And now she has broke another of her campaign promises, voting against a bipartisan bill to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
By Sean David Hartman
Back in 2016, still as a registered Republican, and a staunch Tea Party fiscal conservative, I could not bring myself to cast my vote for Republican career politician, Winter Park Congressman John Mica. Rather, I voted for the Democrat, Stephanie Murphy.
My reason was likely the same as many other conservatives, libertarians, and centrists who switched sides for the Democrat. Murphy ran as a Blue Dog, a centrist, pledging to support fiscal restraint, a balanced budget (including an amendment to the Constitution), and support for Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Compare that to Congressman Mica, who on his 2016 campaign website not only openly bragged about spending our tax dollars on wasteful projects, but even bragged about funding unconstitutional projects that were not in the federal purview.
It disappointed me that the most conservative person in the race was the Democrat, not the Republican. And unfortunately, I was wrong.
Congresswoman Murphy pledged her willingness to buck the Democratic Establishment, yet one of her first votes was to vote in Democratic Establishment Queen Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and very likely, voting for her as Democratic Leader. This despite having a choice to support the much more qualified Ohio Congressman Tim Murphy, who had the same centrist flair as the Congresswoman with the needed appeal to blue collar workers that Democrats needed. An appeal Pelosi has never possessed for the common man and woman.
This makes sense, sadly, as Leader Pelosi essentially handed Murphy her House seat. It was Leader Pelosi’s special interest cash combined with Murphy’s lies that tricked Republicans like myself into thinking she was a centrist.
And now she has broke another of her campaign promises, voting against a bipartisan bill to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, despite the fact that Congresswoman Murphy ran on such a proposal in 2016.
So not only is Congresswoman Murphy not significantly progressive for Democrats, she is now no longer suitable for fiscal conservatives who felt she would abide by fiscal restraint.
Congresswoman Murphy’s opposition was due to her concern that the Amendment did not have a protection for Social Security and responded to those concerns by introducing her own Balanced Budget Amendment, which would have exempted discretionary spending (which is the highest contributor to our deficit).
But her fear was obviously unwarranted, as multiple Democrats, including many of her bills cosponsors, supported the bipartisan Goodlatte bill, eventually jumping ship from Murphy’s own proposal.
Some speculate her motive wasn’t political but rather personal.
“For Stephanie Murphy to vote against a Balanced Budget Amendment supported by six of the seven cosponsors of her own busted proposal is an act of selfishness and an insult to the highest kind to CD7 voters,” said Scott Sturgill, who is running for the Republican Nomination to unseat her.
“In the end, she couldn’t just walk the walk, and revealed herself as just another dysfunctional DC politician.”
The problem with Congresswoman Murphy’s concerns is that they are “what-if” fearmongering, something both sides engage in regularly. Congresswoman Murphy is stating that there may be a possibility that something could occur to Social Security that she would not want.
First, just because something can happen, doesn’t mean something will happen. This is something both sides do, present potential what-if scenarios to justify bad policies. What if someone who shouldn’t have a gun gets a gun? What if one of the Syrian refugees is an ISIL agent?
Politicians from both sides use the what-if excuse to expand government and restrict liberty. Congresswoman Murphy is engaging in that very same tactic.
Even more importantly, what exactly is Congresswoman Murphy concerned about? As a fiscal conservative, she must know that Social Security is going bankrupt, and at this point my own generation will likely never see their retirement check if nothing is done.
Is she opposed to fiscally conservative solutions such as privatization or partial privatization plans? Is she concerned about raising the retirement age, something that has bipartisan support for being an obvious must-do and common sense move?
Or better yet, since Congresswoman Murphy is so intent on keeping Social Security, does she have a plan to fix it?
Of course, she does not. Congresswoman Murphy is making up a concern that is unneeded to justify opposing a bill she pledged she would support.
Honestly, I would assess that Congresswoman Murphy was bought out by special interests here. Organizations like the AARP have been a hindrance for common sense Social Security reforms, without concern for its sustainability for the next generation.
This should be even more concerning, as it shows that Congresswoman Murphy does have conservative values, but those values can be subverted by money.
Sean David Hartman is a freelance reporter for the Central Florida Post, with a wide portfolio ranging from entertainment to politics. He is a centrist political operative and blogger and a student at UCF. Hartman is autistic and bipolar, and supports the neurodiversity movement.
