by Stephen Moore and Eric V. Schlecht

The choice for Vice President nominee appears more up-for-grabs in both parties at this stage of the process than at anytime since perhaps 1976. On the Republican side of the aisle, there are more than a dozen potential nominees for George W. Bush to tap. With no clear-cut front-runner, a Dan Quayle-type dark horse could easily emerge.

As for the Democrats, although California Senator Diane Feinstein is still considered a favorite as Al Gore’s running mate, the inevitability of her candidacy certainly seems to have faded in recent weeks. We now hear the names of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, Missouri Representative Dick Gephardt, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman bandied about by the Gore campaign–with seemingly a new trial balloon floated every few days.

Despite the huge tide of public and press fascination in the VP sweepstakes, there’s precious little information about who these people are and what policies they espouse. The media coverage is strikingly shallow. Any substantive discussion on the potential nominees’ policy positions begins and ends with their position on abortion. There is also nowadays the obligatory discussion of whether the Veep nominee served in the military.

We suspect that what is most vital to Americans — but what is rarely reported on — is how these men and women stand on the pocket book issues. How do they stand on budget, tax, business and trade questions? To fill this void, we have provided a comprehensive Fiscal and Economic Scorecard for the prospective nominees of both parties. Our respective organizations have over the years conducted extensive research on the records of Governors, Senators and members of the House of Representatives. Since 1990, Cato has published a biennial "Fiscal Report Card on the Governors." For more than 25 years the National Taxpayers Union and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation have each published data on the voting records of all Members of Congress. Relying on this analysis and some additional research on the positions of these candidates, we provide below a "Taxpayer Guide" to the 2000 Veepstakes.

The candidates are listed in order of most to least friendly to taxpayers.

Cox, a conservative Catholic California Republican, once worked in the Reagan White House and since his election to Congress in 1988 has been an unwavering advocate of Reaganite economic policies. He is the author of one of the leading proposals to overhaul the federal budget process in order to more effectively curtail spending. Cox has consistently voted for the Tax Limitation Amendment (TLA) — a Constitutional Amendment that would require a two-thirds majority vote in Congress to raise taxes. Cox also supported the 10-year, $792 billion tax cut that would have reduced marginal rates, phased out the estate tax, and provided some marriage penalty relief. And he voted against the massive, end of the year, omnibus appropriations bill that would have spent $385 billion and blocked reform of the boondoggle Northeast dairy compact. One of Cox’s most recent and impressive pro-taxpayer achievements was the bill he sponsored and passed to place a tax moratorium on the Internet. This is a solid fiscal conservative record with few blemishes.

A former Presidential candidate himself, Kasich is a young, charismatic conservative with a well-deserved reputation as a budget expert and a friend of the taxpayer. Kasich’s most famous accomplishment was the 1995 Contract with America budget he crafted. That budget blueprint proposed the elimination of 200 federal programs and 3 cabinet agencies. That budget was a tour de force and Kasich successfully shepherded it through the House. Though that budget was eventually famously vetoed by President Clinton, few people in Washington can lay a greater claim to balancing the budget than John Kasich. Prior to that battle, Kasich gained notoriety for teaming with conservative Democrat Tim Penny in late 1993 to sponsor the Penny-Kasich bill which would have cut some 80 low priority federal programs to help balance the budget. His latest crusade has been the thankless job of fighting corporate welfare in the budget — something few of his GOP colleagues are eager to do given their cozy relationship with big business. He also fought Bud Shuster to try to block the massive pork-barrel highway bill of 1997. Kasich does have his fiscal blind spots, however. In 1993 he supported the Clinton crime bill. And lately he has shown a willingness to support such feel-good programs as AmeriCorps. Nonetheless, if Bush chose Kasich as his running mate, fiscal conservatives would warmly applaud the nomination.

