Shea-Porter Pathetic.


Former Member of Congress Carol Shea Porter is opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline as it is/was proposed from Canada down through the United States.

She lets the reader know of her disapproval with a cut and paste type of argument, no basis, and meanwhile if the oil doesn’t stay in North America it will go to the highest bidder which is likely China. My instant reaction to reading this on was a combination of pathetic and drivel.

Is this the best a former member of Congress can come up with?

As I’m sure you all know TransCanada the company proposing this pipeline has a very successful safety and operational record across the northeast including the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System that runs across northern New Hampshire enroute to Canada.

And they pay taxes lots of them.

This is why I can’t understand where Shea-Porter is coming from. Then she cuts and pastes:

“There is always a party pooper, and in this case, it is the Cornell University Global Labor Institute. In September 2011, it reported, "A calculation of the direct jobs that might be created by KXL can begin with an examination of the jobs on-site to build and inspect the pipeline. The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department."

Compare this statement against the millions of dollars and long-term jobs that would be created through the construction of this pipeline. There are many; and this is what happens when the price for a needed commodity comes down. This would have been very similar to when the railroads were constructed across the U.S.-- short-term construction jobs followed by long-term prosperity.  

Speaking of pipelines and prosperity, I don’t see Shea-Porter as being opposed to the construction of pipelines in places like the Trans-Caucuses and Turkey where the oil there is headed to the United States.  The commodity exchange in Dubai mainly exists to facilitate commodity trading and oil contracts that are mostly destined to markets either controlled or influenced the United States. I don’t see Shea-Porter complaining about any of this…

This is pathetic and short term thinking. A person with her policy experience should know better.