopping that growth is a long-term project.
Regular state debt is getting worrisome, but the hidden obligations of state government are the real problem. While nominal state debt is a little more than $700 million, the state's unfunded pension and similar obligations are almost 10 times that amount and growing rapidly.
Government accounting rules require a periodic statement of the state's pension liabilities and funding ratio. As recently as 1989, the state's unfunded liability was zero. We had enough assets in the system to cover our expected liabilities at projected growth rates.
Then the state's unfunded liability began to creep upward. By 1999, we were only 90 percent funded with a liability of $340 million. As of June 2008, the unfunded liability had exploded to $2.5 billion, and it's getting worse. The state reported that through October, the system lost almost $1.5 billion, making the unfunded liability $3.95 billion and growing. But that's only the beginning.
Recent accounting changes have forced the state to report the value of other benefit obligations. As of the last valuation two years ago, the state had no assets set aside for its "other post-employment benefits" (OPEB) obligation and had liabilities of $2.56 million.
In addition to the OPEB obligation, the state reports a separate health benefit liability of $495 million. Finally, the much-smaller judicial retirement system has dropped to 92 percent funding and has a liability of $4.3 million.
These four obligations combined have an unfunded liability of more than $7 billion, dwarfing the general state debt of $738 million. What's worse is that each of these obligations gets larger every year.
Our unfunded pension and benefits liabilities increase with serious declines in the stock market. During market retreats, they will look much worse than they are in the long term just as market booms will exaggerate their health.
But regardless of market distortions, we have among the worst-funded pensions in the country. We've gone from being more or less fully funded and keeping up with our growing obligation each year to having billions of dollars in debt.
For decades, debt and the long-term pension obligations were an insignificant part of policy debate. They were out of sight and out of mind. Finally, the growing shortfall had an impact on the state's annual contribution and therefore affected the state's operating budget.
There was a strong effort by the House to pass significant reforms to secure the long-term future of the retirement system. In the end, some changes were made, but there's much more work to do. The changes are not just about the solvency of the pension system. They're about the solvency of the state.
The debt problem is part of the whole budget-deficit problem, and the time to act is now. The new President of the debt-ridden federal government, Barack Obama, put it succinctly: "What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and not in a position to kick it any further."
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
House Committee Keeps Toll Control with Council
(CONCORD) The House Public Works and Highways Committee has unanimously rejected a proposal to give the Legislature control over New Hampshire tolls. HB 137 would have set state toll rates in law, rather than by the Executive Council.
The five-member council last year raised toll rates around the state in order to make up for a projected shortfall in turnpike revenues. The Legislature currently retains the right to set discounts under the electronic "E-Z Pass" system, and to decide where and when toll booths will be installed.
Committee Chair Candace Bouchard (D-Concord) and Vice-Chair David Campbell (D-Nashua) urged their collegues to keep the current system, arguing that last year's toll increase showed that the Council had the political courage to raise toll rates.
Representative John Graham (R-Bedford) argued that such decisions should all be made by the same body, preferably the Legislature, but went along with the Committee's 17-0 decision. The full House will likely take up the bill on February 4th.
The five-member council last year raised toll rates around the state in order to make up for a projected shortfall in turnpike revenues. The Legislature currently retains the right to set discounts under the electronic "E-Z Pass" system, and to decide where and when toll booths will be installed.
Committee Chair Candace Bouchard (D-Concord) and Vice-Chair David Campbell (D-Nashua) urged their collegues to keep the current system, arguing that last year's toll increase showed that the Council had the political courage to raise toll rates.
Representative John Graham (R-Bedford) argued that such decisions should all be made by the same body, preferably the Legislature, but went along with the Committee's 17-0 decision. The full House will likely take up the bill on February 4th.
Anti-tobacco groups target smokers for a buck a pack
(CONCORD) A coalition of anti-tobacco groups is looking to smokers to pay an extra dollar per pack in tobacco taxes to help pay for smoking prevention programs. The Tobacco Free NH Coalition is supporting HB 638, which would increase in the state tobacco tax from $1.33 per pack to $2.33 per pack, and would dedicate the first nickel per pack to a state cancer plan.
Representative Bill Butynski (D-Hinsdale) argues that New Hampshire isn't spending enough to help adults kick the habit, or keep teenagers from picking it up. The Coalition argues that spending money on tobacco prevention will save health care dollars in the long run.
