So, how foolish are we being? The Economic Policy Institute prepared a report showing how we under-pay our children's teachers. Almost half of teachers leave within five years, mainly because they cannot get ahead and care for their own families on the low pay. The New York Times highlighted one teacher in a 3/2/11 article. A high-school science teacher in her second year of teaching in a city was only earning $36,000 a year and had $26,000 of school debt, no car, and no house. She had to move home to keep teaching. Sadly, this is not unusual. We are also cutting essential programs that help children catch up or keep up, and we are not preparing students for today’s high-tech and very competitive world.

After high school, it is now even tougher to pay for a technical school or college. The NH legislature cut funding to the university system a staggering 50%.   New Hampshire’s 2010 college graduates were in debt an average of $31,048 (Union Leader 11/8/2011). Deep cuts are being made at public universities around the nation, and the national average debt for the 2010 graduate is $25,250.

It is time to talk to our families, our communities, and our legislators about the value and necessity of education. It is time to defend investments in education because they are investments in our children's future, our business' future, and our nation's future. It is time to save our schools.

######

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Hope is not a strategy. Nowhere is that truism more evident than in President Obama's energy policy.

While it may be the most newsworthy, the misguided decision on the Keystone XL pipeline isn't the only example of sacrificing American jobs, economic competitiveness and energy security for quick political gain.

Indeed, we could have easily telegraphed Obama's decision by looking to Alaska where similar decisions have stymied efforts to develop resources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

There, Obama sacrificed the ability to produce safely nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil a day to appease special interest groups that have misused the federal administrative process to stop exploration of the Arctic at every turn.

In spite of nearly four years of review confirming the project's safety, Obama imposed an arbitrary, and highly political, stoppage time in Shell's conditional permit.

The"approval" advanced by Obama ignores both science and the safety equipment Shell will bring to the region and amounts to a 40 percent reduction in time allowed for exploration work.

This decision comes after Obama's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement declared it "found no evidence that the proposed action would significantly affect the quality of the human environment."

Even more mystifying is the fact that Shell's comprehensive response, which utilizes resources from that company, local experts and the federal government, and would have allowed for response as late as December if needed is not even mentioned in the report.

This arbitrary timeline may seem like a good political compromise to the president -- an approval with such restrictive terms that it may not be economically viable to execute.

In reality, it greatly sacrifices the ability to harness the full benefits of the project. The project is expected to provide a robust suite of economic benefits over the next 50 years, including 55,000 new jobs per year, $145 billion in new payroll and $193 billion in additional government revenues.

Thedecision also sacrifices the economic security of the entire West Coast, home to the world's fifth largest economy, by forcing continued reliance on foreign sources of oil in an increasingly unstable global market.

Make no mistake, this dependence is severe. Due to declines in production from mature fields, the West Coast has gone from 100 percent domestic supply to almost half now arriving from foreign oil supplies.

Who is making up the difference? The answer is OPEC, which provides 48 percent of the region's supplies, and Russia, which supplies an additional 37 million barrels a year.

With this extensive dependence on foreign sources, and Obama's decision to cut the Beaufort and Chukchi development schedule nearly in half, the West Coast isessentially now captive to the whims of hostile regimes and unstable supplies.

These dangers couldn't be more clear and present than with Iran's threats to block the Straits of Hormuz, and the recent Arab Spring uprisings. Of course, with news like this having dominated headlines the better part of the last year, it seems likely to even the most casual observer that instability is the new normal.

If Shell's efforts are thwarted now, other companies may decide to give up on Alaska development, risking the future of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, billions of barrels of oil, tens of thousands of jobs.

As our nation's energy needs continue to grow, and our economy falters to fully emerge from the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression, Obama should be making bold energy choices based on engineering and sound science, not false compromises designed to appease a small yet vocal minority.

Restricting the supply of safe, secure and reliable supplies of energy from American markets with only the hope that the rest of the world will help America fill in the gaps is naive, dangerous, and puts the global balance of power in the hands of regimes who are only too happy to see America fail.

David Holt is president of the Consumer Energy Alliance.

###

BACKGROUND

·      The U.S. Alaskan oil supplies are running out.  The Trans-Alaska pipeline is experiencing a steady decline in the amount of oil flowing through it from a peak of 744 million barrels of oil in 1988 down to 245 million barrels in 2009.

