In 2005, the Club for Growth began its annual scorecard so our members and the public can monitor the actions and the voting behavior of members of Congress on economic growth issues.

We conducted a comprehensive examination of each lawmaker's record on pro-growth policies and computed an Economic Growth Score on a scale of 0 to 100. A score of 100 indicates the highest support for pro-growth policies. Those lawmakers scoring 90 or higher receive the "Defender of Economic Freedom" award.

Many of our members have been deluged with requests for contributions to the reelection campaigns of incumbents, and they have asked us to provide an easy reference on congressmen who have consistently supported pro-growth economic policies and those who have not. The Club also plans to use such a scorecard as one factor in its deliberations on possible endorsements by its PAC of incumbents or challengers to incumbents with a poor pro-growth record.

The rating examines legislative actions that reflect our immediate pro-economic growth policy goals, including:

• Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
• Death Tax repeal
• Cutting and limiting government spending
• Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
• Expanding free trade
• Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
• Replacing the current tax code
• School choice
• Regulatory reform and deregulation

Not all of these policy goals will come up for a vote in each session of Congress.

Whenever possible the Club sent a key vote alert to each member of Congress prior to an expected roll call vote or pending legislative action that we planned to include in the scorecard. While the Club will seek to provide a key vote alert in all instances, it reserves the right to include any vote or action in the rating as often votes come up with little warning.

Legislative Actions Considered

The Club's rating includes roll call votes and as well as other actions that advance pro-growth policies. For example, this year the rating awarded bonus points for those members of Congress who sponsored legislation for personal accounts for Social Security. Likewise, the rating also imposed penalty points for a letter opposing Social Security reform to President George Bush that was signed by 42 senators.

Computation

Scores are computed on a scale of 0 to 100. Each vote or action in the rating is assigned a certain number of points depending on its relative importance. For example four votes in the House were given a weight of 7 points, including the vote on the bill to permanently repeal the Death Tax. Absences are not counted against a member, though we reserve the right to do so in the future if in our judgment an absence was used to duck taking a position.

In an attempt to measure all day-to-day votes on economic growth we awarded points in the rating based on two nonpartisan studies. One study is on roll call votes and the other is on bill sponsorships. National Taxpayers Union compiles an annual rating of Congress that analyzes "all votes that could significantly affect the amounts of federal taxes, spending, debt, or regulatory impact." These votes clearly could affect economic growth. Typically the NTU rating includes over 200 votes in Congress each year. In order to account for these votes, the Club awarded 15 points of the possible 100 for a grade of "A" in the NTU rating, 10 points for a "B+", 5 points for a "B" and no points for grades under a "B".

Because big spending legislation that can harm economic growth can gain momentum from large numbers of cosponsors, the rating awarded four bonus points for lawmakers whose net legislative agendas cut spending. We believe that each member of Congress who proposes new spending programs should also offset those costs by identifying reductions in other programs. It did not subtract points for members whose bills sponsorships increased spending, though we reserve the right to do so in future ratings.

However, in counting bonus or penalty points, in no case would the reported score be less than zero or more than 100.

To provide some additional guidance concerning the scores, each lawmaker was ranked. Scores and ranks can not be directly compared between the House and Senate as different votes were taken in each chamber. Please note that the lowest possible rank was 416 in the House, as 16 representatives had scores of "0" and several members did not cast enough votes to be ranked. In the Senate the worst rank was 80.

Additional Factors

A study of roll call votes on the floor of the House and Senate and legislative actions is just that. It can not account for a lawmaker's work in committee, in his party's caucus meetings and effectiveness as a leader in advocating pro-growth policies.