"There is no greater return on investment than from investing in tobacco use prevention. With so much of our health care costs due to smoking related diseases, there are serious consequences to doing nothing to prevent smoking and to not helping the majority of smokers who want to quit," said Susan Martore-Baker, Chair for the American Lung Association of New Hampshire.
The Granite State raised its tobacco tax by $.25 per pack in October, and the current tariff of $1.33 per pack ranks 22nd in the nation. The American Lung Association gave New Hampshire an "F" for Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending on its 2008 Tobacco Report Card, citing just over $1 million in state spending, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that New Hampshire spend over $19 million per year. The American Lung Association gives New Hampshire a "D" for Smokefree Air, despite extensive smoking bans and restrictions in public buildings, private workplaces, public schools, restaurants, and bars.
Bill supporters estimate that raising the tax by $1 per pack would generate $50 million in annual revenue, with $2.5 million going to the cancer plan. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids projects that the tax increase would cut youth smoking by 15.5%, and push 7,000 New Hampshire adults to quit. It says that increasing tobacco taxes cuts cigarette sales, but not enough to wipe out the increased revenues per pack. The Legislative Budget Assistant has not yet completed its estimate of how such a tax increase would impact New Hampshire revenues. The House Ways and Means Committee has not yet scheduled a public hearing on the proposal.
Representative Bill Butynski (D-Hinsdale) argues that New Hampshire isn't spending enough to help adults kick the habit, or keep teenagers from picking it up. The Coalition argues that spending money on tobacco prevention will save health care dollars in the long run.
"There is no greater return on investment than from investing in tobacco use prevention. With so much of our health care costs due to smoking related diseases, there are serious consequences to doing nothing to prevent smoking and to not helping the majority of smokers who want to quit," said Susan Martore-Baker, Chair for the American Lung Association of New Hampshire.
The Granite State raised its tobacco tax by $.25 per pack in October, and the current tariff of $1.33 per pack ranks 22nd in the nation. The American Lung Association gave New Hampshire an "F" for Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending on its 2008 Tobacco Report Card, citing just over $1 million in state spending, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that New Hampshire spend over $19 million per year. The American Lung Association gives New Hampshire a "D" for Smokefree Air, despite extensive smoking bans and restrictions in public buildings, private workplaces, public schools, restaurants, and bars.
Bill supporters estimate that raising the tax by $1 per pack would generate $50 million in annual revenue, with $2.5 million going to the cancer plan. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids projects that the tax increase would cut youth smoking by 15.5%, and push 7,000 New Hampshire adults to quit. It says that increasing tobacco taxes cuts cigarette sales, but not enough to wipe out the increased revenues per pack. The Legislative Budget Assistant has not yet completed its estimate of how such a tax increase would impact New Hampshire revenues. The House Ways and Means Committee has not yet scheduled a public hearing on the proposal.
Shovel Ready?
Lauren Dorgan reports in the Concord Monitor on yesterday's presentation by Congressman Paul Hodes about the stimulus package, and his efforts to exempt New Hampshire from the shovel-ready restrictions on transportation spending:
Under the plan being debated in Washington, states would have 120 days from passage to begin construction on any projects included in the bill. Even if the bill passed today, that means projects would have begin by May 27th, so it's hard to imagine frozen ground keeping New Hampshire projects off the list.
That was one of the many questions local and state officials put to U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, a Concord Democrat, yesterday morning in a forum on the expected $825 billion federal stimulus package and what it will bring to New Hampshire. Last night, Hodes submitted an amendment to the House Rules Committee permitting an exemption for states where "cold weather and freezing conditions" make winter construction impossible.
"This is a question that Congressman Hodes is very concerned about," said Hodes spokesman Mark Bergman.
New Hampshire Department of Transportation spokesman Bill Boynton said administrators from his department had raised a concern about whether cold weather would freeze New Hampshire out of eligibility for full road aid. The shovel-ready, or 120-day standard, was promoted to ensure the roughly $30 billion the federal government will funnel to states for roads and bridges will put people to work fast.
Under the plan being debated in Washington, states would have 120 days from passage to begin construction on any projects included in the bill. Even if the bill passed today, that means projects would have begin by May 27th, so it's hard to imagine frozen ground keeping New Hampshire projects off the list.
