Conservative voters in PA-18 can be excused for thinking Rep. Tim Murphy is one of them. Before every primary, when his seat is in play, Rep. Murphy sings the conservative tune on his web site, in ads, and on the stump. His Washington voting record, however, tells a different story.

First elected in 2002, Rep. Murphy entered his fifth term at the bottom of the fiscal-conservative lists. The Club for Growth, for example, ranked him the lowest-scoring House Republican in Pennsylvania for 2007, 2008, and 2009. (Club for Growth PAC was an early and consistent supporter of Sen. Pat Toomey against the profligate and eventual turncoat Sen. Arlen Specter.)

Other watchdog groups, such as Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers’ Union, have never scored Rep. Murphy’s record above 69 percent – in league with the American Conservative Union’s ranking him dead-last among all House Republicans for 2008, 2009, and 2010.

When free-spending Democrats took over the U.S. House in 2007, they found Rep. Murphy an ally in taking the nation further into debt. His voting record placed him 17^th worst for GOP unity in 2007, 12^th worst in 2008, 4^th worst in 2009, and 10^th worst in 2010. In 2009, only two other House Republicans outscored him in support of President Obama’s agenda.

It seems the more power Democrats have, the more Rep. Murphy votes like them.

His record on spending could be fairly characterized as “oblivious to cost.” In the 2008 session, Rep. Murphy requested more in earmarks than any other Pennsylvania Republican. He also voted against 138 amendments designed to strip earmarks out of spending bills over three years.

But aren’t earmarks just Congressmen’s way of ensuring their districts get their cut of the federal pie? Perhaps that would make sense if the federal budget were anywhere near balanced. Each year, Congress borrows more than a trillion dollars just to fill the gap between income and outgo.

With a $15.6 trillion running “bar tab,” this wild party is bound to end in an ugly hangover for everyone. No state, no Congressional district, and no taxpayer will escape responsibility for the bills their own elected officials have run up.

Instead of reckoning with the problem, Rep. Murphy returns to D.C. each year calling for another round. Since January 2003, he voted five times to raise the federal debt ceiling. For appearance’s sake, after Democrats took control of the House, he voted against raising the limit — when his vote couldn’t have made a difference.

President Obama’s economic agenda appeals to Rep. Murphy in another destructive way, as well. In 2007, Rep. Murphy defied conservative, pro-growth principles in voting for the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. Also known as “card check,” this measure would have denied workers the protection of a mandatory secret ballot when unions attempt to take over their workplace. Rep. Murphy’s support drew a scathing write up in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, which called it “opportunism in pursuit of self-serving political survival.”

Rep. Murphy’s stand earned him a 2008 general-election endorsement from Teamsters Joint Council 40 … which also endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Rep. Murphy’s actions in office suggest a lack of seriousness about fiscal responsibility, and his self-proclaimed conservatism rings hollow in light of his actions. (His high pro-life scores might redeem his record somewhat if Congress cared as much about abortion as it does about spending to excess.)

For voters, the only opportunity to rebuke Rep. Murphy’s “my way” brand of conservatism is the 2012 primary. Recall that in 2010, a Tea Party-inspired movement shifted the U.S. House’s makeup by about 15 percent, enough for a working GOP majority. Now those same conservative voters are looking hard at the GOP primaries, the only opportunity to replace the “squishy” Republicans still jeopardizing our economic future with challengers intent on restoring limited government.

Nationally, only about 10 percent of registered voters participate in the primaries. That means only five percent, plus one vote, makes a majority in “safe” districts such as Rep. Murphy’s, where the boundaries are carefully drawn to prevent any Democrat from collecting enough votes to win his seat in November.

Will the conservative voters of PA-18 take this one opportunity?

Related posts:

1. PA Primary Voters Guides and Information 2012

Guest OpEd: Obama Regulations are Killing U.S. Jobs by John E. Peterson

President Obama’s hostile attack on oil production and refining is accomplishing its defined goal of making oil more expensive so his green energy allies can compete.  And while it is a cold, hard fact that wind and solar energy will not replace a single barrel of oil in our transportation system, Obama’s policies are leading to skyrocketing prices at the pump and unaffordable heating costs for millions of Americans.  Nowhere is this more evident than here in the Northeast, where nearly eight million Americans still heat their homes with oil.

