JED Congressional Ratings

Most economic issues have two components that bring out the differences between conservatives and liberals. First, economic policies may be designed to regulate the economy, or otherwise address some flaw in markets. Second, economic policies may be designed to correct some perceived injustice or simply redistribute income and wealth from one group to another. These can be somewhat thought of as an efficiency component and a moral component. Some issues, such as antitrust regulations, are mostly about efficiency. Others, such as marginal tax rates, are mostly about distribution. Still others have a fair amount of both components.

I believe that those in favor of a free economy are by and large winning the intellectual war with respect to the efficiency argument. Certainly our economy is over-regulated, perhaps more than ever. But the tone of the public debate has shifted in the last thirty years, and the question is no longer 'do markets work better than government?' but rather 'how do we harness the power of markets to achieve our goals?' Instead, the debate over the next fifty years will shift towards the distributional and moral aspects of economic policy. On this front economic conservatives are fighting to a draw at best. Indeed, many conservatives such as Charles Murray and David Frum appear to be giving in to the left on distributional issues, bargaining that as long as we use economically efficient means, the liberal redistributionist agenda is acceptable or even desirable. This is a mistake; not only is the economics of redistribution full of deadweight losses and costly inefficiencies, but it is also morally objectionable. In the end, all of us live less fulfilling lives the more that we are disconnected from the results of our own efforts. Equality of opportunity and equality before the law are more productive and more noble goals than equality of result.

While conservatives and libertarians should continue to fight against regulation and for decentralized efficiency, we must make greater efforts to argue the moral and economic defense against class warfare.

To this end, in 2008 tonyquain.com initiated a Just Economic Distributions (JED) rating, scoring all members of Congress, House and Senate, on economic distribution issues. The scoring system selects those roll call votes in the past year that best reflect a legislator's willingness to use the federal government to redistribute wealth or income. If the legislator votes on the side of natural distributions, rather than those dictated by governmental force, their score is increased; if they vote against natural distributions, their score is decreased.

Votes on taxes are especially relevant, particularly changes to rate structures or refundable tax credits. Means-tested programs and entitlements also figure significantly into the ratings. Minimum wage, though largely ineffective as a redistributional tool, is also revealing as a policy. Votes on free trade, discretionary spending, and regulatory mandates usually have greater efficiency rather than distributional impact, but may occasionally be included if the issue is big enough.

A legislator's rating is intended to indicate the relative placement, as a percentage, among his or her peers in the respective legislative chamber. For example, a rating of 60 for a U.S. Senator would indicate that the legislator votes better to uphold just economic distributions than 60% of other senators. It does not necessarily indicate that someone who scores between 40 and 60 is "centrist" or that someone who scores less than 75 is not conservative or greater than 25 is not liberal. It is a relative measure and should be treated as such.

Ratings Data

U.S. House of Representatives, 2007, sorted by legislator's last name, state and district, rating (highest to lowest).

U.S. Senate, 2007, sorted by legislator's last name, state and district, rating (highest to lowest).