To start the grading process, we spotted every sitting lawmaker 75 points.

Then we took a number of other factors into consideration, including length of service, votes on selected issues of concern to all Pennsylvanians, their preponderance to take advantage of their position and their commitment to reform.

We tallied all these elements to come up with the final grade listed in the column on the far right. We may add new criteria as time passes.

Length of Service
A recent poll revealed that 75% of Pennsylvanians support term limits for lawmakers. Most agree that 8-12 years is enough time for any lawmaker to get the job done and return to the private sector.

Based on this, we deducted 0.5 points for every year served greater than ten. In other words, a lawmaker with 10 years of service lost no points, while a 12-year incumbent lost 1 point and a 20-year incumbent lost 5 points.

Act 50
Act 50 of 1998 was the legislature's first attempt at a partial tax shift to reduce property taxes. Only four school districts statewide thought it was a good enough idea to adopt.

We deducted 1 point if a lawmaker voted for Act 50 and awarded 1 point for voting against it.

Stadiums
Act 1 of 1999 provided hundreds of millions of tax dollars to professional sports teams to build new stadiums. We love the Eagles, Steelers, Pirates, Phillies and other PA sports teams as much as the next guy, but this was nothing but corporate welfare.

We deducted 2 points if a lawmaker voted for Act 1 and awarded 2 points for voting against it.

Pension
Act 9 of 2001 gave a 50% increase to the pensions of lawmakers, while giving a 25% increase to other government employees. This sent Pennsylvania taxpayers hurtling toward a fiscal nightmare in the years ahead.

We deducted 4 points if a lawmaker voted for Act 9 and awarded 3 points for voting against it.

PIT Increase
Act 46 of 2003 raised the personal income tax rate for Pennsylvanians by 10%, from 2.8% to 3.07%.

We deducted 2 points if a lawmaker voted for Act 46 and awarded 2 points for voting against it.

Slots Bill
Act 71 of 2004 legalized slot parlors, impinged on the right of local citizens to determine where casinos would be built and created a system in which only the wealthiest of the wealthy and the politically connected could get into the business.

Act 71 was also an prime example of 'gut and run' legislation, where a two page bill was transformed into a 140+ page fiasco literally overnight, with little or no public input.

We deducted 3 points if a lawmaker voted for Act 71 and awarded 2 points for voting against it.

Act 72
Act 72 of 2004, a companion bill to the slots legislation, was the legislature’s second attempt at a partial tax shift to reduce property taxes.

This act was also despised by many school officials across the Commonwealth, while its back-end referendum provision had loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck though, rendering it nearly useless in any case.

We deducted 1 point if a lawmaker voted for Act 72 and awarded 1 point for voting against it.

Pay Raise
Act 44 of 2005 was the spark that ignited the reform revolution. Passed in the middle of the night with no public debate, it was the epitome of ‘gut-and-run’ legislation, granting lawmakers a 16-54% pay raise.

We deducted 4 points if a lawmaker voted for Act 44 and awarded 2 points for voting against it.

Unvouchered
Part of Act 44 authorized lawmakers to take their pay raise immediately through ‘unvouchered expenses’. This was arguably the most offensive portion of the bill and was later deemed unconstitutional in a somewhat twisted decision by the Supreme Court.

We awarded 1 point to every lawmaker who declined (N) to take the illegal payments and deducted 2 points for accepting them (Y). Some lawmakers sent us documentation of their repayment in full (P), so we gave them back 1 point. Others who are reportedly making interest-free payments to repay the money received 0.25 points.

There were a few lawmakers who voted against Act 44, but took the illegal income anyway. They were penalized 2 additional points for sheer hypocrisy.

Act 1
Act 1 of 2006 was the legislature’s third attempt at a partial tax shift to reduce property taxes, forcing the same flawed referendum provisions of Act 72 of 2004 on schools.

Voters utterly rejected the tax shifting portion of Act 1, sending a clear message (we hope) that future partial solutions will not be acceptable.

Additionally, Act 1 was viewed by many as little more than a post-pay raise election year ploy by lawmakers in order to claim to constituents they “did something” about property taxes.

We deducted 2 points if a lawmaker voted for Act 1 and awarded 2 points for voting against it.

PSA Spending
Public Service Announcements (AKA campaigning on the taxpayer dime) include advertisement of state programs on TV and radio while prominently featuring a local lawmaker.

We cannot think of any good reason to continue this part of the Incumbent Protection Plan. The figures shown represent PSA spending by each lawmaker during 2005-06. (Note: The Senate caps PSA spending at $4800 per year per Senator.)

We deducted points in the following manner: 3 points for spending up to $1,000 on PSAs; 4 points for up to $5,000; 5 for up to $10,000; 6 for up to $25,000; 7 for up to $50,000; 8 for up to $75,000, 9 for up to $100,000; 10 for up to $150,000; 11 for up to $200,000; and 12 for spending more than $200,000.

Convention
There are currently two bills aimed at enabling a constitutional convention in Pennsylvania, HB649 and SB291. Both bills follow the 1967 convention model, which is unacceptable in today’s atmosphere.

Despite the deficiencies in both bills, we awarded 3 points to all co-sponsors (X) to reward their acknowledgement that a major restructing effort is required to steer the Commonwealth back on the right track. Others (Z) have publicly indicated definitive support for a constitutional convention. If a better bill is introduced, we'll adjust this category accordingly.

CleanSweep
A number of current lawmakers signed the 2006 PACleanSweep Candidate Declaration before they were elected to office. We awarded 5 points to all these freshmen.

Bonusgate
Taxpayer funded bonuses to staffers in 2006 by each of the four caucuses caused quite an uproar in early 2007 and launched an official investigation. Far be it from us to penalize anyone for their party affiliation, but being a member of a caucus includes accepting responsibility for what caucus leaders do.

House Democrats ($20,430 in bonuses per member) were docked 4 points; Senate Republicans ($6,207/member) lost 3 points; House Republicans ($2,455/member) were penalized 2 points; and Senate Democrats ($1,810/member) lost 1 point.

Points were not deducted from lawmakers who began their service in 2007.

Senate Baggage
You may notice that a handful of Senators have information on the grid for things that transpired before they were elected. These Senators previously served in the House of Representatives and carry their House record with them. Their length of service points, however, reflect the date they were elected to their current position.

Vote Scoring
On the most self-serving of these issues, we awarded fewer points for voting the 'right' way than we took away for voting the 'wrong' way. This is due to the legislature's time-honored tradition of allowing lawmakers in vulnerable seats to take less controversial positions, while tasking those in safe seats to make the hard votes.

We believe, however, that 2006 proved there is no such thing as a safe seat.