·      The pipeline is threatened because it cannot handle pumping less than 300,000 barrels per day without incurring expensive repairs and alterations because the oil, which under normal flows is pumped 800 miles over a three day period, is flowing at such a low rate its temperature is chilled to much causing clogs and ruptures to the pipeline. It now takes five times longer to arrive at the Port of Valdez often at temperatures as low as 40F, versus 100F.

·      To increase the flow, the oil companies are trying to drill other oil fields in the area.  But the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and offshore drilling and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) are off limits.

·       Saving the pipeline has become a political issue in Alaska. The pipeline, which employs 2,000 people, still delivers more than 11% of the oil produced in the U.S. Almost all of it ends up in refineries in Washington, California and Hawaii.

·       The end of the pipeline would likely translate into higher gasoline prices, which hit an average of $3.98 a gallon last week, the highest in nearly three years.

·      The only solution to saving the Alaskan pipeline is to add more oil.  Oil companies and many Alaskan officials argue more lands should be opened to drilling so that the pipeline can get the crude it needs to flow fast and safely.

By Bill Wilson

After an outpouring of opposition by millions of Internet users and tens of thousands of websites against the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) and the "Protect Intellectual Property Act" (PIPA) in the House and Senate, congressional proponents of the bills have delayed votes on Capitol Hill.

That is not stopping the Obama Administration, however, which has been acting as if the proposals have already been passed.  The most recent example is the shutdown of Megaupload.com, a web-based data storage company that boasted over 150 million users, by the Justice Department and New Zealand law enforcement officials. 

According to the indictment, the company was accused of facilitating the distribution of pirated movies, television shows, music, and other copyrighted material.  Allegedly, the company refused to process Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown requests, and falsely told copyright owners materials had been removed when members of the company took steps to keep the pirated material on their servers.

Finally, according to the indictment, the company allegedly "made payments to uploaders who were known to have uploaded infringing copies of copyrighted works" and that members of the company itself were uploading infringing works.

If true, the members of the company would certainly be in a lot of trouble.  However, this case has broader implications that should be considered.

Over 150 million users worldwide — millions of whom were premium subscribers — have lost access to their data files.  By some estimates, there were over 8 billion files stored on Megaupload, just a fraction of which contained infringing material according to the indictment, which only claims that "many millions" of the files are infringing.  Like many alleged criminal enterprises, Megaupload carried on several legitimate business dealings.

So, whether the company is guilty or not, Megaupload had millions of users who were using its servers for legitimate purposes — and they've just had their data seized without cause. 

This, in turn, sets up a series of dangerous precedents.

The future of information technology is in cloud-based applications.  When the feds can seize the entire cloud based on the actions a few or even many participants, it violates the property rights of its legitimate users. 

The Justice Department has responded to media inquiries about the status of the legitimate files that were stored at Megaupload, saying that users had no reasonable expectation of long-term data storage from the company: "the vast majority of Megaupload.com users do not have significant capabilities to store private content long-term since anything that isn't repeatedly downloaded is automatically deleted from the system."

However, premium users had an expectation that their data would be stored for a period lasting at least 90 days or forever if it was regularly accessed.  Now, it looks like everything on the Megaupload servers could be deleted as soon as Feb. 2.

To draw a real world analogy, this would be like a bank being accused of violating some law, and so all of the innocent depositors' assets were also seized.  Or if a mobster owned an apartment building and was arrested, all of the building's blameless occupants were exiled and their property taken into custody, based merely on criminal activity taking place in one of the apartment units.

Even more alarming is the Obama Administration's expansion of executive powers to police the Internet in this manner, based on a reading of existing federal forfeiture laws in a manner that was never necessarily intended.

Already, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has used this basis to seize domains in error, including the cases of mooo.com and dajaz1.com, only to be returned weeks and months later respectively without any compensation for loss of revenues or even a good explanation for the mishaps.

Overall, the Obama Administration's actions to date with Megaupload.com, mooo.com and dajaz1.com raise significant due process, First Amendment, and property rights concerns.  The world has witnessed attempts by governments to shut down political speech using the same rationale and technologies that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have employed already.

Congress needs to act now to tie their hands while the courts move to rein in this aggressive, arrogant overreach by an out-of-control government.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

In this tumultuous economic climate, it is imperative for New Hampshire’s 234 towns and cities, 177 school districts administrated by 87 School Administrative Units, and 10 counties to be economically and prudently operated.  Local, School, and County governments function as purveyors of public services, and more and more of them across the country are implementing sound business practices during uncertain economic times. 

The following list represents strategies New Hampshire local governments may choose to consider if they have not already done so:

Continuing to hold operational expenses flat, to include public employee wages, as an ongoing strategy to limit the impact of the U.S. macroeconomic situation on local taxpayers.  At this time local governments will likely find a broader pool of qualified applicants from which to draw who are willing to accept positions at lower rates of pay.

Rethinking the organizational structure of agencies and departments and the manner in which services are delivered in an effort to improve organizational efficiencies and mitigate cost centers over the long-term.

Engaging with local legislators to prevent the continued downshifting of bona-fide State of N.H. costs to towns, cities, school districts and counties at the expense of local taxpayers.  Areas of specific concern include highway block grant funds, bridge aid, shared revenues, school building aid, public assistance programs, pole exemptions, and costs associated with financial challenges within the New Hampshire Retirement System.

Controlling escalating health care benefit costs by reconsidering benefit and prescription plans offered to public employees, increasing employee co-pays, shopping around for the most competitive pricing, and implementing active employee wellness programs to encourage healthy living thereby reducing long-term cost exposure.

Regionalizing services such as multi-town or county assessing districts, cooperative school districts, regional dispatch, and multi-jurisdiction police/fire precincts.  Regionalization is commonly utilized in other areas of the country and should be given serious consideration where feasible in New Hampshire.

Mitigating future utility/fuel costs by replacing older vehicles with smaller, more fuel efficient alternatives, retrofitting facilities with energy efficient lighting and mechanical systems, the establishment of local energy committees, and utilizing Energy Star and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified new construction within future building projects.  

Maintaining a strong balance sheet and favorable bond rating by sustaining an appropriate undesignated fund balance, utilizing realistic revenue/expenditure projections, and ensuring adequate contingency funds to account for unanticipated events such as floods, wind/ice storms, and extended power outages.

Encouraging Land preservation activities to preserve open space and protect a community’s natural resources during a time when land prices have fallen considerably from pre-2008 highs – a wonderful buying opportunity for taxpayers.

Promoting economic development activities intended to broaden the tax base and create new jobs combined with smart growth initiatives to thoughtfully plan futuredevelopment.   

Implementing risk management strategies to control property/liability/unemployment compensation insurance costs by establishing active Joint Loss Management/Safety Committees to reduce the incidence of employee injury, accidents, property damage, and lost time.

Budgets developed for the 20012/2013 timeframe must continue to be reflective of meaningful efforts on the part of local governments to develop new efficiencies and synergies within departments, agencies, and schools tocontrol spending growth during a time of continued economic uncertainty.  No two communities, no two school districts are alike; local governments will have to tailor solutions to their individual needs and the needs of their citizens. 

Information about Todd I. Selig:

Todd I. Selig has served as Durham Town Administrator since 2001.  After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Syracuse University, Mr. Selig went on to complete a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of New Hampshire.  He has served in a variety of New Hampshire administrative positions within both the municipal and schoolsectors including positions in Raymond, Laconia, New Boston, Hopkinton, and now Durham.  In 2003, Todd Selig was awarded the Caroline Gross Fellowship allowing him to attend the Program for SeniorExecutives in State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  He was named as one of New Hampshire’s “40 Under Forty” by The Union Leader in 2005.  Mr. Selig has previously served as chairman of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and as a trustee and vice-chairman of the board of PRIMEX (N.H. Public Risk Management Exchange).  He is a member of the International City/County Management Association, a member of the Municipal Management Association of NH, and a member of the Laconia andDurham Historical Societies.  Originally from Laconia, Mr. Selig resides with his wife and two daughters in Durham, New Hampshire.

That is why we now have Super PACs—they are used as the vehicle to transfer money.  If an individual wants to give directly to a campaign, he or she can only give $2500 per election, and a political action committee can only give $5000, but if you are really rich or you are a corporation, and you want really heavy influence, you can now just give to the Super PAC who backs your candidate, and then sit back and enjoy the air war on TV that you paid for. And as a bonus, voters in each state won’t even know you and your partners were the ones who brought ugly ads to them until after they have voted, so they won’t know that you had a particular agenda.

