Comments on: Club Sees Red

By: Eyespy

Eyespy — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:09:27 +0000

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.

By: baker

baker — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:33:49 +0000

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

Eyespy — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:24:28 +0000

http://www.scclubforgrowth.com/legislative/voting_records.asp

By: sid

sid — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:16:15 +0000

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: sid

sid — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:50:52 +0000

Where can I find the full scorecard? The links here simply list the assigned grade. Or am I missing something?

By: Eyespy

Eyespy — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:25:09 +0000

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

sid — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:43:21 +0000

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: rick

rick — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:23:57 +0000

JJJ…Why, are you looking to attract Californians? “The land of the breakfast cereal”….

By: John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt

John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:35:46 +0000

More festivals paid for with your tax dollars! How about a dandelion festival? Or maybe the Pistachio and other assorted nuts Festival?

By: F.A. Hayek

F.A. Hayek — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:18:27 +0000

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.