Fredipedia: the definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
As a strong fiscal conservative, I’ve long awaited a comprehensive analysis that sizes up the ‘08 field on both taxes AND spending. Thanks to the National Taxpayers Union, we now have some idea of where the candidates on both sides of the aisle stand on economic growth and size-and-scope of government issues. NTU has released a nifty scorecard that ranks all of the presidential contenders with legislative records on these issues, meaning that, unfortunately, we don’t get to see where candidates with only executive experience fit into the overall snapshot. Still, the results are enlightening, and in some cases, a bit surprising.
Each year, NTU assigns a grade to each Member of Congress w/r/t his or her votes on legislation related to taxes, debt, regulation, and spending. The NTU looks both at the percentage of the time the legislator voted for the taxpayer, and at the importance of each of those votes, weighing each vote accordingly. This prevents, for example, a congresscritter voting in favor of several small tax credits but against a huge tax cut from earning a higher score than a legislator who did the opposite, thus presenting a more accurate picture of where the candidates stand on fiscal issues than would a raw vote count. According to NTU, here are the ‘08 candidates’ most recent grades:
NTU Congressional Rating (most recent legislative year)
John McCain: A (88%)
Ron Paul: A (84%)
Sam Brownback: A (84%)
Newt Gingrich: A (79%)
Tom Tancredo: A (76%)
Fred Thompson: A (73%)
Chuck Hagel: B+ (82%)
Duncan Hunter: B (62%)
Bill Richardson: F (33%)
John Edwards: F (22%)
Dennis Kucinich: F (22%)
Hillary Clinton: F (17%)
Barack Obama: F (16%)
Joe Biden: F (11%)
Chris Dodd: F (10%)
Two things. First, this explains why Duncan Hunter isn’t gaining any traction; his record on fiscal issues is that of something other than a conservative. Secondly, Bill Richardson appears to be the most fiscally conservative Democrat in the field, though that’s not saying much. In order to avoid making inferences based on what may be an anomalous year on the part of some candidates, let’s now take a look at the percentage of legislative years during which each candidate received an “A” grade from the NTU:
Percent of “A” Grades
Ron Paul: 100%
Tom Tancredo: 100%
Fred Thompson: 88%
John McCain: 67%
Newt Gingrich: 57%
Sam Brownback: 50%
Chuck Hagel: 30%
Duncan Hunter: 6%
All Democrats: 0%
McCain is likely hurt by his opposition to the Bush tax cuts earlier in the decade. Thompson, interestingly, received an A from the NTU almost every year he was in the Senate, bested only by Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. And, finally, NTU has determined just how much of your money each of these candidates would like to spend. By parsing the legislative agenda of each of the ‘08 candidates, and by subtracting the amount each candidate’s agenda would cut government from the amount each agenda would increase the cost of government, NTU has revealed just which of our ‘08 candidates truly are committed to small government. The results are a bit surprising:
Net cost of legislative agenda for most recent legislative year
Bill Richardson: -$1.6 billion
Fred Thompson: $3.1 billion
Newt Gingrich: $4.5 billion
Barack Obama: $11.7 billion
Tom Tancredo: $13.7 billion
Duncan Hunter: $15.8 billion
Sam Brownback: $19 billion
Ron Paul: $34 billion
John McCain: $36.9 billion
Chuck Hagel: $86.7 billion
Joe Biden: $90 billion
John Edwards: $103.5 billion
Chris Dodd: $224 billion
Hillary Clinton: $378.2 billion
Dennis Kucinich: $1.87 trillion
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s legislative agenda would actually have led to net cuts in government. If Bill Richardson were the prototypical Democrat, I would likely have to rethink my party affiliation. And if anyone is the heir to Bill Clinton in the Democratic field, it’s Barack Obama, with his tax-and-don’t-spend policies, which are very similar to the former president’s agenda, and which is far more Clintonian than Ms. Rodham’s tax-and-spend liberalism. In fact, Hillary’s attempts to grow government dwarf those of every Republican and most Democrats in the field, proving Dick Morris right when he postulated that Hillary would be our first European-style socialist president.
On the Republican side, Fred Thompson’s record on spending puts the rest of the field to shame, and is even more conservative than that of Newt Gingrich. Perhaps Thompson’s supposed lack of accomplishments in the Senate are the result of a legislator who erred on the side of ensuring that government didn’t grow, didn’t spend more, didn’t meddle more in people’s lives, and generally left Americans alone. In an age of two big-governnment parties, it isn’t surprising that such a candidate is garnering interest.
