John Edwards? Voting Record Shows Animosity Toward Taxpayers
(Washington, D.C.) - In spite of John Edwards? short time in the Senate, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) said today that he has a long record of voting against taxpayers. ?Out of a possible 100 percent, Sen. Edwards has a lifetime CCAGW congressional rating of 13 percent. He consistently looks for ways to spend tax dollars and his failing grade proves it,? said Tom Schatz, president of CCAGW. ?Taxpayers need to review his record carefully. Since 1999, Edwards? ratings have been 9, 11 15, 19, and 13 percent, respectively.?
Since 1989, CCAGW has scored members of Congress based on its review of numerous votes on tax and fiscal policy. ?The votes we review are of interest to every American taxpayer,? Schatz said. They are a strong indication of how a member of Congress acts on wasteful spending.?
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal government spends between $33.7 and $56.2 billion annually for malpractice coverage for programs such as Medicare, and the costs of defensive medicine. Passing reasonable limits on non-economic damages would reduce those costs to $28.1-$50.6 billion a year. ?Being a trial lawyer, it is not surprising the Sen. Edwards voted against medical malpractice reform last year. Obviously he cares more about his special interest trial lawyers than taxpayers,? added Schatz. In 1999, Sen. Edwards even voted against a bill to limit lawsuits and damages from potential Y2K computer failures.
?When he has had the opportunity to reduce taxes and return money to the taxpayer, he just says ?no,?? said Schatz. ?He refused to eliminate the marriage penalty in 2001. In 2000, he voted against reducing taxes on Social Security benefits from 80 to 50 percent, as well as repealing the death tax. If Sen. Edwards had his way, the government would be much larger and personal wealth far smaller.?
One of the cornerstones of President Reagan?s Grace Commission was the closing and realignment of military bases. Since 1988, taxpayers have saved $17 billion with an annual recurring savings of $7 billion. ?The military base closing commissions have been a huge success, saving the Pentagon and taxpayers billions of dollars while improving national security,? said Schatz. ?But last year, Sen. Edwards voted to cancel the entire 2005 round of base closings, and this year he voted for a watered down version that would only affect overseas bases.?
?CCAGW considers John Edwards to be hostile to taxpayers. His 13 percent rating means he has voted against their interests 87 percent of the time in his six years in Congress. This is a record that deserves to be examined carefully by every American,? Schatz concluded.
CCAGW is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation?s largest organization dedicated to eliminating government waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.
Edwards' Fiscal Policies Unlikely to Balance Kerry Ticket, Taxpayer Group's Analysis Finds
(Alexandria, VA) --Some say Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry may have selected running mate John Edwards to overcome a "charisma deficit" in his campaign, but how would his choice affect the federal budget deficit? According to an analysis from the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union (NTU), Edwards has earned "F" grades on NTU's comprehensive tax and spending scorecard for each year of his Senate service. And, he has supported legislation this year that would boost the federal budget by $92.1 billion. Among NTU's findings:
For 25 years, NTU has conducted an annual Rating of Congress based on every roll call vote affecting federal taxes, spending, debt, and regulation (typically 100-300 votes in a Congressional session). In 2003 John Edwards posted a 22% "Taxpayer Score" on the NTU Rating, compared to John Kerry's 14%. However, both men turned in scores sufficient (under 25%) to earn "F" grades from NTU.
Edwards' score last year was actually the highest he has ever achieved on NTU's Rating. Between 1999 and 2002, his scores ranged between 12% and 18%, thus earning him an "F" grade from NTU each year he has been in the Senate.
Despite Edwards' being portrayed as a more moderate candidate, he and Kerry have never scored more than 8 percentage points apart on the NTU Rating. In the year 2000, Edwards' score tied that of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy (which in that year was also one point lower than Kerry's score).
Since 1991, National Taxpayers Union Foundation's BillTally system has assigned a cost to the legislation that each Member of Congress sponsors or cosponsors -- even those bills that never come to the floor for a vote. In the First Session of the 108th Congress, Edwards supported legislation which, if enacted in its entirety, would increase federal spending by $92.1 billion per year. This is roughly half the total cost of John Kerry's legislative agenda ($182.0 billion), but would still be sufficient to increase the estimated budget deficit for FY 2005 by an equivalent of 25%.
Since 1994, National Taxpayers Union Foundation's VoteTally system has tracked the spending at stake in votes cast by each Member of Congress. In 2003, Edwards cast votes whose effect would raise federal expenditures by $381.3 billion per year (or $318.3 billion when "mandatory" baseline spending is excluded).
"The data on John Edwards offers little comfort to taxpayers seeking spending restraint from Washington," said NTU President John Berthoud. "There is scant evidence to suggest his fiscal policies would be more moderate than those offered by the man at the top of the ticket."
NTU is a non-profit, non-partisan citizen group working for lower taxes, smaller government, and more accountability from elected officials at all levels. National Taxpayers Union Foundation is the research and educational arm of NTU. Note: For additional fiscal information on Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, visit www.ntu.org.
