News

The Orchestrated Scott Brown

If you think the Massachusetts Senator is bipartisan, you underestimate the subtlety of the Republican party chiefs.

Comments (1)
Thursday, October 04, 2012

The Republicans are determined to keep Scott Brown in his seat as U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, and, as with all seats in Congress, they play a cautious, watchful game. Republican party leaders know a Senator has to keep his constituents placated, so they allow votes that are contrary to the party's position—but, in most cases, only when they know they can afford to lose a vote.

They know that Massachusetts is, in general, a progressive state that would throw out a Senator with right-wing views. They know Brown has serious opposition in popular consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren. So they're all too willing to manage appearances so as to help Brown hang onto his reputation for being bipartisan and independent.

But Brown's voting record doesn't bear out the bipartisan image that's brought some Democrats over to him, according to an analysis by ProgressMass done before the competition between Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren got hot and heavy, forcing Brown to play the bipartisan card more often.

ProgressMass, an admittedly "progressive" organization with a mission that includes "holding officials accountable," tallied 53 roll-call votes by Brown in three types of situations: when the measure would pass on an up-or-down vote because it had the support of 50 Senators or more; when the GOP invoked procedures to require 60 votes for passage instead of 50, a simple majority; and when a majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed a measure.

In the case of measures supported by 50 or more Senators, Brown voted with Republicans to obstruct the legislation 40 out of 53 times, or in 75.5 percent of cases. Earlier—before Warren formed her exploratory committee last year—Brown voted to obstruct majority-supported legislation opposed by Republicans 30 out of 32 times.

So what laws did he help his party obstruct? "I know Scott Brown will fight for families," says a woman in one of the latest Brown TV spots. Yet in 2010, Brown helped Republicans hold up the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have helped victims of gender discimination get fair and equal wages. Also that year he helped slow down the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, which authorized a one-time payment of $250 to Social Security recipients to make up for the lack of a cost-of-living increase.

Among other legislation that Brown helped the Republicans delay or kill:

*The DISCLOSE Act of 2010, written in response to the Citizens United decision. The law would have made it easier for the public to identify corporate and special-interest donors to national political campaigns.

*The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act, which would have provided tax incentives to companies who replaced overseas workers with workers in the U.S., and removed incentives to outsource jobs.

*The Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Reauthorization Act of 2011, a bill Brown supported until the Republicans decided to support a competing bill.

*The Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act of 2011, which would have ended five tax subsidies for American oil companies. The savings would have gone to reduce the federal budget deficit.

For a more complete study of Brown's record on obstructing legislation contrary to the spirit of bipartisanship, read the report at www.progressmass.org/press/new-study-progressmass-analysis-of-scott-browns-voting-record-reveals-highly-partisan-record-overwhe.html.

Comments (1)
Post a Comment

Scott Brown says he’s independent, and nobody’s Senator but yours.

Have you noticed all the things Scott Brown DOESN’T say? He never volunteers he's a Republican, or comes out four-square for the GOP Presidential candidate. This is his attempt at political camouflage in a blue state. It’s completely understandable that Scott Brown wants to distract us from the rogue elephant in the room. He knows Massachusetts will utterly reject Mitt Romney. Brown’s been eager to distance himself from the most egregious expressions of right-wing extremism which have intensified in recent years. At the next debate, hold a drinking game on how often Senator Brown refers to himself as "bipartisan", and you’ll likely need a designated driver at the end. He well knows that Massachusetts isn't buying what the GOP is selling.

Because of Senator Brown’s efforts to distract us from his record, we have to work a bit harder to see past his campaign. Remember: Scott Brown has voted with his fellow Republicans in Congress ¾ of the time, and even more so before Elizabeth Warren presented herself as his competitor.

Follow the money. Scott Brown has gotten huge financial support from the energy companies and Wall Street; his votes reflect that. He’s in favor of continuing subsidies for Big Oil and tax breaks for millionaires. He’s weakened financial industry regulation, the very industry which brought us to the brink of a second Depression. Scott Brown is a willing member of the most obstructionist and partisan Congress in memory, opposing the Affordable Health Care Act, defeating the President’s 3 jobs bills, abandoning his former environmental stands, opposing corporate tax disclosure, and more.

The populist truck, the barn coat – these are nothing more than images. When you see the ads, remember: Scott Brown is not an independent; he just plays one on TV. The GOP has presided over the ongoing demolition of the middle class, barely paying lip service to the needs of working people. Scott Brown has too often been the “41st Senator”, a reliable filibuster for his Wall Street and wealthy patrons. We need to give the President a Congress which will work cooperatively with him. Elizabeth Warren’s record shows her to be a passionate and deeply committed advocate for consumers and working families. Senator Elizabeth Warren is the fighter we need.

Posted by Dinah Kudatsky on 10.9.12 at 0:49
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

From Our Readers
Baker: More of the Same; Props to Rohmann; Props to Rohmann
Between the Lines: A Gun Owner’s Resentment
Why make it expensive and difficult for law-abiding residents to possess firearms?
Sorry, Nixon
If the impeachment of our 37th president showed that the system works, what does Obama’s continued political survival say about it?
The Zipcar Is Here
Car sharing takes hold in the Valley.
Under the Microscope
Did ex-WSU president Evan Dobelle use university resources to support an identity as well as a lifestyle?
From Our Readers
Casino Opposition “Selfish”; Cut Foreign Aid, Not Our Military
Between the Lines: Deval’s Capital Management
He can rehab his office, but what about his legacy?
From Snowden to the Pentagon Papers
Can student interest in civics be rekindled?