Heritage Action’s Week in Review
Heritage Action has been in the news quite a bit this week. From the fight over Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) to the nomination of Alison Nathan, we’ve struck a nerve with the Washington Establishment.
For instance, the Establishment is upset with us because our scorecard is too tough. Some Republicans score high on other scorecards but low on ours – this is because we include less televised bills like patent reform and amendments on appropriations bills. The Establishment is angry at the Republican Study Committee for pulling GOP leadership to the right and away from the big-government policies that have led our country to the state it is in. From Politico:
“The group issues a tough legislative scorecard, grading on a scale that often lines up with the RSC’s positions, making it much more difficult for Republican rank and file to do well than on other conservative scorecards. One Republican complained that he had a sky-high American Conservative Union score and a Heritage Action score of only around 50 percent.”
Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner said it best: “Compromise is necessary and proper in Washington, D.C. — but it is not the role of the RSC to facilitate it.” Indeed, it is the job of conservatives to paint in bold bright colors and demand the sort of reforms our country so desperately needs.
Speaking of our scorecard, local blogs continue to pick up our rankings and hold their members accountable. The Southeast Missourian posted a blog simply saying that their Member of Congress only received a 45% on our scorecard. Good conservatives want to know that the person they elected is actually standing up for our principles, which is why our scorecard is so tough. Across the country people are using our scorecard to realize that an “R” next to someone’s name does not automatically make them a conservative.
The free trade agreements got a lot of attention this week, and we were recognized for our opposition to TAA. From The Hill:
“But with concerns mounting over federal spending, conservative resistance forced GOP leaders to pull a bill extending the program from the floor in February. The Heritage Action organization and the Club for Growth, among other groups, have campaigned against the legislation as wasteful spending. In June, freshman Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) circulated a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) urging him not to allow Democrats to ‘hold hostage’ trade agreements to win passage of the TAA, which he likened to ‘welfare spending’ and socialism.”
Unfortunately, TAA passed with broad bipartisan support, signaling that despite the 2010 elections, the Washington Establishment will continue to pass unnecessary spending bills. Even though TAA costs billions and doesn’t increase the income of the small number of unemployed persons it actually covers, Members of Congress were not willing to stand on principle and end this ridiculous program.
And finally, a little-known judicial nominee ended up getting us three mentions. We opposed Alison Nathan’s nomination because she lacked the experience necessary for the position and because she believes that foreign law should be binding on issues relating to the U.S. Constitution.
“Nathan’s nomination seemed to turn controversial at the last minute following outreach from conservative groups to senators. Heritage Action for America charged that Nathan lacked experience and would rely on foreign law in a message that threatened to punish senators who voted to confirm her.”
“On the morning of the confirmation vote, however, Heritage Action, an advocacy arm of the longstanding right-wing Heritage Foundation think tank, announced that it would be scoring the Nathan confirmation as a ‘key vote’ in its legislative scorecard. Heritage Action, which was launched a year and a half ago, issued its first such scorecard in August, which ranked senators according to their votes on 19 bills and their co-sponsorship position on four. The group is selective in identifying ‘key votes,’ and Nathan’s nomination had suddenly become very important to it.”
“…Heritage Action for America, claimed that Ms Nathan lacked experience.”
Your steadfast commitment to conservative principles is what drives us. Getting noticed by the press is how we know we’re making a difference.