After two and a half terms in office, John Engler remains one of the nation's most fiscally frugal governors. He has also been a preeminent policy pioneer in areas ranging from welfare reform, to charter schools, to privatization, to growth-oriented tax reduction. There is a whole lot to admire about Engler's 10-year record. The $1.5 billion deficit he inherited was quickly erased and is now a $500 million surplus. The state government workforce has been cut by an impressive 5,700 workers, an 8 percent drop. The state unemployment rate, which was one of the highest in the nation in the 1970s and 1980s, has been at or below the national average for the past five years, and Michigan firms now complain of a labor shortage. Welfare rolls declined by more than 80,000 between 1994-98. The overall state budget grew by less than inflation in his first two terms. There have been 25 tax cuts, including reductions in the personal income tax, the state unemployment tax, and Michigan's notoriously high property taxes. The income tax was 6 percent when he took office; now it is down to 3.9 percent. Engler somehow got himself lined up on the wrong-side of the Internet tax issue (he inexplicably favors taxing the Internet). Still, Engler has shown immense talent in guiding the state out of tough times and remaining true to his anti-big government vision.

The Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania's conservative state think tank, gushes that "Ridge has enacted the most pro-business--and pro-economic growth--reforms in recent Pennsylvania history." They include $2 billion in corporate income and personal income tax cuts, inheritance tax relief, workers' compensation reforms that will cut business costs by an estimated 20 percent, electricity deregulation, and welfare reforms that have cut caseloads by 65,000. Ridge endorsed an amendment to the state constitution requiring a 60 percent supermajority vote of the legislature to raise taxes. From 1995 to 1998 Pennsylvania impressively leapfrogged from 45th in the country in job creation to 17th. But Ridge carries baggage too. In 1997 he supported a hefty gas tax and motor vehicle tax increase. His latest budgets, provided generous increases described accurately by the Philadelphia Inquirer as "spreading the wealth far and wide." On balance, Ridge, who arrived in Harrisburg from the U.S. House of Representatives with a mushy moderate reputation, has been a pleasant surprise as governor.

Keating, a former Jack Kemp aide, has pursued a growth-oriented tax agenda for Oklahoma, but the legislature has impeded his progress. In 1997 Keating signed into law a major reduction in the unemployment tax. Keating has repeatedly proposed cutting the state income tax in half — from 7 to 3.5 percent — the biggest supply-side income tax plan of any governor. Only a portion of that tax cut has been enacted. Keating has been willing to embrace controversial issues, including a voucher plan for kids in low performing schools and pay for performance in state agencies. But the budget has expanded at a troublingly rapid rate under Keating. In his 5 years in office, state general fund expenditures grew by more than $1 billion, an increase of a whopping 30 percent. Keating has not been reluctant to propose new expenditures in areas like highway spending, teacher pay raises, and higher education. Keating earns high marks for his tax and voucher initiatives, but has been willing to allow the legislature to spend the bulk of recent surplus tax payments.

A Vietnam Vet with a reputation as a reformer, the McCain forces have been pushing Hagel on Bush. On budget and tax issues, Hagel has amassed a fiscally conservative record in his first Senate term. Hagel voted against the massive FY99 supplemental bill, the end of the year omnibus appropriations bill, and in favor of the $792 billion tax cut. Although Hagel’s NTU voting record scores him high marks, he has infuriated free market advocates with his bizarre support of IMF funding in 1998 and 1999. The Nebraska Senator refuses to acknowledge the IMF’s horrid track record in creating prosperity and has become one of the agency’s major cheerleaders on Capitol Hill. On the asset side of the ledger, Hagel has tried (mostly unsuccessfully) to push his Senate Republican colleagues in a bolder direction on tax cuts and budget reductions. On balance, we conclude that on fiscal issues Hagel is usually, but not always reliable from a taxpayer perspective.

George Pataki has a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde record as governor of New York. After ousting Mario Cuomo from office in November 1994, Pataki not only delivered on his 25 percent income tax cut on schedule, he slashed other taxes as well, including the workers comp tax and the state sales tax on clothing. The New York Empire Foundation has noted that "even with these tax cuts, the state’s resurgent economy has generated more income tax revenue under Gov. Pataki than it ever did under former Gov. Mario Cuomo." New York remains one of the highest-taxed states in the nation, but its commanding lead over the rest of the pack has been narrowed considerably. Pataki started out as a fiscal tight-wad. In 1995 he inherited a general fund budget of $43 billion. Two years later the budget was $42 billion. But since 1998 Pataki has "reinvented" himself and is now one of the biggest spending governors in the Northeast. He has supported several multi-billion dollar bond initiatives — fiscal lunacy in a state that already has the highest debt burdens and one of the lousiest credit ratings in the country. His FY 1999 budget called for a gargantuan 8.9 percent spending hike; his 2000 budget called for a 6 percent increase. George Pataki’s legacy has been quite positive, but the recent fiscal trends are worrisome to say the least.

McCain tarnished his reputation as a fiscal conservative during the GOP primaries when he ran to the left of George W. Bush on tax cutting issues. His Al Gore-type criticism of the Bush tax cut plans as fiscally irresponsible and tilted toward the rich, infuriated many supply-side conservatives. Yet as a Senator, McCain has been rated consistently near the top by the NTU. His 87% NTU rating was the best score in the Senate last year. The Senior Senator also did well in key voting, opposing the massive FY99 supplemental bill, the end of the year omnibus appropriations bill while supporting the $792 billion tax cut. Touting a well-deserved reputation as a porkbuster, the former POW was one of the lead sponsors of the line-item veto. He has been instrumental in opposing an increase in the passenger facility charge tax increase and in resisting Internet taxes. He is considered by many the resident expert on pork-barrel spending in the Senate and his detailed floor speeches seem to prove it. He also leads the fight in the Senate against corporate welfare. However, he has angered many conservatives with his advocacy of huge tobacco taxes in 1998 and campaign finance "reform." His schizophrenic record and rhetoric calls into question whether he would be a reliable supporter of the tax cut agenda if he were in the White House.

A charismatic Senator from Al Gore’s home state, Fred Thompson is a Watergate prosecutor and former actor turned populist politician. Thompson voted for the $792 billion tax cut, death tax elimination, marriage penalty relief, and the termination of the telephone tax. But he disappointed taxpayers in supporting the omnibus appropriations bill and the massive FY99 supplemental bill. He has been a strong defender of federalism in the Senate. Unfortunately, by far the biggest issue in Tennessee in the past two years has been a proposal by the Republican Governor, Don Sundquist, to introduce a first-ever state income tax. Taxpayers have revolted against the measure, yet Thompson refuses to oppose the measure. His fence-straddling on the issue has seriously eroded his free-market credentials. When conservatives needed him most, he wasn’t there to fight for them. This doesn’t inspire confidence in how he would govern in budget negotiations if he were in the White House.

In 1994 Whitman became an overnight national cause celebre when she carried her anti-tax message to an improbable, victory over liberal, pro-tax incumbent Jim Florio. She delivered the 30 percent income tax cut on schedule and without running up big deficits. The Whitman tax cut was an unmitigated success: the economy rebounded nicely and the tax cut critics were confounded when the budget remained balanced. It’s a wonderful success story; if only that was the end of the story! Since the middle of her first term, Whitman has reversed fiscal course. After barely winning re-election, Whitman has supported a seemingly endless barrage of new taxes: a 40 cent a pack increase in cigarette taxes, a 67 percent increase in the gas tax (that even the Democrats in the legislature wouldn't support), a $3-a-day increase in the car rental fee, an increase in motor vehicle fees, and loads of new debt-financed spending. The budget has exploded under Whitman recently (in 1998 it rose by 8.3 percent) and she has irritated fiscal conservatives in the state for her support for new bond initiatives, her refusal to help push school choice for parents, and her lost interest in tax cutting in a state with a still highly uncompetitive tax system. Whitman started strong but has moved further to the left every year and appears to govern as a tax slayer only as a last resort.

The Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who has served in the Senate since 1972, Domenici has a mixed record at best. He is moderate deficit hawk, not a supply side tax cutter — more like a Bob Dole than a Reagan in economic philosophy. His unforgivable vote in 1990 in favor of President Bush’s massive tax increase should be enough to disqualify Domenici for the Veep spot. In 1995 he favored a much smaller tax cut than Republicans in the House were pursuing. In 1999, however, he voted for the $792 billion GOP tax cut and was a lead author of proposal to cut income tax rates that year. Domenici serves also on the Appropriations Committee and he is not always shy about spending money. The NTUF VoteTally found that Domenici voted to increase spending by $61.4 billion in 1999. He voted for the massive FY99 supplemental bill and the end of the year omnibus appropriations bill. In 1996 he teamed with ultra-liberal Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) to include a multi-billion dollar mental illness provision in the 1996 health care bill. Many conservatives claim that the only benefit of making Domenici Vice President is that someone else would take over the chief budget writing committee in the Senate.

