■FACT: Santorum voted to increase the debt ceiling in 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006. Together, these five votes boosted the federal debt limit by nearly $3.5 trillion. (H.R. 2015, Roll Call Vote #209, 7/31/97; S. 2578, Roll Call Vote #148, 6/11/02; H. J. Res. 51, Roll Call Vote #202, 5/23/03; S. 2986, Roll Call Vote #213, 11/17/04; H. J. Res. 47, Roll Call Vote #54, 3/16/06; Mindy R. Leavit, “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” Congressional Research Service, 9/9/11) Rick Santorum voted for billions in waste, including the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
■FACT: “Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Rick Santorum)
■FACT: “The announcements flowed out of Rick Santorum’s Senate office: a $3.5 million federal grant to Piasecki Aircraft to help it test a new helicopter propeller technology; another $3.5 million to JLG Industries to bolster its bid to build all-terrain forklifts for the military; $1.4 million to Medico Industries to upgrade equipment for its munitions work. … But an examination of Mr. Santorum’s earmark record sheds light on another aspect of his political personality, one that is at odds with the reformer image he has tried to convey on the trail: his prowess as a Washington insider. A review of some of his earmarks, viewed alongside his political donations, suggests that the river of federal money Mr. Santorum helped direct to Pennsylvania paid off handsomely in the form of campaign cash.” (Michael Luo and Mike McIntire, The New York Times, 1/15/12)
■FACT: Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill, which included hundreds of earmarks, including the bridge to nowhere, a teapot museum. (H.R. 3, Roll Call Vote #220, 7/29/05)
■FACT: Santorum supported the “Bridge to Nowhere” – twice. Santorum “voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Rick Santorum)
■FACT: Santorum admitted he voted for bridge, and defended vote: “People say that I voted for ‘The Bridge to Nowhere.’ I did. I went with the federalist argument, which is, ‘Who am I in Pennsylvania to tell Alaska what their highway priorities should be?’” (William Petroski, Des Moines Register, 12/29/11) In a single session, Rick Santorum co-sponsored 51 bills to increase spending … And zero to cut spending.
■FACT: “In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Former Senator Rick Santorum) Rick Santorum even voted to raise his own pay.
■FACT: “Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Former Senator Rick Santorum)■FACT: Santorum voted three times – in 2001, 2002 and 2003 – to preserve Congressional pay increases. (Roll Call Vote #360, 12/7/01; Roll Call Vote #242, 11/13/02; Roll Call Vote #406, 10/23/03) Rick Santorum joined Hillary Clinton to let convicted felons vote.
■FACT: In 2002, Santorum voted “to secure the Federal voting rights of certain qualified persons who have served their sentences.” Santorum was one of only three Republican senators to vote with Sen. Hillary Clinton for the measure, which failed in the Senate. (S. 565, Roll Call Vote #31, 2/14/02)
■FACT: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who sponsored the measure, on the purpose of his amendment: “Basically what this amendment does is ensure that ex-felons, people who have fully served their sentences, have completed their probation, have completed their parole, should not be denied their right to vote.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Remarks on the Senate Floor, 2/14/02)
Here’s another view of Santorum’s OVERALL Senate record. Instead of focusing on a few trees, let’s see the overall FOREST of his votes.
Remember, if we focus on some of the TREES of what Ronald Reagan did as governor ( and even as President ), e.g. He signed a pro-abortion bill, he raised taxes in California, and as President, he gave us AN AMNESTY LAW, we would then conclude that Reagan is no conservative ( missing the overall forest ).
Excerpts From the Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html?page=1
TITLE : Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift?
_________________________________________
So, is Romney’s claim true? Was Santorum a spendthrift in the Senate? Fortunately, credible third party analysis is available to help us answer this question, so we need not merely accept the Romney campaign’s verdict as the final word on the matter.
The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.
For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.
NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.
Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.
This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.
Based on how each state voted in the three presidential elections over that period (1996, 2000, and 2004), nearly two-thirds of senators represented states that were to the right of Pennsylvania. In those three presidential elections, Pennsylvania was, on average, 3 points to the left of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvanians backed the Democratic presidential nominee each time, while the nation as a whole chose the Republican in two out of three contests.
Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.
But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.
In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorum’s represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. It’s an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.
So, if Santorum was among — and perhaps even topped the list of — the most fiscally conservative senators during this period, who were the least fiscally conservative? That prize would have to go to the two North Dakota senators, who despite representing a state that voted 23 points to the right of the national average in the presidential elections, managed to achieve GPAs of 0.08 (Democrat Kent Conrad) and 0.00 (Democrat Byron Dorgan). Honorable mentions would have to go to Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who got a 0.84 GPA in a state that was 18 points to the right of the national average; Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who got a 0.08 GPA in a state that was 4 points to the right of average; and Utah Republicans Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, who each barely cleared a 3.0 (3.11 for Bennett, 3.08 for Hatch) despite representing the state that, in the presidential elections, was the nation’s most right-leaning (38 points to the right of average).
As for Santorum’s potential opponent in the fall, Barack Obama’s three years in the Senate (2005 through 2007) overlapped only with Santorum’s final two years. (In 2008, Obama effectively left the Senate to campaign for President and therefore didn’t cast enough votes for NTU to score him that year.) In both of the years that the two men overlapped (2005 and 2006), as well as throughout Obama’s three years’ worth of preparation for the presidency, Obama’s GPA was 0.00 — a rock-solid F.
Now that’s acting like a Democrat — something Santorum has never done.