Vet Affairs grades of U.S. Reps unfair & misleading

The problem with reading statistics or a rating system when trying to research candidates and issues is that virtually nothing is as it seams, popularity polls excepted. Rating, or grading systems that declare a candidate--and most likely an incumbent because they have a voting record--does or does not support a particular group, issue or policy can be very misleading and blatantly unfair.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran Affairs (IAVA) recently graded all U.S. Congressmen and Senators in an evaluation of how well each supported the military and veterans. The report, entitled, "Find out who in Washington really supports our troops and veterans," grades on a score of A to F, using 18 key legislative acts for Representatives, and 12 for Senators as IAVA criteria, with each act in support of IAVA earning one point. The claim from the title and the grading are not only unfair but deceptive.

On the face of it, such grading systems seem legitimate. But the reality? As they say, the devil in the details.

For one, while the report claims no bias to party affiliation there was a distinct divide between good and bad grades among party lines. Democrats got better marks than Republicans. Since Republicans are traditionally more supportive of military, war actions and the needs associated with troops and veterans, it begged the question, "Why?"

A read of the bills themselves--even a read of the summary supplied on the IAVA website--explains and is telling but not a surprise. Bills used as criteria were not necessarily for the specific needs of the veterans. For instance, HR.2346, confusingly called "the Supplemental Security Act," and the "Consumer Assistance to Recycle Act" is a bill the IAVA claims is about stop loss insurance, but actually includes measures for "Cash for Clunkers," and moving terrorists and other war criminals from Guantanamo Bay to the States. But where no political maneuvering occurred, such as in H.R.1211, a bill for better care among female veterans, the vote was unanimous.

Additionally, there is a key flaw to the way in which grading was done, which adds to the deception. Using the same scoring a school would use for grades is not an accurate portrayal of the legislator's efforts because of the way the point are divided into respective grades. F grades are based upon agreeing with the IAVA half the time. While 50% for learning purposes might be fair to determine failing to understand a concept with competency, giving a failing grade in support of a cause, when in fact, half the legislative issues were supported is hardly failing. Failing in supporting legislation should be just that, a total failure. There was no one who did not support the IAVA in some issues. Even Paul, arguably the most conservative of the bunch, and Brady voted for just shy of half the measures, but each got "F" marks, as if to suppose they never supported veteran or military legislation at all.

What ever area of Texas or the country a citizen is, it would be well advised to take such scoring systems with a grain of salt, or research the bills, together with their representatives entire record, to really know the score.