Great piece!
Bookmarked.
They are VERY afraid of Fred. Of course the ones who want that 'pledge' signed, forgot what happened when Bush Sr. said "Read my lips. No new taxes."
How soon we forget.
Good work.
Excellent! Thanks for putting this in its own thread!
I find it interesting that none.........absolutely none of the candidates talk about the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax. I guess either idea is dead to them.
Well done!
BTTT
Excellent article. Go Fred!
I don’t trust any candidate not willing to take a no-new taxes pledge. Failing to do so is nothing more than an attempt to leave the door open to raise taxes.
I don’t like extortion, whether it’s perpetrated by union goons, or liberal and conservative activists.
Thanks, Josh, for the great work! From what I’ve seen, if Grover Norquist is saying Thompson is a bad candidate and resorting to lying about his record, that’s a huge plus for Fred!
See below — Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform are a massively pro-amnesty, pro-open borders group. And they don’t like Thompson, even though Thompson’s excellent record on taxes is well-docmented. That, to me, speaks volumes.
Check this out — it appears Norquist may not appreciate that Thompson has been focusing on illegal immigration and talking about how bad the amnesty bill was.
Americans for Tax Reform Supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Nation’s Broken Immigration System Needs to be Fixed This Year
PR Newswire - New York
Date: Apr 6, 2006
Abstract (Document Summary)
WASHINGTON, April 6 /PRNewswire/ — The U.S. Senate is currently debating legislation to strengthen and improve our nation’s dysfunctional immigration laws. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) strongly encourages the Senate to support comprehensive immigration reform solutions that fix the entire broken system — not merely enforcement options alone. There are many parts of the immigration system that are broken, and enforcement alone will not fix the problem.
Advocates of enforcement alone are blind to the realities of the current US labor market. Undocumented workers represent one out of every twenty laborers in America, and nearly a quarter of new workers coming on line every year. To ignore this vital component of the labor force perpetuates a broken system that is disconnected from the real world.
And more:
7/25/05 - Cornyn-Kyl Immigration Bill Advances Comprehensive Reform Another Step
Plan has some problems, but moves the ball down the field
WASHINGTON — Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist today praised the introduction of S 1438, the “Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005,” co-sponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), even as he expressed some serious reservations about plan details.
S 1438 would institute border security upgrades, help employers comply with immigration rules, create a temporary worker visa program, and would require currently undocumented workers to return home before being granted any legal status.
“Senators Cornyn and Kyl are to be applauded in introducing a bill that recognizes that border security without acknowledging the needs of our labor markets actually leaves America less secure,” said Norquist. “The only way to truly keep our borders safe is to put a system in place the overwhelming number of workers we need can actually use in the real world.”
Cornyn-Kyl contains one element that is fairly impractical. It would require the 11 million undocumented workers already in America to return to their nation of origin (largely Mexico), and process through a newly-streamlined work visa/border checkpoint system.
“That provision is highly impractical, would never happen in the real world, and would encourage undocumented workers to avoid, not comply with, the new law,” continued Norquist. “Can you imagine the prospect of 11 million hardworking laborers having to go across a border just to sign a piece of paper, only to return to their current jobs? That’s just the kind of bureaucratic run-around people leave their home countries to avoid.”
http://www.atr.org/content/html/2005/jul/072505pr-cornyn-kyl.htm
And MORE
Support for amnesty
Grover Norquist and ATR have openly supported amnesty for the nation’s 12-20 million illegal immigrants. In a statement issued February 9, 2005, Grover Norquist called for Congress to “support President Bush’s common-sense plan” to give “foreign laborers [i.e., illegal immigrants] guest worker cards” and “to match willing [foreign] workers with willing employers.”[2]
In another statement issued in May of 2006, ATR declared that it would consider a vote against S. 2611, the 2006 amnesty proposal, to be a vote against taxpayer interest. The release stated:
“ATR reserves the right to vote for final passage, a procedural motion, or any amendment to this bill. In particular, amendments that seek to dilute the comprehensive nature of the bill will be strongly-considered. These include but are not limited to measures to restrict the temporary worker program or measures to make it more difficult for illegal workers to earn legal status. ATR is also sensitive to amendments which put onerous restrictions on employers without giving them the ability to acquire a legal workforce sufficient to meet labor needs.”[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform