On Tuesday, as fellow Kossack Meteor Blades informed us, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report the previous day which pointed out that NJ Governor Chris Christie simply fabricated a bunch of excuses for his actions when he cancelled what was, in 2010, the largest public works project in the country at the time: the construction of a third Hudson River tunnel between New Jersey and New York.
Providing their respective two cents in as many columns in Friday’s NY Times, both Paul Krugman and the newpaper’s editorial staff go all-out nuclear on the Garden State’s variety of yet another Koch brother’s piss-boy.
Citing an article by reporter Kate Zernike from this Wednesday’s edition of the paper, here’s the money sentence in the opening paragraph in Friday’s NY Times’ editorial: “In his drive to become the darling of the cut-costs-at-all-costs Republican crowd, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey ignored real economic analysis and relied on exaggerated worst-case scenarios to kill the largest public transit project in the nation in 2010.”
Not to be outdone, Paul Krugman, in his Friday Times’ op-ed column, referred to Christie as a politician who “may actually be the least responsible governor the state has ever had.”
Okay Professor, now tell us what you really think…
Cannibalize the Future
Paul Krugman
New York Times Op-Ed
April 13, 2012
…Mr. Christie’s big move — the one that will define his record — was his unilateral decision back in 2010 to cancel work that was already under way on a new rail tunnel linking New Jersey with New York. At the time, Mr. Christie claimed that he was just being fiscally responsible, while critics said that he had canceled the project just so he could raid it for funds.
Now the independent Government Accountability Office has weighed in with a report on the controversy, and it confirms everything the critics were saying…
…
…the governor is widely assumed to have national ambitions, and the Republican base hates government spending in general (unless it’s on weapons). And it hates public transportation in particular. Indeed, three other Republican governors — in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin — have also canceled public transportation projects supported by federal funds…[Christie] refusing to invest in such transportation will strangle the state’s economy…
…
…what he actually did was sacrifice the future for the sake of personal political advantage. He catered to national Republican prejudices that are completely at odds with New Jersey’s needs; he cared more about avoiding embarrassment over a misguided campaign pledge than about serving an urgent public need.
Unfortunately, Mr. Christie’s behavior is all too typical these days.
America used to be a country that thought big about the future. Major public projects, from the Erie Canal to the interstate highway system, used to be a well-understood component of our national greatness. Nowadays, however, the only big projects politicians are willing to undertake — with expense no object — seem to be wars. Funny how that works.
Here are the editors, also from today’s New York Times…
Gov. Christie and the Tunnel Project
Editorial
New York Times
April 13, 2012
…The project, two new rail passages under the Hudson River, would have vastly improved the region’s economy, the environment and the lives of millions of commuters. The federal government and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey were providing most of the $10 billion needed to build the tunnels. But Mr. Christie said they were going to cost a lot more than that and that New Jersey would be on “a never-ending hook.”
Also citing the
GAO report, the Times’ editors note…
…the Government Accountability Office makes it clear that the cost-cutting talk was political bluster. Mr. Christie estimated that the project could cost more than $14 billion, of which New Jersey would have had to pay 70 percent if you counted federal stimulus dollars and Port Authority money. The report said later federal estimates ranged from $9.8 billion to $12.4 billion and that the state’s real share was 14.4 percent. The benefits would have been huge. Today, traffic moves under the Hudson River through two 100-year-old tunnels that are nearly at capacity at peak travel times. With projections that transit demands in this area will increase 38 percent by 2030, the new tunnels would have allowed twice as many trains during rush hour, 48 per hour instead of 23…
…
…Christie wanted to use the tunnel money to avoid adding a few cents to the state’s gasoline tax, the nation’s second lowest. He was thinking about his career, not his constituents.
I’d be curious to know what Christie’s latest approval numbers are in New Jersey? (I was born and raised in central NJ. Except for yours truly and my significant other, my entire family’s still there.) According to my sister-in-law, who’s a teacher in the southern part of the state and also very active in her union, he’d have a very rough time if he had to run for re-election right now. Ya’ think?!?
# # #
For more on this story, checkout…
“Report Disputes Christie’s Basis for Halting Tunnel,” NY Times, Kate Zernike, 4/10/12
“Christie Stands by His Decision to Cancel Train Tunnel,” NY Times, Kate Zernike, 4/11/12
Here's the link to Meteor Blades' FP post on this, from Tuesday: “Chris Christie's reasons for halting the Hudson River tunnel to New York? Made up, says report.”