CAGW says Obama not the worst Senator on waste — Biden is

posted at 2:40 pm on September 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Talk about damning with faint praise!  Citizens Against Government Waste discusses its analysis of the presidential candidates in terms of their career records in fighting wasteful spending, and it’s not even close.  John McCain has am 88% rating from CAGW, while Barack Obama limps to a paltry 18%.  However, Obama has a consolation prize in that he didn’t finish dead last.  His running mate ensured that:

Greg Jarrett, Fox: You focused on two things really as I understand it, earmarks, and we will get to it in a moment, but wasteful spending talk to us about how the candidates break down on this.

Tom Schatz, CAGW: There is a long track record in both cases, some of which goes to Senator Obama in the Illinois Legislature. We do not analyze the states. But just on the votes in 2007, Senator Obama voted correctly only 10% of the time, and Senator McCain voted 11 out of the 35 times. He did vote correctly every time. His lifetime rating 88% is the sixth-highest in the Senate. Senator Obama’s lifetime rating is 18% in the years that he has been a Senator. So there is a vast difference on the question of spending and taxes and those results are consistent with other analyses and organizations that track all of these various votes.

Jarrett: Is Obama at the bottom?

Schatz: He is not quite at that the bottom. Actually, Senator Biden is at the bottom. He has a zero rating in 2007. But Senator Obama is pretty close at 10%.

Jarrett: So Biden would be the most wasteful in your judgment, and again you are a non-partisan group, would be the most wasteful Senator?

Schatz: He wasn’t the only one. There were 13 Senators with a zero rating, but he was one of those that failed to vote a single time to cut waste or cut taxes are even preserve tax cuts.

Jarrett: And again, we are out of time, but John McCain, zero earmarks. Right?

Schatz: That is it. Zero.

Jarrett: Big goose egg. I mean that is amazing in Congress.

Schatz: It is difficult to say no, but he is one of the few who has.

It’s also difficult to run as a reformer while doing little to block wasteful government spending, but let’s give credit where it’s due. Obama did manage to vote against government waste about once in every six opportunities. Joe Biden didn’t manage to do it at all.  Biden has been in the Senate since the Nixon administration, and he has never seen government spending he didn’t like.

And Barack Obama chose Biden as his partner in reform.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That’d be a good commercial.

lorien1973 on September 22, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Darn, and here I thought is was Ted Stevens.

wise_man on September 22, 2008 at 2:45 PM

I’m having a hard time being surpised. Boy, what a pair!
L

letget on September 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM

ZerO’Biden!

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Whoa who were the other 13?

Biden and Obama were pretty obvious!

upinak on September 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM

So with news like this, it’s a sure bet that some lunkheaded Hollyweird type will still contribute so many thousands of dollars to the B.O. campaign regardless. Like this news affects them, right?

pilamaye on September 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM

This is soooooo racist! Not.

AubieJon on September 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Ok Grue, ntsy

upinak on September 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM

There’s talkers and there’s doers.

Mibrilane on September 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Ok Grue, ntsy

upinak on September 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Thanks, you too :) Good to be back

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Obama/Biden 08, waste we can believe in…

Cr4sh Dummy on September 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM

So with news like this, it’s a sure bet that some lunkheaded Hollyweird type will still contribute so many thousands of dollars to the B.O. campaign regardless. Like this news affects them, right?

pilamaye on September 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Maybe if we do it like a critic’s corner type. But then again.. who knows if that would do anything either.

upinak on September 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM

However, Obama has a consolation prize in that he didn’t finish dead last. His running mate ensured that:

A twofer! They’re going to change the way washington does business like Pelosi presides over the most ethical Congress evah.

a capella on September 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM

And Oslime-a just announced that he has pulled back his earmark requests.

Bwahahahaha!!!

csdeven on September 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Ok Grue, ntsy

upinak on September 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM

“ntsy”?

Count to 10 on September 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Nice To See You

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Thank God! For a while there, I was really concerned that Obama was the most wasteful!

Star20 on September 22, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Too bad news like this will simply bounce off the Obamites. Even more so, since it was on the dreaded FOX News.

