Skip to comments.The 22 most conservative members of the U.S. Senate
Posted on 07/24/2012 2:52:54 PM PDT by FL2012
According to the American Conservative Union, the following 22 senators compiled the most conservative voting records in 2011. These scores are based on 20 separate votes that were taken by the U.S. Senate in 2011. A score of 100.00 indicates that the senator voted in favor of the conservative position in each of these 20 votes (in a few instances, the senator did not cast a vote).
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I don’t know what THEIR criteria is specifically, but they have an enormous blind sport when it comes to the invasion from the South. Rubio is an illegal-supporting racist.
Deduct 35 “conservative” points
Utah Republican Orrin Hatch -
Orrin Hatch is on the list? Wow! if he is considered conservation our nation is in deep trouble.
Hatch has a moderate record, but after seeing what happened to Bob Bennett a few years ago, Hatch has tacked far to the right.
Also, my favorite blind sport is skeet shooting while ski-jumping. It's dangerous to watch, but a real hoot.
You are correct. The ACU is a RINO outfit when it comes to immigration. They are bought and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce.
I didn’t know there were 22........or 12..........or 2............
The ACU decides what 20 votes will be analyzed. Therein lies the bias and ability to control who gets what marks.
Boozman has come out in favor of S. 1832, the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, which will impose sales taxes on Internet transactions, so take him out of the conservative pantheon.
Those in love with Rubio will soon find out that he will support amnesty.
This information was complied by The American Conservative Union.
A score of 100 indicates that the senator voted in favor of the conservative position in each of these 20 votes (in a few instances, the senator did not cast a vote).
Nine senators received a perfect score of 100 from the American Conservative Union.
Those senators are: Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, David Vitter, Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Orrin Hatch, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson.
Four of these nine (Rubio, Paul, Lee, and Johnson) are new senators who were first elected in 2010.
Another three (Vitter, Coburn, and DeMint) were reelected in 2010.
Only one, Orrin Hatch, is up for reelection in 2012.
Florida Republican Marco Rubio - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 100.00) [elected in 2010]
Kentucky Republican Rand Paul - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 100.00) [elected in 2010]
Louisiana Republican David Vitter - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 94.38) [reelected in 2010]
Oklahoma Republican Jim Inhofe - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 97.68)
Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 98.31) [reelected in 2010]
South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 98.77) [reelected in 2010]
Utah Republican Orrin Hatch - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 89.77) [up for reelection in 2012]
Utah Republican Mike Lee - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 100.00) [elected in 2010]
Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 100.00) [elected in 2010]
Idaho Republican Mike Crapo - Score of 95.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 92.82) [reelected in 2010]
Idaho Republican Jim Risch - Score of 95.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 97.00)
New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte - Score of 95.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 95.00) [elected in 2010]
North Carolina Republican Richard Burr - Score of 94.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 91.24) [reelected in 2010]
Nevada Republican Dean Heller - Score of 92.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 89.60) [appointed to his seat in 2011 after the resignation of Republican John Ensign; up for election in 2012]
Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions - Score of 90.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 95.07)
Alabama Republican Richard Shelby - Score of 90.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 76.49) [reelected in 2010]
Arizona Republican Jon Kyl - Score of 90.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 96.45) [retiring after 2012]
Arkansas Republican John Boozman - Score of 90.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 93.00) [elected in 2010]
Indiana Republican Dan Coats - Score of 90.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 90.00) [elected in 2010]
Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley - Score of 90.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 83.79) [reelected in 2010]
Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey - Score of 90.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 96.00) [elected in 2010]
Texas Republican John Cornyn - Score of 90.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 93.56)
He was for reaching across the isle in cooperation and open to increased taxes... YESTERDAY! There was an article on FR yesterday. I do not have a link.
Do you think they show bias towards certain types of politicians? Are they legit?
They gave Demint a 100 and I like the heck out of him.
Boehner and Cantor are blocking all immigration legislation from coming to the floor. For example, Lamar Smith would like to get a vote on E-verify legislation but Boehner and Cantor will not allow it.
Nothing wrong with him tacking far to the right as long as conservatives hold his feet to the fire. He is at leaqsat voting the way his electorate wants him to
You’ve got that right. That list is full of 100 score amnesty lovers and other RINOs. Cornyn, Rubio, Hatch, Kyl to mention a few.
Booby Hatch has already started that mess again? He did not even wait to get re-elected.
What? No Grahamnesty or McCain?
Its a relative thing. Hatch is “conservative” compared to Reid, which ain’t saying much.
Naturally, neither of my Senators, Chambliss and Isakson, make the list.
The concept of the marketplace fairness act is conservative — that people should pay the taxes rightly due under law.
Under current law, it is nearly impossible for states to enforce their rightfully passed sales and use taxes, because they simply don’t have a method of knowing how much a person owes.
And unfortunately, in the last 30 years or so, Americans have become way too comfortable with the idea that, if they can’t get caught, they can break any laws they want. The same mentality that makes people loot stores when a riot breaks out, knowing the police can’t stop them, also causes otherwise law-abiding people to cheat on their state taxes year after year, simply because they won’t get caught.
Under our constitution, interstate commerce is the proper perview of the federal government. And unlike the takeover of our health care system, the regulation of actual commerce that occurs between the states was explicitly granted to congress.
In order to both help the individual states to collect the taxes that are legally and rightfully due, and to simplify the process of paying those taxes for the citizens, the federal government needs to pass a law allowing some sort of program which will provide interstate tax collection.
