« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Heritage Action’s Legislative Scorecard

Not all tea is created equal

Well, the first comprehensive conservative report card of Congress is out, and we can now determine which members of the “Tea Party Congress” drink a hardcore brew.

Today, Heritage Action for America released their legislative scorecard for the pre-recess 1st session of the 112th Congress.  Unlike most other scorecards, this one was designed to separate the men from the boys.  Most traditional scorecards, and most prominently, the ACU annual report, tend to focus primarily on those votes which fundamentally divide the two parties.  They fail to probe some of the more courageous conservative votes against party leadership.

To that end, any Republican who is even minimally conservative is expected to score at or near 100%.  After all, at a minimum, any Republican should oppose Obamacare, vote down tax increases, and support the Republican annual budget.  This is how the likes of McCain, Graham, and Chambliss have been able to achieve stellar scores.  Except for those like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Dick Lugar, most Republicans will vote with their party on the final roll call of major bills.  In fact, anyone who is not on the list of 100% is someone who has voted with the Democrats in contravention to fundamental Republican values.  A perfect ACU score should be the floor, not the ceiling, for a conservative voting record.

The Heritage Action scorecard digs much deeper.

In just the first seven months of the legislative session, they scored 30 votes in the House and 19 in the Senate, many of which dealt with obscure amendments that sought to cut spending beyond the comfort zone of GOP leaders.  These votes encompass all three facets of conservatism; fiscal, social, and national defense.  Obviously, the Senate had much fewer votes because Harry Reid has made this the most unproductive session in history.  However, the Senate did vote on confirmation of some of Obama’s radical judges.  These votes were uniquely scored in this report card.

Additionally, Heritage Action scored four co-sponsorships in the Senate and five in the House, each worth only one point.  Thus, even if a senator voted the right way on every issue, he could only score a 96%, unless he co-sponsored the four highlighted bills.  This is why Jim DeMint, the highest scorer, only received a 99%.

Caveats

As you comb through the scorecard to examine the voting records of various members of Congress, it is important to keep in mind the following caveats:

1) It is impossible to offer an inviolably objective numerical score for a voting record – something that is inherently very subjective.  There are all sorts of reasons for voting a certain way.  This scorecard, unlike most others, actually scores a no vote on Republican leadership-backed bills that failed to cut enough spending, or were simply lousy deals.  However, many ultra-liberal Democrats opposed these bills because they supposedly cut too much.  For example; while conservatives opposed John Boehner’s debt deal with Obama, ultra-liberals like Bernie Sanders also voted no because they felt the cuts were too draconian.  As such, paradoxically, Bernie Sanders and a few others have higher scores than other Democrats.  Also, some conservatives opposed Cut, Cap, and Balance for conservative reasons; nevertheless, engendering a strike against their overall score.  Ron Paul obviously suffered the most from this, as well as Michele Bachmann.

2) Only 13 Senators and 27 Representatives received scores above 85%.  This scorecard is more than just a measure of someone’s personal belief in conservatism; it is a measure of how much temerity a member has to implement his/her beliefs, even if it elicits consternation from their own leadership.  There were also some off-the-beaten-path issues that were scored, such as the patent reform bill.  Jim Jordan voted for the bill, precluding him from a near-perfect score.  Surely, he was concerned about some of the provisions, but he felt that after some modifications were made, it was no longer a hill to die on.  Many good conservatives, who agree on ideology, will often exhibit diverging views on strategy.

Accordingly, we should applaud those who scored above 80% or so, but not necessarily impugn anyone and everyone who scores lower.  Not only did Heritage Action score the final debt deal, they even scored a no vote on the preliminary Boehner deal, which contained a Balanced Budget Amendment as a pre-condition for the second tranche of the debt limit increase (but not for the first $1 trillion increase, in violation of the Cut, Cap, Balance pledge).  While both votes washed out such luminaries as Allen West, Mike Pence and Marsha Blackburn, the preliminary vote washed out even opponents of the deal, such as Jeff Flake, Louie Gohmert, and Andy Harris.  Only 66 Republicans opposed the final deal, while just 22 voted against the bill with the BBA.

As Erick said at the time, anyone who thinks Allen West is a RINO (he scored a 74%), belongs in a mental ward; nonetheless, we should highlight those who stood up to leadership in order to advance conservatism.

