The Shipyard and Shea Porter's Dalliance with Compromise

After reading former U.S. House member about how New Hampshire may lose the Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth due to the debt ceiling compromise, something struck me. Hearing Carol Shea-Porter on the merits of legislative compromise is like taking a lecture from Obama on successful economic policy; their words mask either deception or ignorance. Regardless of which, they're not to be taken seriously.

Mrs. Shea-Porter's first vote as a member of Congress was for the 2007 "Pay As You Go Rule."  That law simply stated that the government was to spend only what it had or make necessary trade offs to avoid further deficits and debt.  The self-described progressive then promptly progressed through your money – and your children's money – to accumulate $5.3T in new debt ($5,317,654,000,000 to be precise; to get that, take the debt of her first vote in January 2007: $8,707,561,000,000 and minus the debt of her departure on December 2010: $14,025,215,000,000.) By that time New Hampshire sobered up and threw the spendthrift out in 2010 with the hope that we wouldn't keep progressing right over the cliff and into further financial ruin. Sadly, the financial mines she helped put in place continue to explode with the march of time.  It's the debt that keeps on debting.

So I think it's safe to say that, her grandstanding aside, she either didn't need to compromise, because she was for the $5.3T in debt accumulation, or she did compromise and got rolled like a bowling ball down a slick lane leaving her principles behind with the popcorn.  Regardless of which, her credibility on the virtues of compromise is dubious, and given the results of her dalliance with compromise, her tenure in Washington was not in New Hampshire's best interest, nor the country's, and actually, while we're at it, not in your child's, nor in your grandchild's best interest.  The children will be paying on the debt when we're all long gone.  The next time one of them asks for a scary bedtime story, remember to tell them the story of Carol Shea-Porter and how she helped spend all their money before they even earned it, heck before some were even born, and to not plan on buying anything nice when they grow up, because the money is already gone.  Also, tell them they can relay this story to their children as well, word for word, because it'll still be relevant.  Sleep tight.

Simple math reveals that if she didn't help squander $5.3T in a few years, we wouldn't have reached the debt ceiling level, therefore it wouldn't need to be increased. And it's this increase that Mrs. Shea-Porter cites as the reason for the potential shipyard closing.  No $5.3T wasted means no debt ceiling increase, which means the shipyard remains out of danger. Simple.

It seems to me that someone needs to stand athwart the public's checkbook yelling "Stop" to people like her, and not compromise with those who are all too anxious to ink away more of your money and are oblivious to the economic reality brought on by these actions.  We're now $16T in debt, thanks to these people. 

I ask you, shipyard fans: would you rather have the shipyard open and out of jeopardy or all the stuff that Mrs. Shea-Porter spent $5.3T on?  You'll have to ask her that same question if you see her.  Ask her what she spent the money on and whether she would trade any of it in now for the shipyard.  She'll probably say, "All of the above," or some similar nonsense, because, as stated previously, she's oblivious, and her solution to every problem is spending more of your money.  She has the problem solving depth of a thimble.

It is difficult to figure out exactly where all the $ 5.3T went, but we know at least one place: Solyndra.  There's $535 million that would be nice to have back.  Ask Mrs. Shea-Porter if she would at least trade that for the shipyard.  I doubt it.