UNH president: Salaries, benefits targeted
Clynton Namuo reports in the Union Leader that UNH President Mark Huddleston is targeting salries and benefits:
Another round of belt-tightening is coming to the University of New Hampshire and salaries are likely to be first up, according to a letter President Mark Huddleston issued yesterday to the university community.
The letter offers few specifics, but makes clear that UNH is feeling the pinch and because of that, expenses must be cut and money made. Huddleston's letter says UNH's revenue sources are declining or stagnating, while costs are not.
"A central challenge will be salary and benefits, the largest drivers of our budget," Huddleston said in the letter, adding, "I expect any increase in salaries will be modest at best."
State budget cuts: Watch the politics closely
The Union Leader tops its editorial page by arguing that partisan politics has shifted Democratic attitudes on budget cuts in Concord:
Among the proposed savings: cutting Medicaid reimbursements to local hospitals by $1 million, reducing AIDS prevention funding by $500,000, taking $2 million back from the Police Standards and Training Council, reducing highway fund transfers by $5 million, and spending $441,000 less on state courts.
The House Finance Committee unanimously supported this bill, and Democratic House leaders support it. It is interesting how partisan politics plays such a big role in these decisions. When Republicans proposed the exact same Medicaid savings, Democrats opposed it. But legislative Democrats need to support Gov. Lynch to show that the party is serious about controlling spending.
There is much to consider before funding commuter rail
Rep. Peter Leishman (D-Peterborough) is a long-time advocate for passenger rail in New Hampshire. He lays out some of the key questions that need to be answered about bringing commuter rail to Nashua in this morning's Union Leader:
However, other sticking points remain. The owner of the rail line from the New Hampshire border north to Manchester and beyond is controlled by a privately owned railroad company. Officers of that company, Pan Am Railways, have testified before a legislative committee that they would only consider passenger rail service if their company is exempt from any responsibility for an accident, even in the case of gross negligence. I think that most of us would find this requirement hard to swallow.
As we continue with the passenger rail debate, I believe a couple of options deserve serious consideration before we consider spending more than $300 million.
First, working with the MBTA, we need to look at extending commuter rail service to the New Hampshire state line (south Nashua). The cost of this option is substantially less expensive, as most, if not all, of the necessary studies have been completed, and the MBTA owns the rail corridor from south Nashua to Boston.
Second, the New Hampshire Legislature needs to hold noticed public hearings to explore the advantages and disadvantages that would come should the state acquire the Nashua to Manchester railroad corridor for future commuter rail service. This should be done before committing public funds to this project.
Finally, I believe we should enlist the support of New Hampshire bus operators. They could provide service not only from Manchester to the station in Nashua, but from other cities, such as Concord. That would enable New Hampshire to commence an energy-efficient transportation service to serve this corridor, and bus service would significantly reduce the cost of providing service beyond Nashua.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Talking Transportation
AM 610 WGIR has posted this morning's Newsmakers segment with Charlie Sherman on "New Hampshire's Morning News."
You listen to the entire hour here.
Part I
Part II
Part III
You listen to the entire hour here.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Watchdog on the radio
On NH's Morning News with Charlie Sherman, discussing transportation and RGGI.
www.wgiram.com
www.wgiram.com
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Whose Priorities
The Concord Monitor reports on our latesdt study, "Get Your Shovels Ready" in this weekend's Capital Beat column:
Whose priorities?
Former GOP congressional candidate Grant Bosse, an investigator for the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy Research, released a cleverly titled report criticizing the state Department of Transportation for its bailout wish list.
The report, "Get Your Shovels Ready: State DOT Wish List Ignores Legislative Priorities," essentially lambasted the list created by Transportation Commissioner George Campbell, saying it's heavy on rail and light on the 10-year highway plan, which legislators have approved.
"The New Hampshire Department of Transportation Wish List for spending the anticipated federal windfall from the Obama Administration ignores legislative priorities from the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan, and misses an opportunity to fix every Red List bridge in the state," Bosse wrote.
By the numbers, Bosse makes a point: Campbell's list includes about $220 million for highway projects and $310 million worth of railroad projects not on the 10-year plan.
But Transportation Department spokesman Bill Boynton said the report was misleading.
"To say in a so-called research effort that we're ignoring our legislative priorities or we're ignoring the 10-year plan is not true," Boynton said.
First off, Boynton said, roughly $60 million worth of road repair/preservation efforts depicted in the report as being non-10-year-plan priorities were, in fact, included in the plan (though not by name), on page 87.