3) You should take a more unforgiving approach to the Senate scores.  First, the Senate is more decentralized, making it easier for an individual member to oppose leadership.  Second, many of the House votes stem from the debt deal, the FY 2011 continuing resolution, and amendments to appropriations bills.  All of them were either babies of John Boehner, Republican leaders, and/or the House-passed budget.  It took a lot of courage to vote against those bills (or for additional cuts) – a position that was widely viewed as a snub of leadership.  The same cannot be said about the Senate.  In other words, a 75% score in the House is a lot stronger than a 75% in the Senate.  There is really no reason for a Republican senator to score below an 85%.

Notable Observations

Here are some quick tidbits from the scorecard:

  • South Carolina has the best delegation, with all Republicans scoring above 85%, except for Lindsey Graham.
  • Click on this link to view the top performers.
  • The average GOP score in the Senate was 75%; the average in the House was 67%.  Again, this does not indicate that the Senate is more conservative.  Quite the contrary, as noted above.
  • Republican leadership:  Most of House leadership scored identical votes.  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy scored a 60%, Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam- 63%, Conference Vice-Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers 62%.  Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling was the bright spot, scoring 84%, but for him, that was a bit disappointing.  Among the leaders of the Freshman members, Austin Scott (GA) scored a 80%, while Kristi Noem got a dismal 51%.  On the Senate side, Minority Leader McConnell scored a 72%, Minority Whip Jon Kyl scored a 77%, Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander scored 67%, and Conference Vice-Chair John Barrasso scored a 78%.
  • The highest-scoring Democrat was Oklahoma’s Rep. Dan Boren (37%).  The lowest-scoring House Republican was David Reichert (WA- 30%.
  • The lowest achievers in the Senate were Lisa Murkowski (40%), Susan Collins (45%), and Olympia Snowe (51%).  The strongest Democrat was Ben Nelson, checking in at 25% – pathetic.

What to take out from the report

In conclusion, this scorecard should serve as an impetus to more transparency and accountability from our Republican members of Congress, who run as conservatives, but all too often, fail to deliver on their promises.  This report is not perfect, as the devil is always in the details –far beyond a top-line number.  However, it will hopefully change the course of traditional legislative scoring, and motivate rank-and-file conservatives to stand up against vapid leadership.

Here is a list of the ‘top conservatives’ from National Journal and the ACU for 2010 (they don’t have early 2011 reports), along with their composite conservative scores.  Check out this link for the description of ACU’s scorecard and this link for National Journal’s methodology.

National Journal

1. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) 89.7
1. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) 89.7
1. John Cornyn (R-Texas) 89.7
1. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) 89.7
1. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) 89.7
1. John McCain (R-Ariz.) 89.7
1. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) 89.7
1. John Thune (R-S.D.) 89.7
9. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) 87.3
10.Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) 86.8

American Conservative Union

12 Senators Scored a perfect 100.

John Barrasso, Sam Brownback, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Jim DeMint, Orrin Hatch, John McCain, James Risch, Jeff Sessions, John Thune.

Clearly, while Heritage’s scorecard might be kind of tough, these scorecards are irrelevant.

What are your ideas for legislative scoring?

 

COMMENTS

  • gawken

    Going to dig down into the weeds later tonite, hopefully.

    One thing..you mentioned Kristi Noem, and I just realized that over the last several months, she’s pretty much disappeared below the political radar. Was she perhaps the wrong choice for the much coveted freshman slot in the GOP House leadership? Just a pretty face?

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      I’d have to say yes.

  • blownawayin5

    any conservative “scorecard” that gives John McCain a perfect 100 loses ALL credibility in my book…. IMHO ANY senator who joins a “gang” gets a ZERO for being a traitor to the conservative cause.

  • rightwingmom52

    is how well they perform going forward now that it’s out there, what differences occur in election years, and how their attempts to explain certain votes and/or patterns.

    I’m planing on sending copies of the scorecards for my senators, my rep and those I supported in other areas of the state to them and wait for the excuses.

    • edintexas

      Jeb Hensarling and John Cornyn both scored 84, and what can I say about Kay Bailey – she’s retiring says it best. Still, 76% isn’t so shabby for the more “liberal” of our Senators.

  • YnotNOW

    I agree that Heritage’s scoring method makes it difficult for a conservative to score high, and that reasons for individual votes often mean more than the raw percentage numbers. My rep (Mike Coffman, R-CO-6) is solid conservative, but only 81% per Heritage. Yet most of the votes (not all) I give him a pass for, because he had his reasons to go along with “Leadership” for the less-bad compromise that Heritage thinks we could have done better.