(Washington, D.C.) - In spite of John Edwards? short time in the Senate, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) said today that he has a long record of voting against taxpayers. ?Out of a possible 100 percent, Sen. Edwards has a lifetime CCAGW congressional rating of 13 percent. He consistently looks for ways to spend tax dollars and his failing grade proves it,? said Tom Schatz, president of CCAGW. ?Taxpayers need to review his record carefully. Since 1999, Edwards? ratings have been 9, 11 15, 19, and 13 percent, respectively.?
Since 1989, CCAGW has scored members of Congress based on its review of numerous votes on tax and fiscal policy. ?The votes we review are of interest to every American taxpayer,? Schatz said. They are a strong indication of how a member of Congress acts on wasteful spending.?
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal government spends between $33.7 and $56.2 billion annually for malpractice coverage for programs such as Medicare, and the costs of defensive medicine. Passing reasonable limits on non-economic damages would reduce those costs to $28.1-$50.6 billion a year. ?Being a trial lawyer, it is not surprising the Sen. Edwards voted against medical malpractice reform last year. Obviously he cares more about his special interest trial lawyers than taxpayers,? added Schatz. In 1999, Sen. Edwards even voted against a bill to limit lawsuits and damages from potential Y2K computer failures.
?When he has had the opportunity to reduce taxes and return money to the taxpayer, he just says ?no,?? said Schatz. ?He refused to eliminate the marriage penalty in 2001. In 2000, he voted against reducing taxes on Social Security benefits from 80 to 50 percent, as well as repealing the death tax. If Sen. Edwards had his way, the government would be much larger and personal wealth far smaller.?
One of the cornerstones of President Reagan?s Grace Commission was the closing and realignment of military bases. Since 1988, taxpayers have saved $17 billion with an annual recurring savings of $7 billion. ?The military base closing commissions have been a huge success, saving the Pentagon and taxpayers billions of dollars while improving national security,? said Schatz. ?But last year, Sen. Edwards voted to cancel the entire 2005 round of base closings, and this year he voted for a watered down version that would only affect overseas bases.?
?CCAGW considers John Edwards to be hostile to taxpayers. His 13 percent rating means he has voted against their interests 87 percent of the time in his six years in Congress. This is a record that deserves to be examined carefully by every American,? Schatz concluded.
CCAGW is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation?s largest organization dedicated to eliminating government waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.
Edwards' Fiscal Policies Unlikely to Balance Kerry Ticket, Taxpayer Group's Analysis Finds
(Alexandria, VA) --Some say Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry may have selected running mate John Edwards to overcome a "charisma deficit" in his campaign, but how would his choice affect the federal budget deficit? According to an analysis from the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union (NTU), Edwards has earned "F" grades on NTU's comprehensive tax and spending scorecard for each year of his Senate service. And, he has supported legislation this year that would boost the federal budget by $92.1 billion. Among NTU's findings:
For 25 years, NTU has conducted an annual Rating of Congress based on every roll call vote affecting federal taxes, spending, debt, and regulation (typically 100-300 votes in a Congressional session). In 2003 John Edwards posted a 22% "Taxpayer Score" on the NTU Rating, compared to John Kerry's 14%. However, both men turned in scores sufficient (under 25%) to earn "F" grades from NTU.
Edwards' score last year was actually the highest he has ever achieved on NTU's Rating. Between 1999 and 2002, his scores ranged between 12% and 18%, thus earning him an "F" grade from NTU each year he has been in the Senate.
Despite Edwards' being portrayed as a more moderate candidate, he and Kerry have never scored more than 8 percentage points apart on the NTU Rating. In the year 2000, Edwards' score tied that of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy (which in that year was also one point lower than Kerry's score).
Since 1991, National Taxpayers Union Foundation's BillTally system has assigned a cost to the legislation that each Member of Congress sponsors or cosponsors -- even those bills that never come to the floor for a vote. In the First Session of the 108th Congress, Edwards supported legislation which, if enacted in its entirety, would increase federal spending by $92.1 billion per year. This is roughly half the total cost of John Kerry's legislative agenda ($182.0 billion), but would still be sufficient to increase the estimated budget deficit for FY 2005 by an equivalent of 25%.
Since 1994, National Taxpayers Union Foundation's VoteTally system has tracked the spending at stake in votes cast by each Member of Congress. In 2003, Edwards cast votes whose effect would raise federal expenditures by $381.3 billion per year (or $318.3 billion when "mandatory" baseline spending is excluded).
"The data on John Edwards offers little comfort to taxpayers seeking spending restraint from Washington," said NTU President John Berthoud. "There is scant evidence to suggest his fiscal policies would be more moderate than those offered by the man at the top of the ticket."
NTU is a non-profit, non-partisan citizen group working for lower taxes, smaller government, and more accountability from elected officials at all levels. National Taxpayers Union Foundation is the research and educational arm of NTU. Note: For additional fiscal information on Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, visit www.ntu.org.