California Republican Convention
Tom will discuss specifics for solving our nation's federal budget deficit Event Contact: cagop.org More Details
Ideas
Tom Campbell vs. Barbara Boxer: Poles Apart on Federal Spending
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation calculates two measures of spending by individual US Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. The first is a numeric grade (for earlier years), later replaced by a letter grade, based on how each legislator voted on bills that increased federal spending. The second is a ranking of each legislator based on the dollar value of the total net cost of the bills introduced or co-sponsored by the legislator.
Congressman Tom Campbell served in the House of Representatives for four years with then-Congresswoman Barbara Boxer. Their spending records in the House can be compared directly. For five more years, Tom Campbell served in the House while Barbara Boxer served in the Senate. A comparison for those years is also possible, although not exact because the bills in each chamber were not identical.
Both kinds of measurement by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation put Tom Campbell and Barbara Boxer at opposite ends of the federal spending spectrum. For two years, Congressman Tom Campbell voted for the least net spending by any member of the House. In contrast, for the year 1994 only one Senator received a worse spending score than Barbara Boxer.
Spending Vote Score
(100 or A = Best, Against Federal Spending)
2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 |
Cong. Tom Campbell A B+ A A B |
Sen. Barbara Boxer F F F F F |
1992 1991 1990 1989 |
Cong. Tom Campbell 71 90 93 86 |
Cong. Barbara Boxer 21 32 28 26 |
As California’s newest Senator, Tom Campbell will build on his proven record of conserving the tax payers’ money and opposing the growth of federal spending.
Source Notes
Spending vote score information from 1992, inclusive, forward may be found at http://www.ntu.org/main/misc.php?MiscID=13. Voting score information for 1989 through 1991, inclusive, is from copyrighted brochures available from the National Taxpayers Union, 108 North Alfred St. Alexandria VA 22314. Voting score information before 1992 is not comparable to later information because of changes in methodology and vote selection.
Data for ranking by cost of bills introduced or co-sponsored for the period cited above is available at http://www.ntu.org/main/misc.php?MiscID=11.
The total number of members of Congress at any time is always 435. In the NTUF bill sponsorship tally information for the 102nd and 106th Congresses, mid-term departures and replacements caused NTUF’s tally to include more than 435 members. For simplicity, 435 is the member base number used in the information cited above.
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation computes spending vote scores as follows:
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.
Source: http://www.ntu.org/main/misc.php?MiscID=13
Your Thoughts