NTU Rates Congress Grade:

B (67%)

George Voinovich is an anti-supply-sider. In the 1980s as Mayor of Cleveland he was often a vocal critic of the Reagan tax cuts. As Governor from 1991-98 Voinovich engaged in nonstop fiscal combat with conservatives and taxpayer advocates in his own party. In 1993 he passed a giant $1 billion tax hike, increasing Ohio's already excessive 7 percent income tax rate to 7.5 percent. In 1996 moderate Democrats in the legislature teamed up with conservative Republicans and taxpayer groups to pass a tax cut out of the state's $1.1 billion surplus, but Voinovich blasted it as "fiscally irresponsible." He begrudgingly signed a shaved down version into law. In 1996 he endorsed a 20 percent increase in the state sales tax and a 50 percent cigarette tax hike to fund a massive new education spending campaign. The Voinovich plan was placed on the Ohio ballot and was trounced by voters by an 80-20 margin. While Governor, Voinovich was a prodigious spender. His last budget proposed an 8 percent spending hike. One of the constructive features of Voinovich's agenda was his unwavering support for vouchers in inner-city Cleveland and for expanded charter schools. In the Senate, his anti-tax cut crusade has continued.

In Congress, Voinovich has continued to oppose tax cuts — he was one of only four Republicans who voted to retain the death tax. He also defected on the GOP’s $792 billion tax cut in 1999. On spending, Voinovich has been more reliable. He voted against the omnibus appropriations bill, and has often opposed individual spending bills that come to the Senate floor over-budget. Somewhat surprisingly, however, he voted for the massive FY99 supplemental bill. Voinovich, who has been involved in elective politics since 1966, is loved by Concord Coalition-types, but has earned the hostility of the tax-cutting wing of the GOP. On balance, his anti-tax cut and pro-spending record makes him appear to be a more suitable running mate for Al Gore than George W. Bush.  

Hunt is one of the most popular southern governors and is one the Democrats’ best orators. He touts himself as a genuine "New Democrat," but his record is more complicated than that. The North Carolina budget has roughly doubled during his tenure. In recent years Hunt has approved double-digit percentage spending increases, including a whopping 12 percent proposed spending hike for FY1999. One of his favorite programs is Smart Start, which gets government’s meddlesome hand into the business of providing day care subsidies and other services to pre-schoolers. He is not a knee-jerk opponent to tax cutting however. In 1996 and 1997 he approved a modest tax cut package that included a reduction in the sales tax on food and provided a phased-in cut in corporate income tax rates. He generally supports free trade. There is much in Hunt’s record, charm and style that is reminiscent of Bill Clinton. He could be a formidable foe for the GOP.

NTU Rates Congress Grade:

D (19%)

Evan Bayh is far more pro-business and pro-taxpayer than the national Democratic Party. He ran for governor in 1988 as an opponent of higher taxes and expensive government activism. In the recession of the early 1990s, when the vast majority of states enacted major tax hikes, Bayh steadfastly rejected them. Indiana is one of only three states during those years that did not raise taxes. In fact, in his second term Bayh cut several taxes–including a $600 million cut in property taxes over five years and a 50 percent reduction in the auto excise tax. Bayh’s record on spending was not as impressive. State expenditures were 52 percent higher when Bayh left office than when he was first elected. His spending priorities tend to resemble those of traditional Democrats: education, health care, and children's programs. Still, the combination of a strong state economy on his watch and his unflinching anti-tax stance made Bayh a fiscally conservative Democrat in his record, not just his rhetoric.

Bayh’s voting record during his short tenure in the Senate has not matched his admirable record in the governor’s mansion. His NTU rating so far is a disappointing 19%. To his credit, Bayh voted against the omnibus appropriations and the massive FY99 supplemental bills, but disappointed some with a vote against the $792 billion tax cut and repeal of the estate tax. He has, however, sponsored a bill to repeal the marriage penalty. When his Senate and gubernatorial records are combined, the conclusion we draw is that Bayh would be one of the more fiscally conservative Democrats that Al Gore could choose.

