Public Service Is About Trust - Granite Grok

Public Service Is About Trust

I’d just assume have a root canal without pain killer as suffer through an editorial by Carol Shea-Porter, but sometimes you have to take one for the team. So I have immersed myself in the last rights editorial of the soon to be former congresswoman from New Hampshire’s first district, which is ironically titled, ‘Public Service is about trust.’


Before I proceed let me offer up a comment on Carol’s notion of trust.  In traditional progressive fashion the meaning of trust has had to have been tortured before admitting under duress and threat of death to its friends and family members, that Carol’s application of it’s meaning holds any relevance at all to the historical application.  In fact Carol’s willingness to even use the word in this context, nay–any context at all–in reference to what she refers to as her public service, is a public disservice to the word, the language, the people of the first district, and serves to cement the likelihood that she is the disconnected, ruling class political shill we suspect her to be, if not also clinically insane.

Let’s start with the first clause in the closing line of her editorial, a throw away line passed down to more than a few democrats this year who are running away from their records and their obvious commitment to government before the people.

"You can count on me to be an honest, independent voice for New Hampshire…"

If Carol can claim any kind of "independence" at all it is not for New Hampshire but from it.  This ties in nicely with her remarks about making some hard decisions, some tough votes.  Tough votes?  She voted with the party leadership 98% of the time she was there.  The other 2% she missed.  You know what was hard about those votes?  Ignoring all the phone calls faxes and emails from her constituents telling her to vote the other way.  Hiding from her constituents when she is in state may have also proved challenging.  But to suggest the vote itself was a difficult is simply absurd.

Moving on, the CSP Swan Song has roughly six points.

She insists she supported middle class tax cuts.  I can’t tell you what those would be, but having created business and job killing policies, sewing institutional uncertainty into the economy, and refusing to take a stand against the administration and her parties abrogation of rule of law, if even under the most partisan circumstances we could find an actual tax cut it would be a band aid on the decapitated head of the economy.  It hardly makes any sense to promote a tax cut on a class of people who can’t find work to pay taxes because of everything else you have done to them.

Carol claims to have stood up to Wall Street by refusing to support the TARP bailouts back in 2008.  But she is on the record in favor of a second stimulus using returned TARP money, in violation of the legislation’s rules by the way; so she not only voted to spend TARP money, she broke the law to do it.  And then in 2010 she supported the Banking bill which has built in, hidden Wall Street bail outs written into the law that will keep the big banks that support democrat leaders out of trouble; it actually makes the bail out process less transparent–occurring behind closed doors so that she and the democrats will no longer be forced to make a public vote that would contradict her false claims of refusing bail outs to Wall Street.  Thanks to Frank-Dodd bill, and CSP, Wall Street is covered.

And does Carol thinks she voted to stop tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas because that is what she was told?  She seems to think it is true.  In reality, she has made it irresponsible for any American companies or multinatinals to invest foreign profits in the US because of her prohibitive anti-business tax increases on that money; that tax is the ‘tax break’ she says she stopped. But all it does is stop jobs. So these companies simply avoid the tax by creating jobs somewhere else  .  And at 35% there is plenty of incentive; this tax is one of the highest in the world, actually encouraging existing companies to avoid US soil for future growth and preventing companies who are not yet creating jobs here to look elsewhere.  Nice job Carol.

Congresswoman Shea-Porter also wants you to know that she came from the middle class.  What she does not want you to know is that she no longer lives among the Middle Class.  With her congressional salary and that of her husbands–which she hides from curious eyes–her family income is well over the left wing benchmark of $250,000.00 per year.  Public service has made her wealthy, but she can’t trust you to know that so she continues to hide her true worth.

Ms. Shea-Porter says she is protecting social security, and uses this as a launching pad for an attack on her opponent.  What Carol stands for is the status quo.  Social security is bankrupt.  Rather than tell the truth and work for what will certainly be a difficult transition to a system of public and private support she prefers to hide the truth until some future date when it is not here problem when the debt becomes so huge that generations of those to whom she has been dishonest have no choices at all…except the one she truly seeks; the end of private retirement accounts altogether by absorbing them into a government managed program controlled by favored banks and businesses regulated by her beloved federal bureaucrats, all of whom will donate to democrats to protect their sweetheart deals.

The congresswoman finishes with speculation about her opponent potentially spending money that is not his for political gain.  This is all she has, and put in contrast to her own legislative record begs some interesting questions.  Shea-Porter has spent trillions of dollars from the pockets of people who have not even been born yet.  She has facilitated historic amounts of debt, creating a reliance on hostile countries to sustain her spending binge in a manner that is far riskier than even the calamity of her national energy policy, another left wing bender that puts us at a significant risk and reliance, globally.

And finally, to be fair, there is one possible nugget of honesty wedged into the entire ordeal.  She claims at the top of the piece that she has stood up for what she believes in, and looking at her legislative history we must accept that this is true.   She stands for more government regardless of cost, huge deficits, politics and party before the people, legislative carve outs for favored groups, special interest deal making, voting to raise energy taxes on everyone for favored energy sectors at the expense of the people and the environment, gaming the parliamentary process to pass unpopular legislation, and giving up New Hampshire’s sovereign state right to a fascist superstate where government and hand picked union leaders and corporate socialists make decisions for everyone from far off Washington DC.

That is what Carol Shea Porter believes in.  In you believe in something else, you simply can’t vote for her.