     |
Congressional Ratings: How Your Hard Earned Money Is Spent
Visit: Club For Growth Club for Growth Disappointed with McConnell’s Vote on Earmark Amendment Washington – Today, Senator Jim DeMint offered an amendment on the Senate floor to strike new earmarks from the 2005 Highway Bill and prohibit spending increases for earmarks already contained in the Highway Bill. The motion to kill the amendment passed 78-18. Club for Growth President Pat Toomey issued the following statement on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s opposition to Senator DeMint’s important reform: “The Club for Growth is very disappointed by Senator McConnell’s vote against Senator DeMint’s effort to save taxpayers money. As the leader of the Republican Caucus, it is his responsibility to set an example for the rest of the Caucus. Four weeks ago, we were pleased to see Senator McConnell support a one-year moratorium on earmarks for the Fiscal Year 2009, also offered by Senator DeMint. His previous support made his opposition today all the more disappointing. In the future, we hope Senator McConnell will lead the way in the Senate in the fight against wasteful government spending and for genuine earmark reform.” TOWNHALL.COM Political Loathsomeness By Walter E. Williams Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Full article Walter E. Williams Excerpts: Do any of the prospective nominees of either party deserve respect from the American people? The answer partially depends on your knowledge, values and respect for the U.S Constitution. When either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take office, they are going to place their hand on the Bible and take the oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It will be a phony affirmation, but what's worse is that the chief justice of the United States, who administers the oath, and the average American will believe the new president. For Immediate Release Apr 8, 2008 For Further Information, Contact: Peter J. Sepp, Natasha Altamirano, (703) 683-5700 Congress's Fiscal Ratings Drop Closer to All-Time Low, Nonpartisan Scorecard from Nation's Largest Taxpayer Group Shows Full article National Taxpayers Union NTU Excerpts: (Alexandria, Va.) -- The multi-year decline of lawmakers' pro-taxpayers scores under Republican control of the House of Representatives and Senate entered a nosedive in 2007 with a new Democratic majority, according to the National Taxpayers Union's (NTU) 29th annual Rating of Congress. The scorecard, the only one to utilize every roll call vote affecting tax, spending, and regulatory issues, was based on a record 609 votes -- 427 in the House and 182 in the Senate. "Despite campaign-trail promises from many Members of Congress to put Washington on a stricter diet, our 2007 Rating shows that, by and large, the only things shrinking on Capitol Hill are lawmakers' pro-taxpayer scores," NTU President Duane Parde said. "Overburdened taxpayers looking for an end to 'earmarked' spending, an extension of President Bush's tax cuts, and an honest entitlement reform plan won’t like what they see in Congress's performance so far." Between 2006 and 2007, the average "Taxpayer Score" in the House fell from 39 percent to 35 percent. The Senate's average plummeted by 11 points, from 48 percent to 37 percent. This spiral takes scores closer to the all-time low (in 1988) of 27 percent and 28 percent, respectively, for the House and Senate. The highest marks were reached in 1995, when House and Senate averages were 58 percent and 57 percent, respectively. From: Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) December 2007 Porker of the Month for thwarting three amendments to the farm bill that would have provided some modest reform. Instead, it was a lost opportunity to fix one of the most outdated government programs. An amendment offered by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), would have capped subsidy payments to farmers at $250,000. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) attempted to pass a measure that would have set the annual adjusted gross income (AGI) for receiving any benefits at $750,000 and Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-Ohio) amendment would have reformed the crop insurance program. Sen. Lincoln, whose family received big farm subsidy payments worth $715,000 between 1995 and 2005, threatened to filibuster the bill. Because Senate Democratic leaders did not want to be blamed for further delay of the farm bill, they changed the rules to require 60 votes for passage of those three amendments, rather than a simple majority. The Dorgan-Grassley and Klobuchar amendments received the support of a majority of the senators voting, but they were defeated as they fell short of the manufactured 60-vote requirement. After the vote on the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, Sen. Lincoln said, “I’m pleased that enough of my colleagues heard my plea and realized that the payment limitation amendment would be devastating to the hardworking farm families across Arkansas and much of the South. Farm families in Arkansas should not have to sacrifice their way of life, and that’s what this proposal would have done.” To claim that farm subsidies are needed to preserve the small family farmer is purely laughable. The money goes disproportionately to the wealthiest farmers, with little benefit to farmers most in need of help. Subsidies have proven to be very costly to both taxpayers and consumers and have undermined the rural economy. Currently, 60 percent of farms either receive no subsidies or less than $2,000 annually. In 2003, the top 10 percent of farm subsidy recipients collected 72 percent of total subsidies and the top 5 percent collected 55 percent of payments. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that 2005 crop subsidy payments to Arkansas farms totaled $425 million; 26 farms received more than $250,000. The December 14 Washington Post said that includes “farms run by the Arkansas Department of Corrections, which produces cotton and other crops using convict labor. Federal subsidies to a state plantation worked by prisoners who don't get paid: now that's enterprising.” At a time when agricultural income is at record highs and farm commodity prices are soaring, taxpayers have been paying an average of $20 billion annually for the most expensive farm subsidy payments in history. The farm bill passed by Congress even increased subsidies for most crops, in addition to creating a costly permanent disaster assistance program. Despite this, Sen. Lincoln declared that the farm bill “includes the most significant reform in the history of any farm bill” in a December 14 press release. Critics as diverse as Bread for the World, CAGW, the EWG, Oxfam America, and the National Taxpayers Union vehemently disagree with her. For standing in the way of farm bill reform on the back of the small family farms she claims to help, CAGW names Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) its December 2007 Porker of the Month. Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers. #### From Club For Growth All I Want for Christmas is 99 More Coburns Andrew Roth Fiscal superstar Senator Tom Coburn sent the following letter to his colleagues, putting them on notice that he'll block all unanimous consent agreements on wasteful spending bills. Dear Senator ________, As we approach the end of the year, I recognize that there is often an urge for Congress to engage in a last minute spending spree, approving bills costing millions of dollars with no debate or discussion. It is important that we recognize the impact of such hastily made decisions. The U.S. national debt now exceeds $9.13 trillion. That means almost $30,000 in debt for each and every man, woman and child in the United States. The U.S. debt is expanding by about $1.4 billion a day, or nearly $1 million a minute. The unfunded liability placed on a child born today is $400,000. It is completely irresponsible for Congress to approve more spending or to create new programs when we have failed to pay for those that already exist. In the remaining hours of this session of Congress, therefore, I will not agree to any unanimous consent requests to authorize or appropriate increased spending or expand the size and cost of the federal government. If you intend to seek unanimous consent for any legislation in the next three weeks, I would encourage you to contact me as soon as possible so I have sufficient time to read and review your bill or bills and we can work out any differences, avoiding the frustration of last minute, late night negotiations. During this season, let’s remember that one of the greatest gifts we can give to our children and grandchildren, neighbors, and constituents is hope and opportunity. This means not burdening future generations with insurmountable debt as well as keeping our obligations to those in their retirement years. While we may have different sets of priorities, these differences should not prevent us from working together to ensure our actions today do not come at the expense of future generations or senior citizens. As members of Congress, we should make the same budgetary choices American families make as they celebrate the holidays. Sincerely, Tom A. Coburn, M.D. U.S. Senator We've previously mentioned two great men in the Senate, Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim DeMint (R-SC). They had a perfect score and were present for most votes. Another Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) who is new, scored 100%.This site will have regular updates showing those with records favorable to taxpayers, as opposed to those who are reckless with that same money. One Democrat who scored well is Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wi). He scored 80% scoring as well as or better than most Republicans. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) scored a 53%; Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) scored a 7%, voting for only one amendment. Below are 3 samples of pork projects this year: There was an attempt to amend each of these three projects, to reduce or entirely eliminate the pork. Each amendment failed * $100 million for the 2008 Republican and Democratic nominating conventions. Amendment failed 45-51. * Adding sand to San Diego’s beaches. Amendment failed 12-77. * Millions of dollars for bicycle paths instead of using the funds to improve bridge safety. Amendment failed 18-80. Club for Growth Releases 2007 Senate RePORK Card Washington – Today, the Club for Growth released its 2007 Senate RePORK Card. The Club for Growth compiles scorecards on all senators’ votes. Throughout 2007 the scores were compiled on fifteen anti-pork amendments. These amendments were offered by the two greatest Porkbusters, Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim DeMint (R-SC). With few exceptions, these are men and women who put winning their next election far ahead of the good of the American people. By examining the Club for Growth’s Senate RePORK Card, you will learn the true character of most of these men. Some significant numbers: Only three senators received a perfect score of 100% (and were present for a majority of the votes): Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), and Richard Burr (R-NC). The only senator receiving a 0% was Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) who voted against all 10 anti-pork amendments he was present for. The average Republican score was 59%. The average Democratic score was 12%. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the number of pork projects in the spending bills so far is 6,651 in the House and 4,700 in the Senate. Typically lawmakers add many more earmarks when they join each other in conference. If they follow their normal pattern this year they will not only break their pledge to rein in pork, they might break their record number of earmarks. June 11, 2007 Rasmussen Poll Poll: 56% Believe Most Congressmen Willing to Sell Their Vote Friday, June 08, 2007 Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans believe that most members of Congress are willing to sell their vote for either cash or a campaign contribution. That view is held by 60% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats, and 59% of those not affiliated with either major party. From a generational perspective, those over 65 are a bit more trusting than younger adults, but even 41% of the nation’s senior citizens believe most Congressman are willing to sell their vote. Congressional Ratings The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 16% believe most Congressional votes are not for sale. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that 49% of voters would consider voting for a third-party Congressional candidate. An ongoing tracking study has found that the number of people identifying with either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is declining. Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans believe a campaign contribution of $10,000 or less is needed to influence a Congressman or a Governor. Another 23% say it would take a $50,000 contribution. Twenty-one percent (21%) say $100,000 or more while 33% are not sure. Perhaps because it’s not much of a surprise, just 45% of Americans are following news about the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson somewhat or very closely. Fifty-two percent (52%) are not. Not surprisingly, 66% of Americans continue to favor term limits for Members of Congress. Just 19% are opposed. This reform remains popular among all demographic groups except elected officials and their staff. By a narrow 39% to 34% margin, Americans believe that used-car salesmen are more trustworthy than Members of Congress. Democrats, by a 36% to 31% margin, say Members of Congress are more trustworthy. Republicans, by a 44% to 36% margin, place more faith in used-car salesman. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 42% say used-car salesmen are more trustworthy while 30% would rather trust a Member of Congress. Other surveys have shown that 58% of voters believe that it would be good for the United States to have a truly competitive Third Party. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for Michael Bloomberg if he runs for President as an independent candidate. Public disenchantment with politicians is nothing new, but the recent debate over immigration showed an unusually wide gap between the views of the voters and the views on Capitol Hill. Rasmussen Reports provides regular updates on public attitudes on current events and other topics. The latest updates can be found on the Rasmussen Reports home page. Congressional Ratings Rasmussen Reports also regularly tracks attitudes about the War on Terror and Congress. The President’s Job Approval is updated daily and the Generic Congressional Ballot is updated monthly. Election 2008 coverage includes a weekly update of the Democratic and Republican Presidential nominating contests and continuous updates on general election match-ups, favorability ratings, and ideological perceptions for all Democratic and Republican candidates. Rasmussen Reports also provides continuously updated ratings for Members of Congress, Other Political Figures, and Journalists. Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information. The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election. Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, “One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, “In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.” Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome. During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. This national telephone survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted by Rasmussen Reports June 6-7, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. ### Congressional Ratings The Congressional Ratings presented here will show how your Senators and U.S. House members, worry about spending your hard earned dollars. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) rates every Senator and every House member. The Senate vote is shown here, the House vote is shown on a separate page. The following data applies to the first session (first year of 2005-2006 session). Below are the Senators with the BEST ratings for saving your tax dollars and the Senators with the Worst ratings or the biggest spenders. The Senate voted on 24 bills. These bills were either a good use of your tax dollars (your daily labor) or conversely, had serious pork in them to favor certain interest groups maybe even welfare groups. If a Senator voted favorably on all 24 votes, CAGW would give him a score of 100%. To arrive at each Senator’s score, divide the total number of votes (24) into the number of favorable votes i.e., favorable to saving your tax dollars. Congressional Ratings In these Congressional Ratings, the best rating in the Senate went to Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona with a score of 100%. Senator Kyle voted the right way, 24 out of 24 times so, naturally he had a score of 100%. Senator Coburn of Oklahoma voted favorably 23 out of 24 times, therefore his score 23.000 / 24= 96% . Seven Democratic Senators had a score of 4 (four), with several others close behind. To receive a 4 a Senator had to vote unfavorably to the taxpayer in 23 out of 24 votes.
Congressional Ratings To Senate Scorecard: Citizens Against Government Waste
|