Viewed by most as a typical southern Democrat moderate, the senior Senator has been mentioned as a VP that could help carry the important state of Florida. The former Governor deserves kudos for voting against the omnibus appropriations but disappointed with votes against the $792 billion tax cut and for the massive FY99 supplemental bill. While he isn’t shy about bringing home the bacon for Florida, he has supported the Balanced Budget Amendment and has called for means-testing Medicare and slightly reducing automatic spending increases in Social Security. Like many of his Democratic colleagues, Graham has been active recently in attacking tobacco and supporting massive tax increases on tobacco users. He is pro-immigration and pro-free trade. He’s one of the leading "New Democrat" candidates, but as with so many of these "progressive Democrats," the actual voting record almost always is disappointing.

An orthodox Jew who enjoys a reputation in Washington as a moderate Democrat with ethics beyond reproach, Lieberman has been mentioned by some as a "leveling influence" who could help Gore work with Congressional Republicans. As the Almanac of American Politics notes, the junior Senator from Connecticut ". . . has come to occupy a unique place in the Senate, exerting influence out of proportion to his seniority, committee position or political clout, an influence that comes from respect for his independence of mind, civility of spirit and fidelity to causes in which he believes. In a bitterly partisan time he is one of the least partisan Democrats on Capitol Hill. . ." He has supported capital gains tax cuts, welfare reform, enterprise zone legislation, and free trade. He is also, however, a big spender. He voted for the omnibus and supplemental appropriation bills of 1999. He took big-government side by supporting the Kyoto air pollution conference, the 1993 Clinton tax hike, and the deceptively named Clean Air Act. Lieberman is more moderate than most of his congressional Democratic colleagues, but not as pro-taxpayer as his press clippings might suggest.

A former Congressman not known for his charisma, it is believed by some that the Catholic Senator from Illinois could help deliver his important home state. He’s a solid, old-school, pro-union Democrat. According to the NTUF VoteTally, Durbin voted to increase spending by $70.3 billion in 1999. In key votes, Durbin strikes out at nearly every plate appearance: voting for the massive FY99 supplemental bill and the omnibus appropriations while voting against the $792 billion tax cut and death tax repeal. Once a staffer to Senator Paul Simon (D-IL), his most prominent role in the Senate has been as an attack dog against tobacco producers and consumers. It would be hard to imagine how Al Gore could possibly attempt to run as a New Democrat with Senator Durbin as his running mate.

A well-known, female, liberal Senator from the state Democrats must win to keep the Presidency, Feinstein has been mentioned by many as perhaps the leading VP candidate. What is shocking about Feinstein is how dramatically different Feinstein’s record is from the popular press characterization of her as a fiscal moderate. She is nothing of the sort. Her voting record is as pro-tax and spend as you can find in Congress. The NTUF VoteTally finds that the former mayor of San Francisco voting for an increase in spending of $73 billion in 1999. Predictably, the liberal icon betrayed the taxpayer by supporting the massive FY99 supplemental bill and the omnibus appropriations bill while opposing the $792 billion tax cut. She did, however, recently vote for repeal of the estate tax. She has also flip-flopped on support for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. A staunch opponent of welfare reform, proponent of increased federal spending (especially in California), and expansion of federal powers, her record could hardly be more anathema to taxpayer interests.

The House Minority Leader, whom many claim could help patch things up for Gore with organized Labor, is no stranger to Presidential politics — having run for President himself in 1988 and flirted with the idea this year. A former fiscally moderate Democrat who voted for President Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, the Minority Leader has since become an ardent proponent of increased spending and an opponent of tax cuts. He now says that he greatly regrets voting for the Reagan tax cuts, despite the economic revival they spurred. In the 1990s he has been a down the line liberal tax and spender. He voted for the giant tax increases of 1990 and 1993. He voted for the massive FY99 supplemental bill and the omnibus appropriations bill, while voting against the Tax Limitation Amendment and the $792 billion tax cut. He is a champion of entitlement expansions, universal health care, the minimum wage, and an opponent of free trade. If Gore wants his campaign to lurch far to the left, Gephardt is his man.

Return to NTU Home Page