More broadly, Boynton said, the department listed all the high-priority road projects it felt it could get going in the 120-day window the feds have asked for. And, he said, the rail projects were listed because specific money will likely be doled out to rail projects.
"The comparison should not be $300 million to $200 million, it should be $300 million to zero," Boynton said. "Because if we didn't apply for anything called 'rail and transit,' that's what we'd get - zero."
Friday, January 23, 2009
Watchdog on the Radio
Tune in this afternoon at 1:25pm on WTPL's "Bulldog Live".
I'll be talking about our latest report "Get Your Shovels Ready", and the DOT response.
You can listen live online.
I'll be talking about our latest report "Get Your Shovels Ready", and the DOT response.
You can listen live online.
Bill Boynton: Study, editorial on state DOT spending priorities inaccurate
The Union Leader this morning publishes the DOT response to the study "Get Your Shovels Ready" and yesterday's editorial:
The Josiah Bartlett Center report issued Wednesday may have appeared to be a softball right down the middle of the plate for an editorial, but a call to the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) could have quickly clarified some very basic fundamental errors in the premise of the report that made its conclusions seriously flawed.
(1) All of the road and bridge projects ($220 million) in the NHDOT economic stimulus draft list are priorities within the state's 10-year plan. Author Grant Bosse incorrectly assumed (he didn't call me for clarification) that $58.7 million in "resurfacing pavement reconstruction projects" are not in the plan when in fact they have all been identified by the NHDOT as priorities under the 10-year plan heading of "Interstate Preservation Projects."
(2) All of the road and bridge projects in the draft list are "shovel ready" (design, right-of-way, etc.) and could be acted upon within 120 days as suggested in the federal criteria.
(3) The rail money sought ($310 million) was correctly anticipated by the NHDOT to be available through a separate funding category in the House bill for "rail and transit." It is a huge, incorrect assumption that this money could somehow be available for addressing Red List bridges.
(4) Whether or not you agree editorially with pursuing the rail improvements, the $10 million for the St. Lawrence and Atlantic upgrade in the North Country is in the state's "capital plan," and the $300 million for the upgrade of the "Capital Corridor line" (Lowell-Nashua-Manchester) is a priority for the New Hampshire Rail Authority, which was established in law by the New Hampshire Legislature.
It is very unfortunate that much-needed assistance for transportation infrastructure improvements and preservation in New Hampshire is recklessly characterized in the Union Leader editorial as "the corrupting effect of 'free' money from Washington," especially in light of the facts.
Bill Boynton is public information officer for the state Department of Transportation.
Here is our response:
Our study "Get Your Shovels Ready" gave an accurate report on the differences between the DOT Wish List for transportation stimulus funds and the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
To address Mr. Boynton's first point, the Ten Year Plan does not specifically mention several of the resurfacing projects on the Wish List. To be fair, the Ten Year Plan does contain $6 million per year for resurfacing projects, for which the DOT projects would qualify. We did not mean to criticize DOT for providing greater detail under this category, and thank them for their work.
We do not question that any of the listed projects would meet the Obama Administration's "Shovel Ready" definition, but many projects are not scheduled for several years, and would not provide public benefits for several more.
Nor do we fault DOT for preparing rail projects in the event that Congress prevents states from using stimulus funds on their top priorities. In fact, we urge Congress to give states greater flexibility so that New Hampshire can fix roads and highways rather than spend "free" money on a lower priority rail project.
Should New Hampshire be forced to "use or lose" federal rail money, it should go towards projects already identified as state priorities, and not funneled into double tracking a rail line that was never included under the Ten Year Plan.
We also don't question that some projects may be priorities for the Rail Authority or other groups. But they have not been stateside priorities, and are not included in the Ten Year Plan. Indeed, the Ten Year Plan includes just over $20 million for the entire project. The DOT Wish List seeks $300 million. That money would be better spent to meet the needs of the Ten Year Plan, should Congress allow it. We don't blame DOT for working under these assumptions, but urge lawmakers to move beyond them.
The Bartlett Center has provided a side by side comparison of transportation priorities. It is up to policy makers if these priorities will be set in Concord, or in Congress.
The Josiah Bartlett Center report issued Wednesday may have appeared to be a softball right down the middle of the plate for an editorial, but a call to the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) could have quickly clarified some very basic fundamental errors in the premise of the report that made its conclusions seriously flawed.
