Club Sees Red
Whether red ink or straight-up “Reds,” a recently-released fiscal report card for South Carolina lawmakers has turned up a lot of both.
Issued this week by the S.C. Club for Growth, only six state lawmakers (out of 170) received “A+” grades for their votes to protect the taxpayers during the 2007-08 session. On the other hand, nearly half of the entire legislature – 81 lawmakers in total – received “F” grades.
Oh, and did we mention this is supposed to be a “Republican” legislature?
Anyway, you can check out the House and Senate scorecards to see how your lawmaker fared, but chances are the answer to that question is “not too damn good.”
Comments
By John Vierdsen on October 16th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Vierdsen hopes Randy Page gave you a reach-around.
By Toyota Kawaski on October 16th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Its been a while since yall sucked eggs with randy page and his gang of Yankees.Great in-site keep spooning Randy
By NoMoRINOs on October 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I don’t see how anyone could ever believe the so-called legislative “leadership” when they say they are Republicans. These scorecards say something completely different- the issues and votes are right there on the page, for all to see. Further, a legislator can’t dispute a roll call vote.
I’m glad regular people are finally realizing our legislature is completely out of touch with reality. You may not like Gov. Sanford and his friends, but they’ve come to the proverbial knife fight that is Columbia armed with a sniper rifle. I wouldn’t want to be next. Kudos to them.
By Fan of the General Assembly on October 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Go boys go! Did anyone notice nearly the entire house “leadership” FAILED…..not only did they fail the club for growth’s little score card but they FAILED the people that put them in “power.” wow.
President Hussein Obama, along with the Comrades in the House and Senate of this state, will continue to run us further and further in the ground.
Watch next week…..as the leadership run their plan for “cuts” down the throats of every other house member. Bobby and Hugh will no doubt return to their “force the hand” tactics and personal threats against rank-and-file lawmakers…….These are the same jokers that put us in this mess to begin with.
Yet the rank-and-file members wont ban together for “reform” out of fear of retribution……COME ON PEOPLE…..WAKE UP.
By Rational on October 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ok lets look at this from a rational standpoint. Every “republican” that currently sits in the General Assembly claims on the stump to be for “lower taxes” “less spending” “less government”….the typical jargon you would expect to hear from politicians. you see….stereotypes are largely based on reality….and well the stereotype attached to SC politicians is that they are liars and they cannot be trusted. Sadly….in large measure this proves to be true for our state.
Nearly ALL of the House leadership failed…..including my boss.
If we as voters cannot look at the facts presented in this report and make an informed decision about our lawmakers then we are just as much a collective failure as the politicians themselves are…..and likewise we deserve to continue to be douped.
By F.A. Hayek on October 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I think it’s great that they only gave six lawmakers an A+ rating.
This just shows me that Club for Growth actually cares about their issues, and is objective about it.
It’s good to see that they’re not just another arm of the Republican Party — like the American Conservative Union, The “Heretic” Foundation, National Right to Life or the National Rifle Association — all organizations that grade politicians more by the letter by their name then their actual voting records.
By John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt on October 16th, 2008 at 10:35 am
More festivals paid for with your tax dollars! How about a dandelion festival? Or maybe the Pistachio and other assorted nuts Festival?
By rick on October 16th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
JJJ…Why, are you looking to attract Californians? “The land of the breakfast cereal”….
By sid on October 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
How accurate can these ratings be if only 5% of passed bills received recorded votes, acording to the Club? Which votes were actually considered/recorded/graded, and which were not? Sounds like the sample may be a little small to really know for sure.
By Eyespy on October 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
sid,
If you’ll look at the full scorecard it’s pretty damning. The scorecard does a good job over sorting out the votes in critical areas and explaining why the votes were chosen. My dad used to say “gotta go with what you have” and this is what we have for our current batch of legislators.
By sid on October 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Where can I find the full scorecard? The links here simply list the assigned grade. Or am I missing something?
By sid on October 16th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Found it. I wouldn’t necessarily agree the full scorecard does a good job of explaining the positions, though. It merely states what is the “pro-growth” vote. Not much as to why. Some of the votes seem a little confusing. Why is it a “pro-growth” vote to want the Governor to appoint various positions, rather than have them elected? What if a Governor who is not “pro-growth” is elected? Won’t he appoint people to these positions that are also not “pro-growth”? How is having the Governor and Lt. Governor run on the same ticket a “pro-growth” vote? Wouldn’t it be better to have a “pro-growth” Lt. Governor elected if a Governor who is not “pro-growth” is elected? And how is it achieveing smaller government by creating a new government department (Department of Administration). I can probably agree with the votes on budgetary issues being scored as they were scored, but many other votes don’t seem quite as applicable.
By Eyespy on October 16th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
http://www.scclubforgrowth.com/legislative/voting_records.asp
By baker on October 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Hey — I got to agree with my dude Sid here.
These kinds of “report cards” tend simplify the issues (in not-so-good ways) and emphasize labels. It seems to me that a legislator’s record is, in most cases, a much more nuanced deal…..the issues, too.
I would argue the same thing about the SCEA’s “report card.” I think it dumbs down the truly complex discussion about education in our state.
By Eyespy on October 17th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I would say the real “nuance” is that so many so-called fiscally conservative legislators say one thing at home and vote another way behind the scenes (or with voice votes) in Columbia.
Republicans (at least, the real ones) believe that cutting taxes and reducing government spending leaves more money in the “real” economy- over time, this creates a larger tax base and eventually increased government revenues that match inflation or at least the growth in personal wages.
Our legislature, led by Republicans, has never espoused this point of view- I’ve repeatedly heard (in committee meetings) Cooper and Leatherman say “if we hadn’t cut so and so tax last year we wouldn’t be in this budget shortfall mess.”
That’s exactly what Barack Obama is arguing for at the federal level- never mind that if I have to pay higher taxes, I’m less likely to invest in long term projects or hire a new employee.
My point is that too many politicians intentionally are hiding their beliefs with the nuance you mentioned- and that’s why we need even more accountability from them. Scorecards like these are a good start- but are not a panacea.