    I do like the addition of score for co-sponsorship, because then we are not just rating for “going along with conservative friends” but actual LEADERSHIP.

    Make sure you read through the specifics, rather than quote single numbers!

  • pfallavollita

    Pleased that my state performed so well.

    • mikeymike143

      to have jim demint is a senator. he is my favorite senator!!! now on the other hand, we(tea party) are going to primary the hell out of graham in 2014. just like we are doing to lugar in indiana.

      • runner12

        My state does not do to shabby in that department with Coburn and Inhoffe, but they are still no Sen. DeMint.

        We could really use a few SC style House Members right now.

        • YnotNOW

          I can do you two better – Colorado has Udall (5%) and Bennet (5%) – and NEITHER is up for vote in 2012. Arrrgh!

          • runner12

            But as red as my state is we can do better in the House.

          • acat

            Even our “good” Senator, Mark Kirk (R-ish), comes in at 60%, so .. yeah.

            Illinois is a mess.

            Mew

      • pfallavollita

        A couple days ago Graham was quoted calling for more foreign aid. He’s truly a disaster…we need a real conservative to primary him..

  • runner12

    Our two Senators from my state scored very well. More work is needed in the House, though.

    • runner12

      Here are the numbers:

      Inhoffe- 94%
      Coburn- 87%
      Lankford- 77%
      Cole- 55%
      Lucas- 52%
      Sullivan- 70%
      Boren (D)- 37%

      *Boren is not running for re-election.

  • Darin_H

    John Mica (my rep) – he’s conservative, but a porker – 69%
    Bill Nelson (hopefully losing in 2012) 10%
    Marco Rubio! 93%

  • wonkish1

    High Five!!

  • snowshooze

    In Alaska… But then I looked at Hawaii and realized it could be worse…
    Hey, thanks for putting this up.

    • acat

      (dumping toxic waste .. another fine Chicago tradition)

  • SirGladiator

    Noem is going to be a major candidate for VP next year, and maybe President in the years to come, but not if she moves to the left. 51 percent, thats just unbelievably awful, she is going to have to do a lot better than that if she wants to earn the support of Conservatives across America. Good to see our candidates for President getting very high marks, and Rubio as well, certainly he’s looking a lot better than Noem right now for Running Mate. Thank you to the Diarist for this informative and detailed information!

  • syndee1776

    All five Rep. from SC are standing true,

  • jimmyneutron

    First, I don’t remember where (perhaps National Review?) but I remember reading that, when the time came to vote on the “compromise” debt ceiling increase several weeks ago there were several republican representatives, including some from SC, who did not vote until the last possible moment. The reason given was that they were waiting to make sure it would pass and that their YES votes were not required, which freed them up to vote NO.

    Tricks like that make it very hard to score anyone’s vote unless they are very emphatic about their position and even then it might be tough to know.

    With that being said, I do like this method of ranking conservatism over others I have seen. It is easy to sound like a conservative on the campaign trail and in front of the media and on some of the big issues, but it is when push comes to shove that the real conservatives stand out, at least IMHO. We need to avoid the ‘rock star’ mentality and attempt to look beyond appearances to find out what these people really are regarding political identity. Do they live and breath conservatism because it is at the core of their being or is conservatism something they put on because it is politically convenient? Do they vote conservative when poeple may be watching but then revert to form on other votes, simply because they lack the core conservative values?

    I don’t know much about rep West and I have not put him on a pedestal any higher than any other politician – in other words I expect him to do the right thing consistently. I know he talks a good talk and says the right words, but that simply isn’t enough anymore. If he doesn’t have the strength of character to vote the right way on really important issues then of what use is he – of what use are any of those people in that regard???

    Do not take this as an attack on West. It is merely an observation that our situation is indeed critical and we need people in Washington who recongnize that, are willing to fight tooth and nail to do the right things and who will stand up to party leadership when they try to give up the farm and ram though horrible deals like the debt ceiling increase.

    Why is this important, besides the obvious? The next president is going to have to almost perform a miricle to turn things around in DC such that we avoid financial armageddon and third world status. That is not going to be popular or easy – sometimes miracles take a lot of hard work. That person will be very unpopular and will have to fight all the time to get changes made and to communicate why those changes are important and what those changes will accomplish to at least 51% of the voting public. Thus, that persons inner conservative compass will have to exist and be true so that they know what changes are needed and so that they have the strength of character to push them though – to start draining the swamp if you will.