(1) All of the road and bridge projects ($220 million) in the NHDOT economic stimulus draft list are priorities within the state's 10-year plan. Author Grant Bosse incorrectly assumed (he didn't call me for clarification) that $58.7 million in "resurfacing pavement reconstruction projects" are not in the plan when in fact they have all been identified by the NHDOT as priorities under the 10-year plan heading of "Interstate Preservation Projects."
(2) All of the road and bridge projects in the draft list are "shovel ready" (design, right-of-way, etc.) and could be acted upon within 120 days as suggested in the federal criteria.
(3) The rail money sought ($310 million) was correctly anticipated by the NHDOT to be available through a separate funding category in the House bill for "rail and transit." It is a huge, incorrect assumption that this money could somehow be available for addressing Red List bridges.
(4) Whether or not you agree editorially with pursuing the rail improvements, the $10 million for the St. Lawrence and Atlantic upgrade in the North Country is in the state's "capital plan," and the $300 million for the upgrade of the "Capital Corridor line" (Lowell-Nashua-Manchester) is a priority for the New Hampshire Rail Authority, which was established in law by the New Hampshire Legislature.
It is very unfortunate that much-needed assistance for transportation infrastructure improvements and preservation in New Hampshire is recklessly characterized in the Union Leader editorial as "the corrupting effect of 'free' money from Washington," especially in light of the facts.
Bill Boynton is public information officer for the state Department of Transportation.
Here is our response:
Our study "Get Your Shovels Ready" gave an accurate report on the differences between the DOT Wish List for transportation stimulus funds and the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
To address Mr. Boynton's first point, the Ten Year Plan does not specifically mention several of the resurfacing projects on the Wish List. To be fair, the Ten Year Plan does contain $6 million per year for resurfacing projects, for which the DOT projects would qualify. We did not mean to criticize DOT for providing greater detail under this category, and thank them for their work.
We do not question that any of the listed projects would meet the Obama Administration's "Shovel Ready" definition, but many projects are not scheduled for several years, and would not provide public benefits for several more.
Nor do we fault DOT for preparing rail projects in the event that Congress prevents states from using stimulus funds on their top priorities. In fact, we urge Congress to give states greater flexibility so that New Hampshire can fix roads and highways rather than spend "free" money on a lower priority rail project.
Should New Hampshire be forced to "use or lose" federal rail money, it should go towards projects already identified as state priorities, and not funneled into double tracking a rail line that was never included under the Ten Year Plan.
We also don't question that some projects may be priorities for the Rail Authority or other groups. But they have not been stateside priorities, and are not included in the Ten Year Plan. Indeed, the Ten Year Plan includes just over $20 million for the entire project. The DOT Wish List seeks $300 million. That money would be better spent to meet the needs of the Ten Year Plan, should Congress allow it. We don't blame DOT for working under these assumptions, but urge lawmakers to move beyond them.
The Bartlett Center has provided a side by side comparison of transportation priorities. It is up to policy makers if these priorities will be set in Concord, or in Congress.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
DOT Responds
NH Department of Transportation spokesman Bill Boynton has responded to yesterday's study and today's editorial in the Union Leader:
Our report was based on a side-by-side comparison of three documents, the DOT Wish List, the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan approved by the Legislature in 2008, and the Red List of bridges maintained by the DOT Bureau of Bridge Design. It is intended to provide alternatives to lawmakers, and to show where New Hampshire had set its transportation priorities before talk a stimulus package led to the formation of a Wish List.
DOT has prepared funding requests based on the assumption that New Hampshire could receive separate funds for highway and rail projects. While we do not fault DOT for preparing its list under this assumption, policy makers shouldn't be bound by it. Our report states that such decisions are still being made by Congress, and that New Hampshire officials should push for greater flexibility to meet long-standing priorities. We stand by our report.
The Josiah Bartlett Center report issued Wednesday may have appeared to be a softball right down the middle of the plate for an editorial, but a call to the NH Department of Transportation (you know my number and Tom Fahey did call me) could have quickly clarified some very basic fundamental errors in the premise of the report that made its conclusions seriously flawed.
(1) All of the road and bridge projects ($220 million) in the NHDOT draft list of economic stimulus draft list are priorities within the State’s 10 Year Plan. Author Grant Bosse incorrectly assumed (he didn’t call me either for clarification) that $58.7 million in “resurfacing-pavement reconstruction projects” are not in the plan when in fact they have All been identified by the NHDOT as priorities under the 10 Year Plan heading of “Interstate Preservation Projects”.