For example, Mitt Romney’s group, “Restore Our Future” (never mind that you cannot restore something that has not existed yet), will not file until January 31^st, well after New Hampshire and South Carolina, and on the day Florida goes to vote after seeing thousands of ads attacking other Republicans from Romney’s people. Governor Romney said he cannot talk to “Restore Our Future,” but that Super PAC is full of his former top campaign aides who know Romney intimately, so it is a pretty thin wall.

We could still win our future though, if Newt Gingrich has anything to do with it. The Super PAC that supports him, “Winning our Future,” is running ads about Governor Romney’s business dealings, thanks to one donor who gave a check for $5 million dollars to the PAC to pay for those attacks. If he had given directly to the campaign, he could only have given $2500 for the primary, but now, the Supreme Court has allowed him to give unlimited money to take Governor Romney down.

Pity the poor voter in South Carolina right now.  According to McClatchy newspapers, New Hampshire voters saw 2,800 ads. By the second week in January, the South Carolina voters had seen nearly twice that many, and Super PACs were responsible for 69% of the spending on TV ads.

Does this matter? Does it influence voters?  They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work.  Senator John McCain told CNN, “Now it’s the system under which we operate, which leads to this kind of campaigning and will lead to corruption and scandals. I guarantee it.” CNN reported that McCain said the Supreme Court, “basically unleashed—without transparency—and without accountability—huge amounts of money from those so-called ‘independent campaigns’.”

Right now, the Republicans are shooting at each other, but the general election is right around the corner, and Democrats have now answered with some Super PACs of their own. What we saw in 2010 was just a teaser to what we will endure this year.  Super PACs and their very wealthy donors are drowning out the voices of the small-dollar donors. David Woodward, a professor of political science at Clemson University, said in the Kansas City Star, “it goes back to politics before we had campaign finance reform and Watergate. It’s just a complete reversal that has brought us full circle to where it’s rich guys playing politics.” Or, I might add, playing for friendly policies and legislation.

These Super PACs will once again be active in congressional races and Senate races, but in a bigger way than in 2010. Jeff Roe, a Kansas City, Missouri based Republican strategist said, “It will have huge impact.” We all remember the deceptions, the distortions, and the trickery from 2010 and from the 2012 Presidential primary. Is there anything we can do to stop it in the general election this year?

Yes, there is. Educate yourself. We all have a civic responsibility to pay attention and learn. There are so many places to check facts now, like FactCheck.org. Listen to the candidate debates, and watch C-Span programs. Look up voting records. Watch several major news shows. Visit websites like The Sunlight Foundation, and see information on Super PACs.  Ask candidates if they will support legislation to take this kind of money out of politics.  We are citizens, not merely spectators, and we still have the power to be heard. Speak up!

###

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

First, the bill provides that the failure to pay all property taxes on current use land within 30 days after the date of notice of tax will constitute a change of use, triggeringpayment of the LUCT. This is an extremely harsh penalty that, to our knowledge, municipalities are not seeking. The bill also provides that land will be considered changed in use and subject to the LUCT if the landowner does notnotify the local assessing officials within 30 days that the land has changed from one qualifying use to another. That is unnecessary and extremely harsh.

Second, the bill provides that if any LUCT assessment is not paid within 30 days after the due date, the property shall be deeded to the municipality. Again, this is extremely harsh and is neither in the interest of the property owner nor the municipality. Municipalities generally do not want to acquire land because of unpaid taxes -- they simply want the taxes paid.

The bill repeals the provisions of RSA 79-A:25 that, upon majority vote of the legislative body,allow placement of a portion of any LUCT revenues into the Conservation Fund. This is a tool that many municipalities have used very successfully to fundacquisition of land or conservation easements. It is an important element of local control and represents an option that should be preserved for municipalities.

Finally, the bill repeals RSA 79-A:25-a and 25-b, which authorize the establishment of the LUCT fund, an accounting mechanism that allows LUCT revenues to be segregated from the General Fund until the legislative body within a traditional Town Meeting setting addresses the use of that revenue at the next annual meeting. There is no reason to remove this local option for the vast majority of communities in New Hampshire with traditional Town Meetings.

            The disposition of LUCT proceeds as part of New Hampshire’s Current Use program has been a topic of robust conversation and debate amongst citizens within our state’s communities since the program was established in 1973.   Local control, however, should be preserved, and the changes proposed as part of HB 1515 are contrary to the interests of New Hampshire communities and the state as a whole. 

Todd I. Selig has been Durham Town Administrator since 2001.  After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Syracuse University, Mr. Selig went on to complete a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of New Hampshire.  He has served in a variety of positions within both the municipal and school sectors including positions in Raymond, Laconia, New Boston, Hopkinton, and now Durham, NH.  In 2003, Todd Selig was awarded the Caroline Gross Fellowship allowing him to attend the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  He was named as one of New Hampshire’s “40 Under Forty” by The Union Leader in 2005.  Mr. Selig serves as chair of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and previously served as a trustee and vice-chair of the board of PRIMEX (N.H. Public RiskManagement Exchange).  He is a member of the International City/County Management Association, a member of the New Hampshire Municipal Managers’ Association, and a member of the Laconia and Durham Historical Societies.  Originally from Laconia, NH, Mr. Selig resides with his wife and two daughters inDurham, New Hampshire.

This is a startling contradiction, and it is at the heart of why the unemployment rate is much higher than the 8.5 percent being reported.

The problem is that the measured civilian labor force participation rate has fallen from 65.7 percent to 64 percent since Jan. 2009, reflecting people who have lost hope and simply stopped looking for work.  If those people were still counted, the actual civilian labor force would be 4.176 million higher than is reported at about 158 million.

Based on this analysis, the number of unemployed is actually closer to 17 million instead of the 13 million reported jobless.  That is simply astounding.

Instead of 8.5 percent, the effective unemployment rate should be closer to 10.9 percent, and the underemployed closer to 17.4 percent, or 27.3 million.  This is what we mean when we say that the unemployment rate is no longer a valid economic indicator.

Propaganda is not going to get the real unemployed into jobs.  It's not going to help families keep their homes.  It's not going to help college graduates to enter the work force.  We're nowhere near where we should be, and it's Obama's fault.

It's his regulatory burdens that are being imposed through the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) carbon endangerment finding and through Obamacare.  It is he who is insisting on raising taxes on job creators, and playing class warfare to cobble together a constituency that wants to apparently take from their employers' purses.  It is Obama who has refused to get the nation's crushing debt load under control, where the $15.2 trillion national debt is nearly larger than the entire economy. 

To get the economy moving again, the government needs to slash corporate tax rates, which are the highest in the world of advanced economies.  It is imperative that the regulatory overkill come to an end.  The dollar needs to be strengthened to lower costs and stabilize energy and food costs.  The debt needs to be paid down and retired, and the budget balanced. Onerous federal securities laws and state-by-state blue sky laws need to be repealed that make it cost-ineffective for new businesses to raise capital.

In short, it must become competitive to do business here in America again.  And that will probably not happen so long as Obama is in office.  It is clear the nation needs new leadership that is intent on actually creating jobs and restoring hope, instead of ignoring the despair of Obama's lost labor force.

###

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

Republicans ran in 2010 on a tea-party platform that stated basically two positions, one being that they would never stop tax breaks for the very rich and corporations. The other was that the federal government does nothing good with our money, and it should be shrunk to the size that it “could be drowned in the bathtub,” as Grover Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, says. (He is the one who got almost every  Republican, including both NH Representatives, to sign his "no taxes ever" oath.)  Presidential candidate Ron Paul and the tea-party congressman from New Hampshire’s First District want to abolish the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, and the Internal Revenue Service, which happens to be the funding source for our whole federal government.  At this point, reasonable people might look around our state and ask themselves who is right, and where is their tax money? 

Our federal tax money is all over our state, serving people, small businesses and corporations, and helping local and state government provide services. Where is that federal money?

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has received an enormous amount of money to protect our country.  I personally had one single earmark in 2008 that was for almost $10,000,000, for a consolidated components facility that is currently under construction.  These federal tax dollars also create jobs, and these workers spend money in our local economy.  

BAE Systems is a defense contractor, and their NH plants depend almost exclusively on federal contracts. They are the largest manufacturer here, creating thousands of jobs.  GE also has federal money and they create jobs here also, along with many other defense-related businesses who receive our tax money.

Low-income citizens receive health care at Community Health Centers across the state, in places like Manchester, Somersworth, Portsmouth, and Conway. Our federal tax dollars help to fund them.  Our congressmen voted to cut funding while praising the community centers for their cost-saving services. Our tax dollars have provided equipment and building money, as well as funding for uncompensated care.

Transportation is a challenge in our state, and many rural citizens have difficulty getting to work, to the doctor, or to a store.  Our taxes have been returned to NH to help build transit in our state. There is federal money for highways here, and that also creates jobs, but our federal tax money helps people get around on buses, too.  There is now bus transportation from Conway to Wolfeboro via Ossipee, and they used stimulus money—our tax money—to buy the buses.  An assistant store manager said the buses are bringing customers to his store.  This has also created more jobs in these communities.

New Hampshire firefighters, police officers, and other first responders can provide better services to our communities because our tax dollars helped them get better equipment and better technology.  There have been federal grants and earmarks, and also stimulus money to support services and to pay salaries.  Manchester, Rochester, Dover, Portsmouth, and many smaller towns applied for and received federal help that really was our money coming back to serve us.

Education is the key to prosperity in New Hampshire, so federal investment in education helps at every level.  Our taxes come back to help our smallest and poorest citizens get a chance to succeed.  Our dollars help every community put equipment in schools, feed kids who cannot learn if they are hungry, and educate those with extra challenges.  Our tax money helps provide clean-energy buses to carry our next generation of NH leaders to and from UNH, and provides the necessary money for innovative and exciting research that will benefit our state and country.  Our taxes also help provide loans to students—a real investment in New Hampshire’s future.

We benefit when we “pool” our money.  As citizens, we have a common interest in creating and sustaining a great nation that can pay its bills and invest in its people.  Clean up duplicate efforts. Catch the cheats. Hold recipients of our money accountable. But Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. had it right when he said, “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

####

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

In case you think this is too critical, let’s review the year. I think the best overall summary of this 112^th Congress comes from Fox News, believe it or not. Chad Pergram, who covers Congress for Fox News, said in his December 13, 2011 column,  “This year’s Congress is the Indiana Jones of Congresses. It exists in a perpetual state of distress. It repeatedly dashes out of some underground temple before being crushed by a gigantic, booby-trapped boulder.”   To this, I might add, of their own making.

So, what has the House been doing?  The House has taken some ugly votes, with the help of the NH-01 Representative, who voted with leadership 96% of the time, and the help of the NH-02 Representative, who voted with leadership 86% of the time. Here are some of the year’s highlights.   They voted to privatize Medicare.  They voted to repeal the health care law, but offered no substitute.  Both our NH members of the House of Representatives voted with the Republican majority against funding for the Memorial Bridge in Portsmouth. The Republicans in the House voted to cut the Community Development Block Grants by 62%.  They voted to cut school funding and money for first responders and for community health centers, among other cuts.

 They took a lot of votes against the environment.  Our NH-01 Representative got an F from the Sierra Club.  The National Clean Water Network, a group of 1,200 local, state and national non-profits who work to protect our water, said the NH-01 Representative never once voted for clean water. Even Ron Paul got a 7%. The NH-02 rep voted for clean water a little more than half the time.  While the House did not want to protect our water, they did protect oil companies by voting against cutting any taxpayer subsidies for oil companies.

The House also went on vacation without passing a bill to reauthorize the FAA, which threw 4,000 federal workers out of work, laid off thousands of construction workers, and cost the federal government $300 million. That move earned them bipartisan rage from the middle class, and it also showed that they simply could not get the job done. As the Republican former member of Congress who is now the Secretary of Transportation, Ray Lahood, said, “Because of their inaction, states and airports won’t be able to work on their construction projects, and too many people will have to go without a paycheck. This is no way to run the best aviation system in the world.”

Actually, this is no way to run a government. The Congress almost shut the government down a number of times this year because they could not pass their appropriations bills, and they had to pass continuing resolutions to keep going. The House Republicans not only almost shut the government down, they also brought us to the edge of default when they initially refused to raise the debt-ceiling, and got our credit rating reduced as a result. Now the newspapers are asking if Speaker Boehner can control his caucus. The larger question is, can voters control them? While Congress has become more and more divided, and agreements are harder to come by, this 112^th Congress has been the worst. As Chad Pergram said in his September 21, 2011 column, “These days, those cliffhanger serials seem to run on C-Span, with the 112^th Congress narrowly averting disaster at every turn.” So far, this Congress has been the disaster.

****

Former congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s 1st District from 2007-11. She is seeking a third term in the November 2012 election. She wrote the proposal for and established a nonprofit social service agency, which continues to serve all ages. She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.