And by the time we’re ready to put the dark days of winter behind us and move into spring, thousands of workers in Eastern Pennsylvania will be heading into their own dark days as they face an uncertain economic future. Since the end of 2010, three oil refineries in the Philadelphia area have closed or face closure. Union officials have predicted the loss of more than 2,000 direct jobs and up to 20,000 indirect jobs that were supported by these refineries.

Those same union officials have been very active over the past few months lobbying federal officials in Washington to keep the refineries open. I commend them on their attempts – although late – to save the individuals and communities that stand to lose everything.

In addition to union activity, several liberal Members of Congress have expressed concern over the potential for refinery closures. Recently, my former colleagues Representatives Markey (D-MA), Waxman (D-CA) and Brady (D-PA) all derided refining companies for putting “profits over people.” This statement came in response to an Energy Information Administration analysis indicating the recent refinery closures could lead to price spikes and home heating oil shortages in the northeast, some in Congress are starting to get concerned about energy costs to American consumers.

If union members and some liberal Democrats are as concerned about energy supplies as their recent statements indicate, why did they support all-cost, no-benefit EPA regulations that have contributed to the closures in the first place?  Additionally, why did they oppose legislation that would have helped keep refineries open and support bills that make the plight of American refining worse?

According to a Department of Energy report issued in 2011, the compounded burden of federal regulations was a significant factor in the closure of 66 petroleum refineries in the U.S. over the past 20 years. Since 2008, the recession and refinery closures have led to 3,000 lost jobs at American refineries prior to the announcement of the northeast refinery closures. Now the employees of those refineries will be added to those devastating numbers.

Congress has considered legislation this year that would have at least taken a step to stop the bleeding. Unfortunately, neither the unions nor my previously mentioned former colleagues supported these initiatives.  Specifically, these bills include:

The Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would have stopped EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations that the Agency itself has admitted will do absolutely nothing to reduce global GHG concentrations, and that Congressional hearings revealed are already costing refining and manufacturing jobs. Waxman, Markey and Brady all opposed this measure.

The McConnell Amendment, the Senate companion to the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would have taken similar steps toward saving refinery jobs.  For the record here in Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey supported the amendment and Senator Casey opposed it.

The TRAIN Act and the Kinzinger-Gonzalez Tier III Amendment were measures that would have simply required a realistic economic and jobs analysis of the blizzard of regulations facing refineries and other American industrial businesses. The amendment would have applied such analysis on a new EPA gasoline regulation that will have almost no environmental benefit, but which studies indicate could lead to an additional 4 to 7 refinery closures. Once again, Waxman, Markey, and Brady all opposed these measures.

Sadly, the trend of overregulation and congressional hostility to traditional energy sources will inevitably result in more jobs moving overseas to foreign competitors not strangled by our country’s regime of burdensome environmental and business regulations.  And that’s on top of the basic energy cost increase that will continue to hit American consumers who must endure the consequences of refinery closures like those in Pennsylvania.  In fact, the three recent closures account for nearly half of the Northeast’s total refining capacity.

Anyone interested in the best interests of American consumers, the survival of U.S. manufacturers, and the preservation of refinery jobs should oppose today’s overregulation. This would be the most effective action to keep down home heating oil and fuel costs, prevent refinery closures, and to stop our jobs from going overseas.

No related posts.

Guest Post:

NFIB Requesting Sensible Regulations During Event at Henry Molded Products, Inc.

LEBANON—On Monday, December 13, the National Federation of Independent Businesses held a rally and informational session for a new coalition, Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations, at Henry Molded Products, Inc. in Lebanon, Pa. This group is seeking to highlight the nearly 4,200 federal rules that are pending, stemming from regulatory agencies such as the US Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Labor Relations Board. The annual cost of compliance with all government regulations by small businesses is over $1.75 trillion, and growing.

The coalition, chaired by former US Senator Blanche Lincoln, has a few initiatives it is championing and more information can be found at http://www.sensibleregulations.org/. The group recently visited legislators in Washington, DC, and their efforts were successful in getting bipartisan House passage of the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (H.R. 527). These bills ask for a more stringent review of proposed regulations and forces the agencies to calculate the financial impact on small businesses, including man hours related to compliance. Similar bills are pending in the Senate.