(2) All of the road and bridge projects in the draft list are all “shovel ready” (design, right-of-way, etc.) and could be acted upon within 120 days as suggested in the Federal criteria.
(3) The rail money sought ($310 million) was correctly anticipated by the NHDOT to be available through a separate funding category in the House Bill for “rail and transit”. It is a HUGE, wrong assumption that this money could somehow be available for addressing Red List bridges.
(4) Whether or not you agree editorially with pursuing the rail improvements, the $10 million for the St. Lawrence and Atlantic upgrade in the North Country is in the State’s “Capital Plan”, and the $300 million for the upgrade of the “Capital Corridor line” (Lowell-Nashua-Manchester) is a priority for the NH Rail Authority which was established in law by the New Hampshire Legislature.
It is very unfortunate that much needed assistance for transportation infrastructure improvements and preservation in New Hampshire is recklessly characterized in your editorial as “the corrupting effect of "free" money from Washington”, especially in light of the facts.
Bill Boynton
Public Information Officer
NH Department of Transportation
Our report was based on a side-by-side comparison of three documents, the DOT Wish List, the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan approved by the Legislature in 2008, and the Red List of bridges maintained by the DOT Bureau of Bridge Design. It is intended to provide alternatives to lawmakers, and to show where New Hampshire had set its transportation priorities before talk a stimulus package led to the formation of a Wish List.
DOT has prepared funding requests based on the assumption that New Hampshire could receive separate funds for highway and rail projects. While we do not fault DOT for preparing its list under this assumption, policy makers shouldn't be bound by it. Our report states that such decisions are still being made by Congress, and that New Hampshire officials should push for greater flexibility to meet long-standing priorities. We stand by our report.
From the Telegraph
The Nashua Telegraph reports on yesterday's study of transportation priorities in New Hampshire:
A public policy think tank said the state's Department of Transportation "wish list'' for the stimulus package pending before Congress contains projects not on the state's 10-year highway plan.
Transportation Commissioner George Campbell recently detailed the $535 million of "shovel ready'' projects the state wants the Obama administration and both houses of Congress to approve.
But the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy noted that $220 million to double the railroad tracks from the Massachusetts line to Manchester was not included in the state's original plan to restore commuter rail through Nashua.
The $300 million commuter rail request is by far the largest by the state.
A stimulus plan unveiled in a House committee last week, however, relies heavily upon an existing formula for state-by-state federal highway aid that penalizes New Hampshire and gives it less in aid for every $1 federal gas tax dollar motorists from the state send to Washington.
Lead investigator Grant Bosse said the state would be better off redirecting some of the rail spending to fixing ailing bridges on the state's Red List.
"New Hampshire should stick to its transportation priorities, and not rush into a use-it-or-lose-it attitude," Bosse added. "If Congress gives the Granite State enough flexibility, New Hampshire can wipe out its Red List instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars a commuter rail line it doesn't need and can't afford.
The DOT wish list: low priorities abound
The Union Leader leads its editorial page this morning with comment on yesterday's study of the DOT Wish List for federal stimulus money:
You can read the FULL REPORT online.
To see the corrupting effect of "free" money from Washington, look no further than the state Department of Transportation's federal bailout wish list. More than 60 percent of the list consists of projects not included in the state's 10-year highway plan, which is the list of the state's top transportation priorities.
In a study released yesterday, Grant Bosse of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy found that the state could fix all of its red-list bridges -- those in most dire need of repair -- if it gets the entire $535 million in requested bailout funds. Yet the DOT included only two red-list bridges in its bailout wish list.
You can read the FULL REPORT online.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Borrowed ideas can reduce politics in Concord
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
As Gov. John Lynch puts together the most important speech of his time in office, he should plan on borrowing ideas from President Barack Obama and from Iowa to reduce the amount of politics in Concord.
In three weeks, the governor will present his budget address, a compilation of his ideas on cutting spending, other proposals and the budget that holds them together. In the face of the biggest budget crisis in the recent history of the state, he's going to want to cobble together ideas from as many people as he can. We have to cut every dollar of spending possible, so I thought I would save him the price of a phone call and put a few ideas forward right here.
New Hampshire has a budget based on estimating the amount of revenue we think our current taxes are likely to raise. If that estimate is higher, spending can be higher. If the estimate is lower, spending is automatically restrained.
