Home » Opinion » Editorials
July 05. 2012 7:51PM
Hitting the highway bill: Ayotte’s bold ‘no’ vote
Sen. Kelly Ayotte confirmed on Friday what her previous actions had suggested: She is the most fiscally conservative member of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation and the one most concerned about runaway federal spending.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen predictably voted for the $120 billion federal highway bill, and she was joined on the House side by Reps. Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta. Ayotte, though, was one of only 19 senators to vote no.
“We need to strengthen America’s transportation infrastructure, including worthy projects like widening I-93. But this bill was yet another ‘buy now, pay later’ scheme that fails to fundamentally reform how we pay for highway projects,” Ayotte said in a statement. She added, “that kind of reckless borrowing is what has brought us to the brink of a fiscal crisis. We need a highway bill that addresses justifiable needs within our transportation system without continuing our country on a path to bankruptcy.”
Given that the bill funded the much-delayed widening of I-93 from Exit 3 in Windham down to the Massachusetts border, Ayotte’s vote was a bold one. She easily could have voted for the bill and rationalized that the New Hampshire money made her “yes” vote necessary. However, as Granite Staters are seeing, Ayotte prefers a tough but principled vote to an easy one that compromises her beliefs.
Federal highway spending is supposed to be financed by the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax. This bill spent about $20 billion more than was available in the highway trust fund. Rather than trim the spending, Congress financed the rest through general tax revenues. As we are spending more than we are taking in already, the bill is effectively debt-financed. Some of the loss to the general fund is covered by raising premiums for the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation and for federal flood insurance. Instead of those revenues going to pensions and flood insurance, they are diverted to highway spending.
Ayotte voted against the bill because it relied on such financial shenanigans. She was right to do so, and we wish her colleagues from New Hampshire had joined her. If members of Congress continue to vote for irresponsible spending because it funds things in their states, there is no hope for reforming Washington.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen predictably voted for the $120 billion federal highway bill, and she was joined on the House side by Reps. Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta. Ayotte, though, was one of only 19 senators to vote no.
“We need to strengthen America’s transportation infrastructure, including worthy projects like widening I-93. But this bill was yet another ‘buy now, pay later’ scheme that fails to fundamentally reform how we pay for highway projects,” Ayotte said in a statement. She added, “that kind of reckless borrowing is what has brought us to the brink of a fiscal crisis. We need a highway bill that addresses justifiable needs within our transportation system without continuing our country on a path to bankruptcy.”
Given that the bill funded the much-delayed widening of I-93 from Exit 3 in Windham down to the Massachusetts border, Ayotte’s vote was a bold one. She easily could have voted for the bill and rationalized that the New Hampshire money made her “yes” vote necessary. However, as Granite Staters are seeing, Ayotte prefers a tough but principled vote to an easy one that compromises her beliefs.
Federal highway spending is supposed to be financed by the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax. This bill spent about $20 billion more than was available in the highway trust fund. Rather than trim the spending, Congress financed the rest through general tax revenues. As we are spending more than we are taking in already, the bill is effectively debt-financed. Some of the loss to the general fund is covered by raising premiums for the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation and for federal flood insurance. Instead of those revenues going to pensions and flood insurance, they are diverted to highway spending.
Ayotte voted against the bill because it relied on such financial shenanigans. She was right to do so, and we wish her colleagues from New Hampshire had joined her. If members of Congress continue to vote for irresponsible spending because it funds things in their states, there is no hope for reforming Washington.
- Disengaged: Obama's lousy excuse - 14
- Underestimating NH: Gun control picks two wrong targets - 27
- Roaming jihadis: A terrorist visits Manchester - 3
- Athletes and PE: Give them credit for sports - 7
- The EPA's friend: It has a loyal ally in Shea-Porter - 16
- Leading vs. following: Ayotte, Shaheen and the polls - 24
- The cupcake police: Stop! In the name of lard! - 15
- Page One Editorial: Obama is right - 27
- Taxed tips: Another NH revenue grab - 9
Not so merry: Giving Robin Hood a bad name
READER COMMENTS: 4- Two sustained minor injuries in Rochester crash Sunday - 0
- Boat crash in Tuftonboro investigated - 0
- Manchester alderman urges review of police phone use - 12
- Updated: Man fatally shot on Manchester street; neighbors shocked - 0
- Nashua mayor to recommend Bennett for corporation counsel - 0
- Claremont group disputes incinerator plant's permit - 0
- Goffstown artisan gives new face to Wolfeboro tower - 0
- Katie McQuaid's Scene in Manchester: Kiwanis and the kids - 0
- Town may have to fix grave error - 2
Firefighters say casino revenue needed for 'public safety'
READER COMMENTS: 2
Sorry, no question available



