NTU Congressional Rankings for Georgia

The National Taxpayers Union has their ratings up for the second session of the 109th Congress.

Here is how the Georgia delegation ranked…

Rep. Grade w/ NTU
Westmoreland A 80%
Deal A 78%
Price A 77%
Norwood A 75%
Linder A 75%
Gingrey B+ 68%
Kingston B 61%
Barrow D 30%
Marshall D 29%
Bishop F 22%
McKinney F 18%
Scott F 17%
Lewis F 14%

Westmoreland ranked 8th overall in the House of Representatives.

[UPDATE] I forgot the Senate.

Both Chambliss and Isakson scored a B+ and voted with the NTU 83% of the time.


  1. Jmac says:

    It would seem to me that you’d ideally want someone in the middle of the pack on this thing, wouldn’t you? Obviously, even to the most conservative folks, some government spending and/or taxation methods are appropriate … merely so government can provide adequate services to its citizenry.

    And Ben Nelson from Florida that low? Really?

  2. Jason Pye says:


    I want my Congressman and Senators to vote and support things that are specifically delegated to Congress under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    Thank God for Ron Paul and Jeff Flake.

  3. Jason Pye says:

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

    The interpretation of that clause depends on if you are a progressive or originalist.

    I believe it has a very limited meaning, much like the Commerce Clause is supposed to have.

  4. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Jason, you could probably add Paul Ryan and Mike Pence to your “limited government” shout out.

  5. Jmac says:

    Well, Jason we don’t agree, but fair enough. Ron Paul is fascinating though. It’s not to often you see someone who is actually the real deal when it comes to his political views and putting them in practice.

    I don’t agree with him at all, but you’ve got to give him props for sticking to his guns.

  6. Jason Pye says:

    You are entitled to your opinion, however erroneous it may be.

    The Founders believed in the concept of limited government and that government had certain enumerated powers and that it’s main purpose is to protect individual rights.

    I suppose you believe the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution should be interpreted broadly as well.

  7. Chris says:


    Clause 18 only says they can make whatever laws necessary for executing the forgoing powers. No where in the previous 17 clauses were education, healthcare, or swimming pools in california YMCAs mentioned.

    Even so, Jason isn’t a friend of the taxpayers. Or commuters. Or druggies. Or Christians. Or Athiests.

    Jason, do you have any friends? 🙂

  8. rugby_fan says:

    Jason, what you are trying to do in your interpretation is put limits on a government that are simply not there.

    The founding fathers anticipated changes in America and put the Elastic Clause in the Constitution so that congress would be able to adapt.

    Believing that there should be less government is fine and a good philosophy. Ignoring the intent of this clause so you can justify said philosophy is erroneous.

  9. Jason Pye says:

    The founding fathers anticipated changes in America and put the Elastic Clause in the Constitution so that congress would be able to adapt.


    You’re right, they did…that is why they allowed for amendments to the Constitution, see Article 5. That is the mechanism for changing the Constitution. The Constitution was never meant to change over time, like progressives want us to believe. There is a process for changing the Constitution, but it’s not the necessary and proper clause.

    Chris is absolutely right. This particular clause is for executing the previous 17 clauses of Article 1, Section 8. It was not meant to expand the powers of Congress.

    But let’s ask a Founder. Alexander Hamilton wrote on this clause in The Federalist Papers…here is an example he gave of the purpose of the clause:

    This simple train of enquiry furnishes us at once with a test by which to judge of the true nature of the clause complained of. It conducts us to this palpable truth, that a power to lay and collect taxes must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power.

    He doesn’t back up your claim at all.

  10. atlantaman says:

    Good post Jason.

    I don’t think there is any doubt that the Founding Fathers never imagined, in their wildest dreams, a Federal Government as powerful as it is now. This country is now the essence of everything they fought against.

    They would be rolling in their graves if they knew how much the government has interjected itself into our daily lives in the name of worthwhile social causes.

    While many of the causes seem noble – Peachcare, low interest student loans, more money for Sept 11 victims and appeals for more money pull at our heartstrings; I’ll always be able to counter with other noble causes such as huges payouts to families of fallen police officers or higher pay for our soldiers. The point is we’ll keep going until Facisim / Socialism.

Comments are closed.