Historically, revenue estimates have always been a political football. Those who wish to spend are more likely to believe higher estimates. Those of us who want government to spend less become naturally pessimistic about the same estimates.
There is some sniping and griping about the revenue estimates every year, but the last budget was typical. One budget writer is said to have urged the tax committee to look to the skies for their estimates because the spending needs were great. Consequently, the budget debate in the House focused on whether the estimates were unrealistic.
Later in the process, when the House and Senate were millions of dollars apart in reconciling their two budget bills, a conference committee solved the problem overnight by adjusting revenue estimates by the amount of the impasse.
There is a better way, and Iowa has found it. Those sensible Midwesterners put together a Revenue Estimating Panel outside the political process. Each quarter, a group of professionals puts together a new, public estimate of consensus estimates for each tax source. They don't write the budget; they don't consider policy changes; they aren't working for one party or another. They just issue regularly revised statements explaining how much money will be available at current rates.
They won't always be right, but the consensus estimate assures the public that we're budgeting based on what's likely to happen, and we've attempted to control for our own bias toward higher or lower spending. It should help the debate focus on policy choices and not whether someone is trying to cook the books.
The second change Gov. Lynch should propose comes from our new national leader. You probably noticed that yesterday we swore in a new President (if not, flip your newspaper to the front page and read the lead story before continuing). President Obama and I have a difference of opinion on a few things, but I've mentioned before that he has some great ideas about transparency in government.
One of his proposals is called "sunlight before signing." Essentially, he won't sign any non-emergency bill without it having been posted on the White House Web site for at least five days. In essence, we shouldn't pass anything before people have a chance to see what we're doing and weigh in. Great idea.
In New Hampshire, we do a good job of this in most areas. Bills are all posted online, and for the most part changes are posted before the Legislature votes. Oddly, the one area where we don't do this is the budget.
The governor's budget proposal is a wonderful document. It includes a detailed and relatively easy to understand 30-page executive summary. The summary has charts, summaries by program and the very important "surplus statement" that explains how the budget is balanced. It is an essential tool to understanding the 1,000-page, oddly laid out, budget itself.
However, once the governor's done on Feb. 12, we won't see summaries again. In fact, in too many years even a revised surplus statement is not available before the vote. All too often, the final budget is hashed out in the wee hours, and members of each legislative chamber have to vote with little time to digest information. The public sees nothing.
Sunlight before signing or voting would require summaries as part of the budget bill itself, all posted online, and five days for legislators to read a complicated document and hear from the public before the vote. More information and less politics can make a better budget. Government is not shy about borrowing money; let's borrow a couple ideas instead.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
As Gov. John Lynch puts together the most important speech of his time in office, he should plan on borrowing ideas from President Barack Obama and from Iowa to reduce the amount of politics in Concord.
In three weeks, the governor will present his budget address, a compilation of his ideas on cutting spending, other proposals and the budget that holds them together. In the face of the biggest budget crisis in the recent history of the state, he's going to want to cobble together ideas from as many people as he can. We have to cut every dollar of spending possible, so I thought I would save him the price of a phone call and put a few ideas forward right here.
New Hampshire has a budget based on estimating the amount of revenue we think our current taxes are likely to raise. If that estimate is higher, spending can be higher. If the estimate is lower, spending is automatically restrained.
Historically, revenue estimates have always been a political football. Those who wish to spend are more likely to believe higher estimates. Those of us who want government to spend less become naturally pessimistic about the same estimates.
There is some sniping and griping about the revenue estimates every year, but the last budget was typical. One budget writer is said to have urged the tax committee to look to the skies for their estimates because the spending needs were great. Consequently, the budget debate in the House focused on whether the estimates were unrealistic.
Later in the process, when the House and Senate were millions of dollars apart in reconciling their two budget bills, a conference committee solved the problem overnight by adjusting revenue estimates by the amount of the impasse.
There is a better way, and Iowa has found it. Those sensible Midwesterners put together a Revenue Estimating Panel outside the political process. Each quarter, a group of professionals puts together a new, public estimate of consensus estimates for each tax source. They don't write the budget; they don't consider policy changes; they aren't working for one party or another. They just issue regularly revised statements explaining how much money will be available at current rates.