Since when does “Hope” and “Change” have a basis in actual facts?

JetBoy on September 22, 2008 at 2:59 PM

“ntsy”?
Count to 10 on September 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM

The Grue must have eaten the “a”.

wise_man on September 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM

And our friend Murtha took the House award, easily beating Porker Young into 2nd place.

lodge on September 22, 2008 at 3:03 PM

That’d be a good commercial.

lorien1973 on September 22, 2008 at 2:45 PM

+1

Fits right in the the McCain/Palin reform strategy.

Karl on September 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM

I am beginning to think that Americans hate America. I just looked at the polls. How can anyone who loves this country think Obama should be trusted with it. This is a very discouraging day.

petunia on September 22, 2008 at 3:06 PM

No surprise here.

becki51758 on September 22, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Too bad news like this will simply bounce off the Obamites. Even more so, since it was on the dreaded FOX News.

Since when does “Hope” and “Change” have a basis in actual facts?

JetBoy on September 22, 2008 at 2:59 PM

But it’s a non-partisan government watchdog group, so they can’t gloss over the claims, although most Obama supporters are morons to begin with so it wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t know what the group is talking about.

Cr4sh Dummy on September 22, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Stand up and fight on this McCain camp and put a cork in it over AMNESTY! Why when you have stuff like this to hammer THE ONE and OBIDEN do you have to open that can of worms? UGH!

And just imagine these two and Frank and Dodd overseeing the bailout! God Save US!

freeus on September 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Wow what a shocker the 2 top dems leading in waste want to be the pres and vp yeahhh just what we need.

tee866 on September 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Nice to see that Obama admires those better than himself – - in wasteful spending, at least.

Right_of_Attila on September 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Obama did manage to vote against government waste about once in every six opportunities.

Counting the times Obama didn’t vote, wouldn’t that be more like one in twenty?

And how bizarre is it to use this yardstick to measure Barack Obama: “Sure, he’s terrible. But at least he’s not nearly as bad as his VP pick!”

And even more incredibly bizarre is the fact that these people are attacking the Joan of Arc and Saint Francis of earmarks. Why do the worst offenders get to act like sinless Inquisitors? Because no one ever expects liberals to defend themselves – they can attack with complete impunity.

logis on September 22, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Wasnt’ this the headlines in the NYT today? No, I’m mistaken…well it will be tomorrow, I’ll wait for the real story from the “paper of record”.
Have the MSM no shame? They couldn’t find anything wrong with Obama if it was plastered all over the web…

right2bright on September 22, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Too bad news like this will simply bounce off the Obamites. Even more so, since it was on the dreaded FOX News.

I don’t care about the Obamites anymore. Since Palin smears, I got no use for dialogue with them. I’m interested in the indies and undecideds and the millions that watch fox.

Spirit of 1776 on September 22, 2008 at 3:22 PM

McCain/Palin win Obama/Biden lose.

Chakra Hammer on September 22, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Look at the choices Obama and McCain made for VP:

Obama: most wastefull spender (Biden)
McCain: A reformer, who as Governor ran against incumbent from her own party, resigned engergy commission due to ongoing corruption, fought her own party (as did McCain);

From a practical track record perspective, McCain/Palin have a long history of reform, and a willingness to oppose their own party leadership. Obama? reform you can believe in.

jerseyman on September 22, 2008 at 3:36 PM

Whoa who were the other 13?

Biden and Obama were pretty obvious!

upinak on September 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM

STATE SENATOR 2007 LIFETIME
Alabama Sessions, J. (R) 79% 83%
Alabama Shelby (R) 57% 54%
Alaska Murkowski (R) 46% 54%
Alaska Stevens (R) 37% 51%
Arizona Kyl (R) 94% 93%
Arizona McCain (R) 100% 88%
Arkansas Lincoln (D) 6% 19%
Arkansas Pryor (D) 3% 9%
California Boxer (D) 3% 12%
California Feinstein (D) 3% 16%
Colorado Allard (R) 86% 83%
Colorado Salazar, K. (D) 3% 16%

