A wasteful spending watchdog group has calculated Sen. Claire McCaskill's pork record incorrectly.
The group gave McCaskill one of the lowest ratings for cracking down on "wasteful spending" - a 16.6 out of 100.
But the survey includes 5 votes that were taken before McCaskill was elected to the Senate last November.
So it appears her ranking wouldn't be as low without those 5 votes calculated by Porkbusters.
"Additionally, the true test is whether those who talk the talk also walk the walk," said McCaskill spokeswoman Adrianne Marsh. "Only a handful of Senators, including Claire, didn't request a single earmark."
2 comments:
I'm not defending porkbusters, but am trying to shed light on their apparent methodology. Did you click on McCaskill's link at Porkbusters.org? If so, you would have seen that the 16.66 score is the average for Missouri -- not specifically McCaskill.
The Senior Missouri Senator position has a score of 8.33, while the Junior Missouri Senator position has a score of 25.0.
8.33 + 25.0 = 33.33
33.33/2 = 16.66
Porkbusters still needs updating though. In spite of having bills posted as recent as 5/15/2007, they still show Talent's picture.
-- Patrick B.
Well, David, I see I was a little quick to post as well. Bond's own score of 8.33 is shown on the Scorecard at Porkbusters, but McCaskill's own score is actually a combination of Talent's and her own, averaged with Bond's. I have asked Bear at TruthLaidBear .com to correct Porkbuster's inconsistency in methodology.
-- PatrickB
Post a Comment