They won't always be right, but the consensus estimate assures the public that we're budgeting based on what's likely to happen, and we've attempted to control for our own bias toward higher or lower spending. It should help the debate focus on policy choices and not whether someone is trying to cook the books.
The second change Gov. Lynch should propose comes from our new national leader. You probably noticed that yesterday we swore in a new President (if not, flip your newspaper to the front page and read the lead story before continuing). President Obama and I have a difference of opinion on a few things, but I've mentioned before that he has some great ideas about transparency in government.
One of his proposals is called "sunlight before signing." Essentially, he won't sign any non-emergency bill without it having been posted on the White House Web site for at least five days. In essence, we shouldn't pass anything before people have a chance to see what we're doing and weigh in. Great idea.
In New Hampshire, we do a good job of this in most areas. Bills are all posted online, and for the most part changes are posted before the Legislature votes. Oddly, the one area where we don't do this is the budget.
The governor's budget proposal is a wonderful document. It includes a detailed and relatively easy to understand 30-page executive summary. The summary has charts, summaries by program and the very important "surplus statement" that explains how the budget is balanced. It is an essential tool to understanding the 1,000-page, oddly laid out, budget itself.
However, once the governor's done on Feb. 12, we won't see summaries again. In fact, in too many years even a revised surplus statement is not available before the vote. All too often, the final budget is hashed out in the wee hours, and members of each legislative chamber have to vote with little time to digest information. The public sees nothing.
Sunlight before signing or voting would require summaries as part of the budget bill itself, all posted online, and five days for legislators to read a complicated document and hear from the public before the vote. More information and less politics can make a better budget. Government is not shy about borrowing money; let's borrow a couple ideas instead.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Get Your Shovels Ready
Bartlett Center releases report on Transportation Priorities
(Concord) The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy today released a report outlining how the New Hampshire Department of Transportation’s recent Wish List of “shovel ready” projects differs from the state’s Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan. The Bartlett Center also studied two alternative plans for spending any federal transportation dollars headed to New Hampshire which make fixing the state’s Red List bridges a top priority.
“The New Hampshire Legislature has already set out its priorities for roads and bridges, but the DOT Wish List doesn’t really reflect those choices,” said Grant Bosse, lead investigative reporter for the Bartlett Center, who authored the report.
The DOT Wish List totals $535 million, including $300 million for a commuter rail line between Manchester and Lowell, MA. By redirecting money from this project towards existing priorities, the Bartlett Center finds that New Hampshire could fix 75% of its Red List bridges. By reprioritizing the entire DOT Wish List, New Hampshire lawmakers could not only fix every Red List bridge in the state, but also fix twelve additional bridges that the DOT argues should be added to the Red List, and still have over $100 million for other transportation projects.
"New Hampshire should stick to its transportation priorities, and not rush into a use-it-or-lose-it attitude,” Bosse added. “If Congress gives the Granite State enough flexibility, New Hampshire can wipe out its Red List instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars a commuter rail line it doesn’t need and can’t afford.
FULL REPORT
The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy is a free market think tank based in Concord, New Hampshire. For more information go to www.jbartlett.org.
(Concord) The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy today released a report outlining how the New Hampshire Department of Transportation’s recent Wish List of “shovel ready” projects differs from the state’s Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan. The Bartlett Center also studied two alternative plans for spending any federal transportation dollars headed to New Hampshire which make fixing the state’s Red List bridges a top priority.
“The New Hampshire Legislature has already set out its priorities for roads and bridges, but the DOT Wish List doesn’t really reflect those choices,” said Grant Bosse, lead investigative reporter for the Bartlett Center, who authored the report.
The DOT Wish List totals $535 million, including $300 million for a commuter rail line between Manchester and Lowell, MA. By redirecting money from this project towards existing priorities, the Bartlett Center finds that New Hampshire could fix 75% of its Red List bridges. By reprioritizing the entire DOT Wish List, New Hampshire lawmakers could not only fix every Red List bridge in the state, but also fix twelve additional bridges that the DOT argues should be added to the Red List, and still have over $100 million for other transportation projects.
"New Hampshire should stick to its transportation priorities, and not rush into a use-it-or-lose-it attitude,” Bosse added. “If Congress gives the Granite State enough flexibility, New Hampshire can wipe out its Red List instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars a commuter rail line it doesn’t need and can’t afford.
FULL REPORT
The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy is a free market think tank based in Concord, New Hampshire. For more information go to www.jbartlett.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)