Fuel Assistance Folly

Reposting here a summary and analysis from Rep. Jason Bedrick.
-Denis

Yesterday, the House met to consider the Governor's veto of two bills (the House voted against overturning either of them) and to consider "emergency" legislation to increase fuel assistance to the needy by $10 million up to $37.5 million. According to the Union
Leader: "Last year, more than 35,300 families qualified for the program. Estimates are that 39,000 families will qualify this year."

While I don't oppose such a program in general, I do oppose how this bill was passed. Once again, the House suspended the rules (with the support of Republican leadership, I'm sad to report) to pass a bill that had no public hearing and no committee vetting. This comes at a time when we're already experiencing a major deficit, part of which we covered with bonding.

And where is the emergency? Did we not know eight months ago that winters in NH are cold? Did we not know then that fuel prices were high? Several months ago, when the House was in session, we were paying $4.00 per gallon for gas. Now we're paying $3.50 per gallon -- why is it a bigger emergency now than then?

Answer: there's an election coming. That's why only 12 members of the legislature had the fortitude to vote against this bill at this time.

For more on this bill, here's a editorial from Rep. Nancy Elliott:

September 24, 2008.  Today I committed political suicide.  We had one of those touchy-feely bills designed to be a political photo op for our governor who is running for reelection.  It sounded so good in the press.  The legislature at the governor's urging threw out the rules and gave 10 million additional dollars to the fuel assistance program to keep low income families from freezing to death.  While I am 100% against letting our citizens freeze and voted for bills in the past to appropriate heating assistance, this time I was one of 12 who voted against this measure.  Why would I vote against giving out money just before the election?  Surely this will not play well with those waiting at the trough.  Many around me took this voter feeding frenzy into account as they cast their vote for what they were pretty sure was not the emergency it was portrayed to be. 

My reasons are this:  Prior legislation was with the promise of coming federal dollars.  The original program was funded with federal monies, not state revenues.  The dollars came in as promised.  This time we have been promised around 25 million.  We are spending that and the additional 10 million.  There are some that say that the feds are thinking about sending us another 10 to 25 million. I have serious concerns that the feds will be sending any additional money given the problems with Wall Street.  Here's where I have a major problem, we are taking a program that has been a federal obligation and now making it a state obligation.  I listened to the department head yesterday and it was clear that she felt that she would like to see this program expand much more.  This program is not just for those in dire need.  A family of 4 that makes $48,000 is covered.  This is a redistribution of wealth.  The family making $50,000 will now subsidize his neighbor that makes slightly less.

We knew what the cost of fuel was when we left in June.  That would have been the time to put this bill in.  It could have had a proper hearing with possible tweaking to be sure the money goes to our neediest citizens.  The cost of fuel is actually lower today than it was then.  

My main reason though is that we have appropriated these 10 million dollars out of the general fund, which will be over drawn when all our obligations are paid.  The plan is to bond any money we are short.  Our citizens will be paying the price of this 10 million dollar give away for 20 years or so. To bind the next generation with this expense is wrong for our state.  There will never be an end of good and worthwhile causes, however we should not be spending money that is not there.  Our state has already grossly overspent this term and we are on the brink of financial ruin.  We as a state must tighten our belt or we will force ourselves and our children into and income or sales tax.