Senator Patty Murray
of Washington, the soccer Mom in tennis shoes, entered the US Senate in 1992, "The Year of the Woman",
which also witnessed the rise of California Senator Barbara Boxer and
Congressman Jane Harman, among others.
For
nearly twenty years, Senator Murray was not a featured member, overshadowed by
the bold leadership of legislators who represented
constituencies with broader media markets. Despite her low standing in the
upper chamber for the past decade, Senator Murray has traded votes to sponsored
significatn earmarks for her state. Washington state has also gained
house seats in the past two decades, most likely due to the growing trade
of the Pacific Rim as well as the rising immigrant population looking for work
along the West Coast, thus attracting more federal spending. Murray has been
listed as a prominent "porker
barrel"
spender for her state. In 1996, despite her
plea for civil rights for gay couples, she voted for the
"Defense of Marriage Act." More likely she voted for DOMA so that she
could keep the pork coming while Republicans ran Washington D.C. If anything,
Patty is open about her love of federal
earmarks.
Besides
her prominent stance on taking federal dollars for parks and gardens in her state,
Senator Murray advanced in the Senate Democratic caucus. Recently, she has
joined the Senate Democratic leadership, along with Chuck
Schumer of New York, to promote
Democratic candidates. She has received considerable media attention, as well.
On Veterans Day 2012 on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". Interviewing with Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss
of Georgia, the two senators discussed the fiscal cliff and the need for
entitlement reform and revenue increases.
The
Senator demonstrated remarkable respect and rapport for her Republican
colleague, acknowledging that the two sides must agree to a sound resolution to
the fiscal cliff, which if unaverted
will enact long-term sequestration cuts to the military and domestic spending
and expire the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. She also admirably recognized
the service of our armed forces.
However,
Murray' response about revenue as a required part of fiscal compromise or
"we’ll go over the cliff” was disturbing. She has been in favor of this outcome
as early as
July of this year.
During her interview with George Stephanopoulos,
she candidly
declared:
"We
have to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share."
Then:
"[T]he
wealthiest Americans have to pay their fair share, too."
Finally:
"So
if the Republicans will not agree with that, we will reach a point at the end
of this year where all the tax cuts expire and we'll start over next
year."
The
frequent notion among liberals, "fairness", remains one of the most
overused yet misunderstood concepts in their lexicon. Confronting any
politician to explain "fair", or in Murray's case "fair
share", one will receive as many diverse answers as there are legislators
in Washington and voters in this country. This argument for "fair
share" fails its own test, much of the time, as the concept remains
elusive.
Washington
voters already killed
a "soak the rich" initiative. Murray's
assumption that taxing "the rich" further while extending the tax
cuts for everyone else will produce at
best elusive results.
The interest payments on the national debt, along with an unrestrained lawsuit
culture and uncapped disbursements on government subsidies, are driving up the
debt and putting the country toward a great fiscal cliff: the debt crisis which
will frighten bond-holders and nation-creditors.
With
the ongoing discussions about the repercussions of the fiscal cliff on the
middle class and businesses, Senator Murray then raised
concern about the poor in this country,
including the unprecedented 40 million Americans receiving food stamps. Ms.
Murray's concern seems feigned, if not fraudulent. More like Marie Antoinette, who
apocryphally claimed to the Parisian poor "Let them Eat Cake", Murray
seems grossly unaware that her ruinous policies of spending have helped
contribute to the growing poverty crisis in this country.
From
her glib assumption favoring a national fall from the fiscal cliff, to her
rapacious interest in pork-barrel spending, Murray has promoted policies which
have expanded the national debt without helping the urban and rural poor in a
comprehensive manner: reduce the federal tax and regulatory burden, followed by
a comprehensive cut to the Washington's prominence in state affairs. More
investment, more businesses, more jobs, create more wealth and fewer poor.
If
the Washington Senator prizes the efficacy of government subsidies, including
welfare payments, food stamps, or health insurance, Murray should adopt the Cato Institute's plan for allocating these
diminished funds to the states as block grants, which will cut down on the
bureaucracy, the waste, and the corruption which cost this country billions
every year.
Instead
of "Let them eat pork", Senator Murray must take the long-term
consequences of a falling fiscal cliff seriously, accede to closing loopholes,
extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, and allow the military
sequestration advance. Her stance on cutting spending will ensure that
Washington spends less, let private firms do more, and ensure that there will
be fewer poor people in Washington state and throughout the country.