Mr. Douglass Henry, owner of Henry Molded Products, Inc., opened his business to local community leaders, neighboring businesses, and members of the media to show how the raw product of waste cardboard becomes packing materials for satellite dishes
and biodegradable plant pots. It is an incredibly high tech operation with much of the innovation coming from in-house and a commitment to environmentally friendly production that tries to account for every drop of water and each BTU of heat. Some of
the new regulations being proposed, especially for boiler stack emissions, will be a huge cost with zero economic benefit and may include technology that has yet to be invented to attempt compliance.

Kevin Shivers, state director for the NFIB, highlighted the importance of knowing what regulations are being proposed and how they will impact your company, but the reality is, most business owners don’t know about a regulation until they are visited by a regulator.
This results in fines and penalties instead of trying to proactively assist business owners with implementation.

Anyone interested in joining the coalition should visit their website for more information and make your voice heard.

No related posts.

Guest Post from Leo Knepper, Pennsylvania State Director of Heritage Action for America. He can also be found on on facebook and twitter.

On Wednesday, not one of Pennsylvania’s so-called “conservative” Blue Dog Democrats voted to repeal Obamacare. U.S. Representatives Jason Altmire (PA 4), Mark Critz (PA 12) and Tim Holden (PA 17) all voted to keep Obamacare securely in place. This vote was notable since both Altmire and Holden had sought to distance themselves last year from their party by highlighting their refusal to vote for passage of Obamacare, campaigning as opponents of the law.  Unfortunately, they refused to stand for its repeal when given the chance.

Both men offered similar excuses for not supporting a full repeal. Representative Altmire in an article posted on the TibLive website stated: “But it has been enacted, and I would not support a blanket repeal because it’s, first of all, politically impossible. … From that side alone, it’s a waste of time and taxpayer money.” For someone who purports to be concerned about taxpayer money it seems odd that he wouldn’t support  the repeal of a law which is expected to cost taxpayers  $115 billion in implementation costs alone and $2.6 trillion overall.  On the other hand, Representative Holden told the Republican and Herald that the repeal effort was “political theater” and a “waste of time”.

Impossible?  Waste of time?  It is a fact that Congress has repealed unpopular laws before, such as when the Medicare Catastrophic legislation was repealed in 1989 after only one year and a mutiny by disaffected seniors.  And, the only reason that this important debate over repeal resembles political theater is because members like Altmire and Holden, who claim to oppose the law, have made its repeal a partisan issue.

These men evidently lack the fortitude to say what they really mean. They are unwilling to go against the President and their own party to give voice to their constituents’ desire to see this unabashed expansion of government fully repealed and a fresh start made to reform healthcare (and not just in name only). While they would have their constituents believe they are independent of their party leadership, this vote clearly illustrated how short a leash these Blue Dogs are given.
The next false choice that Rep. Holden offered is that all of the “good” benefits that his constituents enjoy would immediately go away.  Holden specifically mentions the poll-tested and much-hyped mandate that requires insurance companies to cover individuals with preexisting conditions.  Despite the mandate’s apparent popularity, even the left admits that this policy drives up the cost of healthcare for everyone, absent a companion mandate for everyone to purchase health insurance (because otherwise people refuse to purchase healthcare until they’re sick).  In other words, you cannot be for the mandate to cover preexisting conditions without being for the unpopular individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which Holden claims to oppose.  Instead, conservatives have attempted to address the healthcare needs of individuals with preexisting conditions by setting up high-risk pools at the state level.  However, this is a great example of why even the politically popular provisions of Obamacare cannot survive scrutiny and why the entire law needs to be scrapped, allowing Congress to start over with legislation to lower the cost of healthcare.

Obamacare represents one of the largest expansions of government authority in over a generation. It’s unfortunate that Jason Altmire and Tim Holden would not stand behind their principles, which they cited when they initially voted against passage of the legislation last March and during their election campaigns. Rep. Altmire when asked about voting against the legislation noted “it would be an even bigger mistake to pass legislation that could compound the problem of skyrocketing health care costs.” On the other hand Rep. Holden stated directly that the legislation “was not in the interest of my constituency.” Both men claimed to recognize the flaws with this legislation then.  Yet, when presented with the opportunity to undo the damage their party had done they clearly lacked the courage to back up their convictions.

Leo Knepper is the Pennsylvania State Director of Heritage Action for America. He can also be found on on facebook and twitter.

No related posts.