STATE SENATOR 2007 LIFETIME
Connecticut Dodd (D) 0% 14%
Connecticut Lieberman (I) 6% 21%
Delaware Biden (D) 0% 22%
Delaware Carper (D) 6% 18%
Florida Martinez (R) 71% 70%
Florida Nelson, Bill (D) 9% 18%
Georgia Chambliss (R) 86% 77%
Georgia Isakson (R) 79% 81%
Hawaii Akaka (D) 0% 8%
Hawaii Inouye (D) 0% 7%
Idaho Craig (R) 63% 70%
Idaho Crapo (R) 74% 70%
Illinois Durbin (D) 3% 8%
Illinois Obama (D) 10% 18%
Indiana Bayh (D) 20% 25%
Indiana Lugar (R) 63% 77%
Iowa Grassley (R) 71% 75%
Iowa Harkin (D) 6% 16%
Kansas Brownback (R) 80% 82%
Kansas Roberts (R) 57% 67%
Kentucky Bunning (R) 86% 78%
Kentucky McConnell (R ) 74% 69%
Louisiana Landrieu (D) 9% 21%
Louisiana Vitter (R) 74% 66%
Maine Collins (R) 34% 53%
Maine Snowe (R) 17% 50%
Maryland Cardin (D) 3% 3%
Maryland Mikulski (D) 3% 10%

STATE SENATOR 2007 LIFETIME
Massachusetts Kennedy, E. (D) 3% 16%
Massachusetts Kerry (D) 6% 23%
Michigan Levin, C. (D) 0% 21%
Michigan Stabenow (D) 0% 17%
Minnesota Coleman (R) 37% 38%
Minnesota Klobuchar (D) 0% 0%
Mississippi Cochran (R) 54% 56%
Mississippi Lott (R) 63% 67%
Missouri Bond (R) 34% 59%
Missouri McCaskill (D) 23% 23%
Montana Baucus, M. (D) 3% 20%
Montana Tester (D) 9% 9%
Nebraska Hagel (R) 74% 77%
Nebraska Nelson, Ben (D) 3% 28%
Nevada Ensign (R) 97% 92%
Nevada Reid, H. (D) 0% 18%
New Hampshire Gregg (R) 77% 80%
New Hampshire Sununu (R) 89% 89%
New Jersey Lautenberg (D) 6% 24%
New Jersey Menendez (D) 3% 9%
New Mexico Bingaman (D) 3% 21%
New Mexico Domenici (R) 42% 57%
New York Clinton (D) 0% 9%
New York Schumer (D) 3% 11%
North Carolina Burr (R) 97% 91%
North Carolina Dole (R) 73% 68%
North Dakota Conrad (D) 0% 18%
North Dakota Dorgan (D) 0% 15%

STATE SENATOR 2007 LIFETIME
Ohio Brown, S. (D) 3% 3%
Ohio Voinovich (R) 38% 65%
Oklahoma Coburn (R) 91% 94%
Oklahoma Inhofe (R) 83% 79%
Oregon Smith, G. (R) 38% 60%
Oregon Wyden (D) 0% 21%
Pennsylvania Casey (D) 6% 6%
Pennsylvania Specter (R) 29% 49%
Rhode Island Reed, J. (D) 6% 13%
Rhode Island Whitehouse (D) 6% 6%
South Carolina DeMint (R) 97% 96%
South Carolina Graham (R) 87% 84%
South Dakota Johnson, Tim (D) 0% 12%
South Dakota Thune (R) 71% 67%
Tennessee Alexander, L. (R) 57% 72%
Tennessee Corker (R) 66% 66%
Texas Cornyn (R) 83% 79%
Texas Hutchison (R) 63% 67%
Utah Bennett (R) 60% 64%
Utah Hatch (R) 62% 66%
Vermont Leahy (D) 3% 15%
Vermont Sanders (I) 3% 3%
Virginia Warner (R) 38% 71%
Virginia Webb (D) 9% 9%
Washington Cantwell (D) 6% 19%
Washington Murray (D) 3% 13%
West Virginia Byrd (D) 0% 16%
West Virginia Rockefeller (D) 3% 13%

