NRCC - Shea-Porter: A priceless burden

“At a time when the federal deficit is higher than it’s ever been, Carol Shea-Porter continues to spend money we don’t have. Fiscal discipline continues to be a foreign concept to Shea-Porter as she adds to a mounting a pile of debt that our grandchildren will have to repay. It’s a tremendous burden on future generations.” – Tory Mazzola, NRCC Spokesman


An art center in Stuttgart, Arkansas: $155,000

An institute to study seafood in Thibodaux, Louisiana: $325,000

A folklife center in Canton, New York: $200,000

Rep. Carol Shea-Porter’s love for earmarks : Priceless

Carol Shea-Porker: Lover of earmarks

Editorial, Manchester Union Leader


When it comes to pork-barrel spending, no one in Congress is more wasteful than Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. A bunch of representatives are just as wasteful, but no one is more so.


The Club for Growth keeps track of attempts by members of Congress to strip pork-barrel spending from legislation. This year, it tracked 68 amendments that would have nixed specific pork projects. Carol Shea-Porter voted against every single one. Even Barney Frank voted for four of them.


Here are just a few of the projects Shea-Porter voted to fund with your taxpayer money:


-- $155,000 for the Art Center of the Grand Prairie in Stuttgart, Ark.

-- $325,000 for the Institute for Seafood Studies in Thibodaux, La.

-- $200,000 for the North Country Folklife Center in Canton, N.Y.

-- $100,000 for the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center in Myrtle Beach, S.C.


Members of Congress like to claim that they have to vote for pork projects because the earmarks are contained in big bills, and the only choice they have is to vote yes or no on the whole bill. That was not the case for these and the other projects in the Club for Growth's list.


In each instance, an amendment was introduced that would have removed the earmark from the bigger bill. Shea-Porter voted against every one of the amendments, including one that would have removed 109 earmarks worth more than $550 million.


Rep. Paul Hodes' record was almost as bad as Shea-Porter's, but he did vote for four amendments to eliminate specific earmarks. So he's slightly less wasteful.


There is no excuse for this kind of voting. But we'd love to hear some anyway. Hodes and Shea-Porter ought to explain to their constituents why they voted to waste so much money on so many pork-barrel projects.


If we can't have responsible representatives in Congress, at least we can be entertained by their excuses for wasting our money.