Rates Congress Database
Search
NTU's Ratings Database -- Scores from 1992-2003 are available.
Send comments to: NTU.
Current Rating:
2003 - Ratings for the 1st Session of the 108th Congress (PDF)
Read the press
release
See Winners of NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award: House
Winners | Senate
Winners
Previous Ratings:
View the Ratings for the 107th Congress--2nd Session, 2002 (PDF)
See Winners of NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award: House
Winners | Senate
Winners
View the Ratings for the 107th Congress--1st Session, 2001(PDF)
See Winners of NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award: House
Winners | Senate
Winners
View the Ratings for the 106th Congress--2nd Session, 2000 (PDF)
See Winners of NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award: House
Winners | Senate
Winners
View the Ratings for the 106th Congress--1st Session, 1999 (PDF)
See Winners of NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award: House
Winners | Senate
Winners
View the Ratings for the 105th Congress--2nd Session, 1998 (PDF)
View the Ratings for the 105th Congress--1st Session, 1997 (PDF)
View the Ratings for the 104th Congress--2nd Session, 1996 (PDF)
View the Ratings for the 104th Congress--1st Session, 1995 (PDF)
Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives
and Senators on their actual votes--every vote that affects
taxes, spending, and debt. Unlike most organizations that publish ratings,
we refuse to play the "rating game" of focusing on only a handful of congressional
votes on selected issues. The NTU voting study is the fairest and most
accurate guide available on congressional spending. It is a completely
unbiased accounting of votes.
NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each
vote's effect on federal spending.
NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All members of Congress are treated
the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is
the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based
on the Taxpayer Score.
Taxpayer Score
The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending
and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because
it means a member of Congress voted to spend less money.
The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone
to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the
multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score
does not mean that the member of Congress was opposed to all spending
or all programs. High-scoring members have indicated that they would vote
for many programs if the amount of spending were lower or if the budget
were balanced. A member who wants to increase spending on some programs
can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other
programs. A zero score would indicate that the member of Congress approved
every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform.
NTU believes a score qualifying for a grade of "A" indicates the member
is one of the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies.
We are pleased to give these members of Congress our "Taxpayers' Friend
Award."
A score qualifying for a grade of "B" represents a "good" voting record
on controlling spending and taxes. A "B" grade indicates that the member
voted for taxpayers most of the time, but slightly less than those who
attained the grade of "A."
A score qualifying for a grade of "C" represents a minimally acceptable
voting record on controlling taxes and spending. To qualify for a grade
of "C" a member must have a Taxpayer Score of at least 50 percent. While
such a score may be "satisfactory," there is clearly room for improvement.
We also issue pluses and minuses for the grades of "B" and "C"
in order to better recognize the differences in the voting records of
members with these grades.
A score qualifying for a grade of "D" indicates the member has a "poor"
voting record on controlling taxes and spending.
A score significantly below average qualifies for a grade of "F." This
failing grade places the member into the "Big Spender" category.
Computation
NTU's federal budget experts assigned a weight to each vote ranging
from 1 to 100. A low weight was assigned to votes that had relatively
little
effect on the size of the federal budget, while a high weight was assigned
to votes with the most significant effect on federal spending.
Weights were based solely on the relative effect of each vote on the
total amount of federal spending. Consideration was given to the political
effect of a vote on the future federal spending, even though relatively
little spending might be immediately at issue. A vote with average importance
should have a weight close to 10.
Scores were computed by dividing the weighted total of votes cast against
higher spending (or taxes or for lower spending or taxes), by the weighted
total number of spending and tax issues on which the member of Congress
voted. Average scores for each state were also computed using the weighted
total of votes cast by each state delegation.
In computing these scores, we included only those votes on which the
member actually voted for or against a bill, resolution, or amendment.
Paired votes, announced positions, and absences were excluded. Because
some members were absent frequently (or otherwise failed to vote yes or
no), their scores, based on relatively few votes, may not accurately reflect
spending attitudes. The members falling into this category are noted.
|
