Response to Governor Malloy’s Inaccurate Criticism of Republican Transportation Funding Plans

Senate Republican President Pro Tempore Len Fasano (R-North Haven) released the following statement in response to Governor Dannel P. Malloy’s inaccurate criticism of the Republican transportation funding plans.

“Over the last seven years Governor Malloy has not put forward a single workable transportation plan. The only proposal he has ever put forward is something that was never funded and that he has still not figured out a way to pay for. It’s easy to offer a plan when you don’t have to worry about paying for it. The governor’s policies have worsened the state of Connecticut’s transportation system, allowing funds to fall into deficit, using transit dollars for other purposes, and starting projects knowing full well he never had the funds to pay for them.  He is now leaving office with no infrastructure plan in place at all. Yet instead of offering real solutions he focuses his efforts on inaccurately attacking the ideas that are out there. His hatred for Republicans blinds his thought process.”

The Republican Prioritize Progress long-term infrastructure improvement plan works. The governor’s criticisms are inaccurate and misguided. Details below respond directly to “the Malloy administration’s major concerns with the Republicans’ proposal” released by the governor’s office earlier today.

1. Governor’s Criticism: The plan does not contain any details on Special Transportation Fund appropriation levels, debt service, or the revenue to support the overall plan.  A complete five-year forecast with revenues, operating expenditures and debt service is not part of the plan.

Reality:
Republicans presented appropriations and changes to the enacted FY 2019.  All of these details are contained in our budget.   
 
2. Governor’s Criticism: The plan does not address the operating budget needs and transit subsidies for transportation.

Reality:
Republicans presented appropriations and changes to the enacted FY 2019.  All of these details are contained in our budget.   
 
3. Governor’s Criticism:  The use of GO bonds does not protect funding for transportation programs.
 
Reality:
The utilization of STO bonds, which is what the state currently does to fund transit needs, also does not protect funding for transportation programs.  This plan is simply a shift in the funding source from the transportation fund to the general fund. Just as we use STO bonds today, this plan would supplement this funding with GO bonds in the same manner.
 
4. Governor’s Criticism: The plan assumes the same level of capital funding for 20 years with no inflation ($2.17 billion).  At a minimum, inflation will erode the investment capacity of constant funding.
 
Reality:
The same level of capital funding for 20 years with no inflation is more than the Governor’s proposal which is not funded.  In fact, our plan will provide at least $64 billion over the next 30 years.
 
5. Governor’s Criticism: The plan does not account for specific capital program investments, but has insufficient capacity to fund critical needs like the I-84 viaduct in Hartford, the I-84 Mixmaster in Waterbury, moveable rail bridges, etc.
 
Reality:
Our plan allows all currently authorized projects to be funded.  Our plan would fully fund all the unfunded projects identified by DOT prior to the governor’s release of his unrealistic and unfunded “Let’s Go CT” proposal.
 
6. Governor’s Criticism: The plan would allocate significant GO spending to transportation.  With the bonding caps, there would be significantly limited opportunity for prior investment priorities.
 

Reality:
This plan operates within the bonding cap at the same time it protects bonding for core needs. It specifically spells out protecting necessities as detailed on page 5 of the proposal http://ctsenrepublic.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018Spring_PrioritizeProgress.pdf). It also still allows for a $100 million contingency for the governor to use for whatever needs he or she believes should be funded through bonding. What it does reduce is bonding for pet projects and political handouts and forces the state to prioritize funding to transportation, leverage federal dollars and uphold our commitment to fix transit needs without adding any new burdens onto future generations.
7. Governor’s Criticism: The plan assumes federal funding is constant at $710 million for 30 years.  The current federal authorization ends in FY2020, and the infrastructure outline indicates federal funding as a grant program that assumes 20 percent federal, not 80 percent.

Reality: The Republican plan relies on numbers as presented by the Department of Transportation and the Secretary of Office of Policy and Management before the Transportation Finance Panel on April 28, 2015.  If there are any changes to federal funding in the future of course this plan would be adjusted; just as if the Governor had a plan then his plan would need to be adjusted as well should federal changes occur.

8. Governor’s Criticism: Without new revenue, there is no new capacity to utilize potential new federal grant funding or new project funding mechanisms like public-private partnerships.

Reality:
The legislature has shown that it is not supportive of new revenues.  Rather than continuing to push for a path that does not have support from the public to move forward, the administration should consider innovative options to better manage current state resources. The public is already overtaxed. This plan demonstrates that there is a way to work within our current resources to prioritize transportation funding without new taxes or tolls.