This is not a new tax. This is enforcement of an existing tax, controlled by the states, so that those citizens who obey the law are not provided an additional tax burden supporting other citizens who break the law, cheat on their taxes, and laugh about it.
Whether a state has too high of a sales tax against it’s residents is a perfectly fine argument to have regarding conservative policies. But traditionally, conservatives have held that, once a law is passed, government should evenly and fairly enforce that law.
But as it stands now, states can enforce their sales tax only when their citizens buy stuff in the state, or from online companies who also do business in the state. That skewing of the tax code in favor of certain actions over other actions is a decidedly NON-conservative outcome. Government shouldn’t pick winners and losers, nor should tax policy drive business policy. The current sales tax situation does both, and a rational federal policy could correct that imbalance and restore tax fairness for all the citizens of the country.
Those of us who follow our moral obligation to pay our taxes look forward to the day when those who are currently laugh at us while they commit tax fraud will no longer be able to do so with impunity.
The "Marketplace Fairness Act" also isn't fair. Internet customers who already have to pay shipping charges will now have to be paying a tax as well, so this skews the business environment in favor of brick-and-mortar enterprises.
i dont believe ACU since Mccain has a good rating , the must score hundreds of little votes very high then one big one such as a carbon tax as small
boozeman is my senator, I was trying to remember any bad votes but i knew there had to be, when he was in the house he voted for TARP. and tim griffin, my rep voted for cispa and ndaa he will not get my vote we have a libertarian running for his spot now
well Demint and Paul earn their 100. heck if they broadened their scoring they would still get 100
so you overlooked that he is onboard for internet taxes.
Actually, in every state which has a sales tax, residents who purchase things out-of-state by mail have to pay the equivalent sales tax.
And if they buy things in stores in other states, and bring them back into their home states, and the tax they paid was less than what they would owe in their home states, they have to pay the difference.
Having companies in a state collect the sales tax for the state is an enforcement mechanism, just as having your employer withhold your income tax.
By the argument made by those who oppose having to pay their sales tax on out-of-state purchases, if your employer didn't withhold your income tax, it would be OK if you didn't pay income tax at all.
Further, most dicussion glosses over the details. Two people go online to purchase a book. One buys from Amazon, one from Barnes and Noble. The first doesn't have their sales tax collected, the second does. Unless the 1st lives in one of 4 states, in which case they have their sales tax collected.
IN what conservative circle would having two people who live in the same place buying the same item over the same internet but paying different tax be considered "reasonable"?
The system as designed is a perfect example of bad government policy -- identified because it skews business behavior in un-natural and non-market-optimizing ways.
The tax laws as written provide benefit to companies that don't establish a brick-and-mortar presense in a state, thus encouraging companies to close down real stores even if they make money, and lay off workers. It encourages companies to consolidate their operations when otherwise it might be cheaper, and better for their customers, to have a more distributed system.
And the entire reason for this consolidated operation is to help people cheat on their taxes. Remember, companies don't pay the sales tax, the consumer does. They just collect it and send it to the government. Amazon benefits from not having to collect the tax, mostly because their customers want to cheat on their state taxes, and Amazon enables them to do so.
BTW, if you believe that cheating on your sales tax is a reasonable, conservative thing to do, why not really follow your convictions, and forge a tax-exempt letter? Then you could get ALL your purchases tax-free, not just the ones you make over the internet? My guess is that most people would "feel" that forging a tax-exempt letter is "wrong", but somehow think that signing their income tax form swearing under oath that they have reported their out-of-state purchase, when they have not, is perfectly fine.
There is a 1992 Supreme Court decision which held that mail-order merchants did not need to collect sales taxes for sales into states where they did not have a physical presence. So contrary to your statement, mail purchases and internet purchases are the same for merchants.
But states can charge a use tax to the individual consumers making purchases out of state for use in a particular state. For example, Florida has a “use tax” for items purchased out of state, including another country, which are brought or delivered into Florida and would have been taxed if purchased in the state. The use tax rate is the same as the sales tax rate.
In other words, individuals may owe the tax but businesses are not required to collect the taxes unless they have a presence in that state. As of today, the states have believed it is too costly to collect those pennies from individual consumers. Big ticket items like cars and boats they do try to collect.
“Fairness” has nothing to do with it. It is not about Amazon helping people to cheat. It is very expensive for a company large or small to keep track of every single penny owed every individual state. Just for starters, they would have to have a sales tax expert from each of the fifty states plus extra employees to handle the collection, recording and payment of these taxes. What if each of the counties and municipalities in each state wanted their sales taxes handled this way too. Amazon might be able to absorb all this extra expense, but the mom and pop operations who sell on line could not. They would be forced out of the mail order business entirely. We haven’t even touched on sales at places like Ebay.
You stated it yourself. Companies are not responsible for paying the sales tax, consumers are responsible for that. It is up to the states to collect the tax from the consumers. But the states have not felt that it is even worth the expense to go after anything but the big ticket items. Why would you want to impose this exorbitant expense on business?
“Orrin Hatch is on the list? Wow! if he is considered conservation our nation is in deep trouble.”
Not to fear, it was only a temporary abberation for the Hatchster. As the list noted:
“Orrin Hatch - Score of 100.00 in 2011 (Lifetime rating of 89.77) [up for reelection in 2012]”
He went from 89.77 to 100.00 getting ready for his reelection, won the primary as a solid conseravative, and now can go back to the Club for his 6th 6-year term and vote any way he wants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.