STATE SENATOR 2007 LIFETIME
Wisconsin Feingold (D) 34% 40%
Wisconsin Kohl (D) 3% 34%
Wyoming Barrasso (R) 82% 82%
Wyoming Enzi (R) 85% 77%
Wyoming Thomas (R) 78% 78%

Hawthorne on September 22, 2008 at 4:28 PM

BTW you can find all of the 2007 CAGW ratings at:

CAGW 2007 Congressional Ratings

Hawthorne on September 22, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Great, look where our buddy Dodd is 0%, and chairman of the banking committee…figures.

right2bright on September 22, 2008 at 5:10 PM

OK, I have the 2007 CAGW Senate data in a spreadsheet. The results are interesting. As expected the Democrats absolutely dominate the worst places in the ratings. Senator Obama actually has 47 other Democrats that are worse than he is at a 10% rating. This is an incredibly damning statement. Not a single Democrat finished above 50% with Russ Feingold being the best Democrat at a 34% rating.

The worst Republican is Olympia Snowe, to nobodies surprise, at 17%. Even the worst republican is on the right side of pork 70% more than Obama is. In all, eleven Republican Senators are on the wrong side of pork barrel spending more than 50% of the time. This includes both senators from Alaska. The others are:

Specter – Pennsylvania 29%
Collins – Maine 34%
Bond – Missouri 34%
Coleman – Minnesota 34%
Stevens – Alaska 37%
G. Smith – Oregon 38%
Voinovich – Ohio 38%
Warner – Virginia 38%
Domenici – New Mexico 42%
Murkowski – Alaska 46%

I firmly feel that any Senator that votes for pork more than not, Essentially ALL of the Democrats and eleven of the Republicans, need to go away.

Hawthorne on September 22, 2008 at 5:16 PM

I firmly feel that any Senator that votes for pork more than not, Essentially ALL of the Democrats and eleven of the Republicans, need to go away.

Hawthorne on September 22, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Do I hear an AMEN? AMEN!!

right2bright on September 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM

I firmly feel that any Senator that votes for pork more than not, Essentially ALL of the Democrats and eleven of the Republicans, need to go away.

Hawthorne on September 22, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Notice every single (except for two who were at 3% and 6%)democrat dropped for 2007 less then their lifetime. Showing when they are in power they spend, spend, spend. Some went from 20% to 0, or 34% to 3. Every Democrat with the exception of two went from bad to worse. And the two were already at the bottom.

right2bright on September 22, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Hawthorne on September 22, 2008 at 4:28 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I never saw a single Dem in that entire list who was higher than 50%.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 22, 2008 at 6:04 PM

I firmly feel that any Senator that votes for pork more than not, Essentially ALL of the Democrats and eleven of the Republicans, need to go away.

Hawthorne on September 22, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Pete “I Never Saw A Tax Hike I Didn’t Like” Domenici is out. The two strong contenders for his position are a democrat who makes Obama look conservative, and a Republican, Steve Pearce, that looks fairly conservative. Guess which I donating to.

John McCain has am 88% rating from CAGW, while Barack Obama limps to a paltry 18%. However, Obama has a consolation prize in that he didn’t finish dead last. His running mate ensured that

I would like to know why the Republican leadership (which now seems to be an oxymoron) is not blanketing the nation with this 24/7 in commercials, talk show appearances, talk radio interviews, etc. This is the type of easy-to-understand fact that even the less-bright (i.e., undecideds) can comprehend.

rmgraha on September 22, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Joe and Sally Sixpack think an “earmark” is a tattoo, that’s why.

We need an educational advertising movement to take place, led by McCain.

cannonball on September 22, 2008 at 9:45 PM

I’d be angry except I totally expect it.

Yakko77 on September 23, 2008 at 1:06 AM

This needs to be in a TV ad!

This is particularly strong considering money and waste is at the top of the public’s mind currently.

cryptojunkie on September 23, 2008 at 1:21 PM