hich of Bush's top contenders for VP are most taxpayer friendly? To answer that question we have constructed a Fiscal and Economic Scorecard for the prospective nominees. We rely on the Cato Institute "Fiscal Report Card on the Governors" and the National Taxpayers Union ratings on the voting records of all members of Congress.

The potential Bush running mates are listed in order of most to least friendly to taxpayers.

Representative Christopher Cox (CA), a conservative Catholic California Republican once worked in the Reagan White House and since his election to Congress in 1988 has been an unwavering advocate of Reaganite economic policies. He is the author of one of the leading proposals to overhaul the federal budget process to more effectively curtail spending. Cox supported the 10-year, $792 billion tax cut last year. This year he voted to kill the marriage penalty and the death tax. One of Cox's most recent and impressive pro-taxpayer achievements was the bill he sponsored and passed to place a tax moratorium on the Internet. This is a solid fiscal conservative record with few blemishes.

Representative John Kasich (OH), is a young, charismatic conservative with a well-deserved reputation as a budget expert and a friend of the taxpayer. Kasich's most famous accomplishment was the 1995 Contract with America budget he crafted. That budget blueprint proposed the elimination of 200 federal programs and 3 cabinet agencies. Though that budget was eventually famously vetoed by President Clinton, few people in Washington can lay a greater claim to balancing the budget than John Kasich. Kasich once gained notoriety for teaming with conservative Democrat Tim Penny in late 1993 to sponsor the Penny-Kasich budget bill, which would have cut some 80 low-priority federal programs. His latest crusade has been fighting corporate welfare — something few of his GOP colleagues are eager to do given their cozy relationship with big business. If Bush chose Kasich as his running mate, fiscal conservatives would warmly applaud the nomination.

Gov. John Engler (MI) has been a pioneer in areas ranging from welfare reform, to charter schools, to privatization, to growth-oriented tax reduction. He turned a $1.5 billion deficit he inherited into a $500 million surplus. He has cut the state workforce by 5,700 workers, slashed welfare rolls by 80,000, and reduced taxes 25 times. He has cut the personal income tax, the state unemployment tax, and Michigan's notoriously high property taxes. Unfortunately, Engler inexplicably favors taxing the Internet. Still, he has shown immense talent in guiding the state out of tough times and is an enemy of big government.

Gov. Tom Ridge (PA) has been praised by the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania's conservative state think tank, as "the most pro-business — and pro-economic growth — reformer in recent Pennsylvania history." These reforms include $2 billion in income tax cuts, inheritance tax relief, workers' compensation reforms cutting business costs by 20 percent, electricity deregulation, and welfare reforms that have cut caseloads by 65,000.From 1995-98 Pennsylvania leapfrogged from 45th in the country in job creation to 17th.But Ridge carries baggage too. In 1997 he supported a hefty gas tax and motor vehicle tax increase. His latest budgets have been bloated. On balance, Ridge, who arrived in Harrisburg from the U.S. House of Representatives with a mushy moderate reputation, has been a pleasant surprise as governor.

Gov. Frank Keating (OK), a former Jack Kemp aide, has pursued a growth-oriented tax agenda for Oklahoma, but the legislature has impeded his progress. Keating has repeatedly proposed cutting the state income tax in half — from 7 to 3.5 percent — the biggest supply-side income-tax plan of any governor. Only a portion of that tax cut has been enacted. Keating has been willing to embrace controversial issues, including a voucher plan for kids in low-performing schools and pay for performance in state agencies.

But the budget has expanded at a troublingly rapid rate under Keating. In his first 5 years in office, state general-fund expenditures grew by a whopping 30 percent. Keating has expanded expenditures in areas like highway spending, teacher pay raises, and higher education. Keating earns high marks for his tax and voucher initiatives, but has been willing to allow the legislature to spend the bulk of recent surplus tax payments.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), a Vietnam vet with a reputation as a reformer, has been pushed by the McCain forces. On budget and tax issues, Hagel has amassed a fiscally conservative record in his first Senate term. Hagel voted against the massive FY99 supplemental bill, the end of the year omnibus appropriations bill, and in favor of the $792 billion tax cut. Although Hagel's NTU voting record scores him high marks, he has infuriated free-market advocates with his bizarre support of IMF funding in 1998 and 1999. The Nebraska senator refuses to acknowledge the IMF's horrid track record in creating prosperity and has become one of the agency's major cheerleaders on Capitol Hill. On the asset side of the ledger, Hagel has tried (mostly unsuccessfully) to push his Senate Republican colleagues in a bolder direction on tax cuts and budget reductions. On balance, we conclude that on fiscal issues Hagel is usually, but not always, reliable from a taxpayer perspective.

Sen. Fred Thompson (TN), is a former Watergate prosecutor and actor turned populist politician. Thompson voted for the $792 billion tax cut, death-tax elimination, marriage penalty relief, and the termination of the telephone tax. But he disappointed taxpayers in supporting the omnibus appropriations bill and the massive FY99 supplemental bill. He has been a strong defender of federalism in the Senate. Unfortunately, by far the biggest issue in Tennessee in the past two years has been a proposal by the Republican governor, Don Sundquist, to introduce a first-ever state income tax. Taxpayers have revolted against the measure, yet Thompson refuses to oppose the measure. His fence-straddling on the issue has seriously eroded his free-market credentials. When conservatives needed him most, he wasn't there to fight for them. This doesn't inspire confidence in how he would govern in budget negotiations if he were in the White House.

Sen. George Voinovich (OH) is an anti-supply-sider. In the 1980s as mayor of Cleveland he was a vocal critic of the Reagan tax cuts. As governor from 1991-98 Voinovich engaged in nonstop fiscal combat with conservatives and taxpayer advocates in his own party. In 1993 he passed a giant $1 billion tax hike, increasing Ohio's already excessive 7 percent income tax rate to 7.5 percent. In 1996 he endorsed a 20 percent increase in the state sales tax and a 50 percent cigarette tax hike to fund a massive new education spending campaign. One of the constructive features of Voinovich's agenda was his unwavering support for vouchers in inner-city Cleveland and for expanded charter schools. In the Senate, his anti-tax cut crusade has continued. In Congress Voinovich has continued to oppose tax cuts — he was one of only four Republicans who voted to retain the death tax. He also defected on the GOP's $800 billion tax cut last year. His anti-tax cut record makes him appear to be a more suitable running mate for Al Gore than George W. Bush.