BY RICHELLE THOMPSON
The Cincinnati Enquirer
WILMINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland's degree of fiscal responsibility depends on which national political group is doing the ranking.
Concord Coalition considers the Democrat from Lucasville a point shy of joining the congressional honor roll on key votes to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. For more evidence of his penny-pinching politics, Mr. Strickland points to a high ranking from another conservative lobbying group, National Taxpayers Union Foundation.
But that's only part of the story.
While the taxpayers foundation rewarded Mr. Strickland for his fiscally sound votes, it still gave him an overall failing grade for his 1997 performance. And on Tuesday, the national lobbying group endorsed his opponent, Lt. Gov. Nancy Hollister.
In the race to represent the 14-county district from Marietta to Warren County, Pete Sepp, the foundation's vice president for communications, said, "It all comes down to whether or not people are going to focus on financial issues.
"If people pay more attention to the bottom line, the race will probably go to Hollister," he said. "I think people are starting to sense that maybe the (strong economic) ride won't go on forever." The foundation's campaign fund hasn't decided whether it will advertise on Mrs. Hollister's behalf, Mr. Sepp said, and likely won't air any campaign ads until the last two weeks before the Nov. 3 election.
Still, the nonprofit organization, which has 300,000 members nationwide, praised Mrs. Hollister's fiscally conservative views, including support of the balanced budget amendment.
The foundation gives Mr. Strickland a more mixed review. The organization analyzes congressional members both on the votes they cast and the legislation they support. The group ranked Mr. Strickland fourth best out of Ohio's congressional delegation of 19 members when it came to his voting record. The analysis reviewed 154 House votes during 1997 and found Mr. Strickland supported bills that would generate $47.18 billion in new federal spending per year.
A second analysis looked at legislation sponsored or co-sponsored by Mr. Strickland. In this ranking, Mr. Strickland fared far worse, considered second in proposed spending in the state. He sponsored bills that would have totaled $30.7 billion in annual new federal spending.
Mr. Strickland's "voting pattern on spending is that of a typical member of the House," said Mr. Sepp. "From a sponsor standpoint, the congressman wants to significantly increase the spending."
The Concord Coalition, which looks at a different set of bills in ranking members of Congress, placed Mr. Strickland in the 26th percentile in 1994, during his last term. In 1997, Mr. Strickland ranked in the 84th percentile. The jump is difficult to explain but not necessarily unusual, said Bob Bixby, the coalition's policy director.
Issues can change from year to year, he said. Other times, it's the politician.
While Mrs. Hollister considers Mr. Strickland's proposed legislation a better measure of his intentions, the congressman said Tuesday that constituents should judge him by the votes he casts.
That record "offers pretty good evidence I'm a fellow who tries to take spending seriously," Mr. Strickland said. "I am not a tax-and-spend liberal."
