INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS: EVERY MEMBER OF PA FREEDOM CAUCUS SCORES AS A “CHAMPION OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT”
Washington, DC- The Institute for Legislative Analysis released a new report yesterday, which ranked all PA lawmakers present during last legislative session. In the most expansive vote record analysis ever published on the Pennsylvania General Assembly, all members of the Pennsylvania Freedom Caucus scored higher than 90% and were categorized as “Champions of Limited Government”.
Read the release in its entirety below:
Pennsylvania Earns High Marks on Fighting Crime but Dismal Tax, Fiscal and Labor Ratings
New Report Ranks All PA Lawmakers – Most Expansive Vote Record Analysis Ever Published
WASHINGTON, DC – A new analysis of the Pennsylvania legislature – including the most comprehensive federal and state lawmaker scorecard ever produced – has found Pennsylvania lawmakers have the most conservative voting records on issues relating to crime and security, but very liberal records when it comes to tax, fiscal and labor policy. The report just released by the Institute for Legislative Analysis (ILA) is based on over 13,000 votes cast by Pennsylvania lawmakers last year at both the federal and state level.
The analysis evaluated lawmaker voting across the full spectrum of policy and rated each lawmaker on a 100-0 scale. On Local and National Security (fighting crime) lawmakers voted with limited government and conservative principles (i.e. protecting property rights) 62.50% of the time at the federal level and 67.88% within the state legislature. However, on workforce and labor issues lawmakers voted with the limited government position a dismal 35.83% and 35.77% at the federal and state levels.
“While Pennsylvania lawmakers need to step up their game on enacting sound tax, fiscal and labor policy, it is great to see their strong commitment to restoring law-and-order across our communities,” said ILA CEO Ryan McGowan. Some noteworthy accomplishments last session included strengthening protections for crime victims and standing strong against so-called criminal justice "reforms" which have led to skyrocketing crime rates and are being advanced across the nation by radical left-wing billionaires through their funding of advocacy organizations on both sides of the political aisle.
The Institute for Legislative Analysis presented 73 state lawmakers with its Charlie Gerow Award for Limited Government Ratings of 80% and above. Additionally, 39 lawmakers earned the “Big Government Extremist” title for their ratings of 10% and below on the scorecard.
The ILA serves as the data and policy hub for multiple national conservative and liberty-minded organizations. Prior to the launch of the ILA, the team previously served together for nearly a decade at CPAC and the American Conservative Union where they constructed the nation’s first 50 state legislative scorecard.
###
Institute for Legislative Analysis
press@limitedgov.org – 300 Independence Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 – (301-542-2399)
I've done a little "legislation analysis", myself; and have not only read and understood the words that were included in specific pieces of legislation, but have evaluated that wording in the context of "current events", also.
So, I urge the members of the Pennsylvania Freedom Caucus --and, indeed, ALL Members of ALL Legislatures-- to be prepared, IN THEIR OWN WORDS [and WITHOUT THE AID of whatever "notes" they might have, regarding any "endorsements" of "their (the Legislator's)" positions and votes on specific Legislation], to:
1) explain their own positions and votes, on individual pieces of Legislation; and to
2) characterize those positions and votes in terms of those individual Legislators' own, guiding principles, thoughts, and world-views.
EXAMPLE: The Institute for Legislative Analysis appears to have characterized PA House Bill #2451 (2022 Session) as a "Limited Government" Bill, with "Support" of that Bill [i.e., "voting for that Bill"] being considered to be a "Limited Government" position.
Why? The Institute for Legislative Analysis' "analysis" reads as follows:
"Support is the Limited Government Position as while there is a role for government to protect the river and surrounding landowners from direct and significant environmental threats, an outright ban on fracking represents an example of significant government overreach. A ban on fracking [by the Delaware River Basin Commission] not only infringes on property rights but subjects Americans to unnecessarily high energy prices."
Nowhere within that above-quoted analysis is any mention of the numerous earthquakes that occurred, in Oklahoma, as a direct result of wastewater-disposal methods used as part of the "fracking" process.
Thus, nowhere within that analysis is any mention of the likelihood that the use of "fracking", within Pennsylvania, might CAUSE EARTHQUAKES TO HAPPEN, WITHIN PENNSYLVANIA.
[NOTE: I am prepared to produce copies of emails that I sent, to the Office of the Governor [Wolf], proposing a strategy that the Executive Branch might use, to demonstrate, to the public, that the Commonwealth had not only evaluated the risks,...
...not only to Pennsylvania's own civil-engineering infrastructure, but to such facilities as Pennsylvanians might rely upon, that were owned and operated by the Federal Government and/or by neighboring States, also,...
...that might be affected by any EARTHQUAKES that had might be induced, within Pennsylvania, as a direct result of "fracking";...
...but that, indeed, the Government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had "laid the groundwork" for a speedy and EFFECTIVE response to any earthquakes as might, in fact, occur, also.]
The Institute for Legislative Analysis' "analysis" of House Bill #2451 (2022 Session) acknowledges that...
"there is a role for government to protect the river and surrounding landowners from direct and significant environmental threats."
Yet, to deprive the DRBC of the authority to ban "fracking", outright, would remove whatever incentive that any private-sector or public-sector individual or group might have, to comply with DRBC instructions, should begging, pleading, and other strategies of "moral suasion" prove insufficient.
The phrase "Limited Government" should NOT be understood to equate to "Hamstrung Government", nor to "Government by Prayer and Supplication to Private-Sector and Public-Sector Groups and Individuals As If Such Persons and Groups Were Gods (Whether 'Benevolent' or Otherwise)".
I've read of coal-mines, in other States, whose bankrupt former owner/operators are long-departed, and whose current "owner-of-record" has no means of preventing toxic, chemical-laden ground-water from spilling out of those mines and into the Ohio River, thence to the Mississippi, Memphis, St. Louis, New Orleans, and the Gulf of Mexico.
There should be limits to the number and types of limitations that may proscribe the power of Government.
Gulliver may not be staked, immobile, to the ground, by Lilliputians, lest they ALL be washed away in the absence of his strength, employed in service to THEM, for THEIR benefit.
Has Gulliver made ANY attempt to disrupt the time-space continuum, by attempting to apply rules that were written, today, to events that happened, yesterday?
In Pennsylvania, I mean.
Has Gulliver ignored the story of Davy Crockett and Farmer Bunce, which was, at one time, "required reading", in the public schools?
Has Gulliver tried to push his own work off, onto other backs of shorter stature and lesser strength, saying, "It doesn't matter, who does it," and, "'Whatever you say you want, today' is what's always been ACTUALLY necessary, and what you have always expected Gulliver to deliver, on pain of SEVERE chastisement, should he fail"?
This is very sad day for me. A true conservative as I define myself to favor less government's oversight and regulations in all the 5 aspects of life, private and public.
After reading this it will be hard to read the JBS ratings.