    I don’t know who that person will be – it may be Bachmann or Perry or someone as yet unknown. However, I do know that we dare not elect another Bush – if we elect someone who has faith in federal gov’t to solve our problems, someone who sees the gov’t as the solution instead of part of the problem, then we are probably doomed.

    Read Mark Steyn’s new book – unless we pick the right people and hold their feet to the fire – well, it will get a whole lot uglier.

  • gunslingr45

    Carson at 10% can this be true? Why its higher than I thought it would be. Can’t be right cos he’s as far left as they can go!

  • lomein

    Any “conservative” scorecard that scores truly conservative Members of the House at below 80%, maybe isn’t scoring “conservative” issues very well.

    So I dug into the bills and accompanying votes that Heritage Action scored, to find out how that might have happened. I figured there must be a problem with either (a) what specific votes are being scored, (b) how those votes are being scored, or (c) a combination of both. I mean, it seemed obvious that some of the Members who scored below “80″ has voted more consistently conservative than, for example, the Member who scored “97″ — unless the criteria for a “conservative vote” has changed to mean something different than, say, “faithful to the Constitution”.

    Here are just a few of the more problematic votes that I saw which Heritage scored:

    HR 1167 – sets an amount that Congress would be allowed to allocate for welfare spending. However, the Constitution enumerates no power for the Congress to spend money on welfare at all. The conservative, Constitutional vote should be NO.

    HR 750 – Would allow the President or any federal agency head to enact job-killing global warming regulations via Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, as long as certain conditions specified in the bill were met. However, the Constitution enumerates no power for the Congress or the Executive Branch to enact such laws or regulations at all. The conservative, Constitutional vote should be NO.

    HR 471 (vote #204 – on passage) – Would authorize funding for school improvement for D.C. public schools and public charter schools. However, the Constitution enumerates no power for the Congress or the Executive Branch to spend public money on education at all. The conservative, Constitutional vote should be NO.

    H CON RES 34 (vote #277) – Budget offered by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Ryan’s budget would add trillions of dollars to the national debt and would run deficits for years to come, rather than cut spending immediately before over-spending causes a catastrophic crash of the Dollar. The “cuts” proposed were not really cuts at all, but simply less than the proposed spending under Obama. Therefore, the conservative vote should be NO.

    HR 5136 (vote #361) – An amendment offered to strike the section of the bill that declared America is at war with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and others. The section would effectively declare a state of permanent war against unnamed Taliban and al Qaeda operatives, and would grant President Obama – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere with no need for Congressional approval. The Constitution grants the power “to declare War” ONLY to the Congress. Therefore, the conservative, Constitutional vote should be YES.

    HR 5136 (vote #369) – An amendment to reduce authorization for ground-based midcourse missile defense systems – systems which have flunked 7 of 15 trials, yet remain exempted from normal Pentagon oversight and have been spared the cuts Congress is rightfully demanding in other areas of federal spending. Wasting more taxpayer money on midcourse missile defense is not a sensible solution to any post-Cold War alleged threat, since even the CIA has said that North Korea and Iran could field decoys and countermeasures by the time they flight test their missiles. Therefore, the conservative vote should be YES.

    HR 2560 (vote #606) – the final version of the “Cut Cap & Balance Act” would add $2.4 trillion of new debt to our gargantuan $14.4 trillion debt. CCB would also only cut $111 billion from this year’s budget, allowing a deficit of nearly $1.5 trillion. That’s a far cry from the original CCB Pledge’s call for “substantial” cuts. Therefore, the conservative vote should be NO.

    There were Members who voted correctly on some or all of these, with strong conservative and Constitutional votes, which one would think would present them as the most conservative Members of the House. However, the Heritage scorecard counted each of those correct votes against them, resulting in those under-80% ratings. Thus, the reason for what I wrote: Any “conservative” scorecard that scores truly conservative Members of the House at below 80%, maybe isn’t scoring “conservative” issues very well.

    I do want to thank Heritage for their hard work for the conservative movement. I simply have disagreements with aspects of this particular project.

  • Pingback: Conservative/Tea Party/Insurgent Voter Guide « Enjoyment and Contemplation