SEIU: Deciphering Scott Brown

[ProSense]

Deciphering Scott Brown

By Matt Browner-Hamlin

Yesterday Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) voted to filibuster a critically important jobs bill that included state funding for Medicaid and teachers. The bill will protect or create hundreds of thousands of jobs around the country. Fortunately for America, two Republicans joined with Democrats to overcome the filibuster. A final vote on the jobs bill will take place this morning. After the vote, Brown offered some truly bizarre comments to a reporter who was trying to understand how this allegedly moderate Republican would oppose job creation in his state, especially when the bill in question actually reduces the deficit. Here's the exchange between Brown and a reporter:

(Brown):"We can't afford it. I filed a bill, as you know, that would have fully paid for it, and wouldn't have raised taxes. Businesses are hurting and those are the folks that are creating jobs."
Reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell: "Can you explain how it raises taxes?"

Brown: "I didn't say it raised taxes. It actually changes the tax code for businesses and puts more of a burden on them. Obviously, the way that they're going to try to tax foreign profits on corporations who do business overseas is problematic, especially in Massachusetts where we have a lot of businesses just like that."

Huh? If Brown's biggest problem were making consistent statements to reporters about his record, things wouldn't be so bad. But we're talking about his vote against a bill that will bring critical aid to states, to children, to senior citizens, and to public servants who keep our communities safe. 1199SEIU Executive Vice President Veronica Turner issued a statement responding to Brown's bewildering NO vote:

"It is extremely disappointing that Senator Brown voted to put jobs for thousands of Massachusetts workers in the private and public sectors at risk today. Morally, fiscally, and politically, this was the wrong vote for Senator Brown. It is unfortunate that two Republican Senators from Maine had to save thousands of jobs in Massachusetts, because Senator Brown broke his promise to put jobs ahead of partisan rhetoric. Fortunately, despite Senator Brown's attempt to filibuster, this bill will reduce the federal deficit, while redirecting money towards job protection and creation. Locally, in addition to saving thousands of private and public sector jobs, these funds will also help stabilize home care and other vital services for thousands of Massachusetts seniors and people with disabilities."

The Senate will be voting on final passage on this jobs bill today. Senator Brown will have another opportunity to do the right thing for Massachusetts and all of America by voting YES this time. Alternatively, he'll have another opportunity to befuddle reporters and the public alike with his nonsensical spin of his indefensible vote.

Today: Scott Brown To Oppose Elena Kagan

<...>

In his "No" vote, Brown is going against a nominee from his home state. He introduced Kagan last month at her confirmation hearings, lauding her "impressive resume."

<...>

And no one is buying his argument: Why Is Scott Brown Voting No on Kagan?

[Bitwit1234]

1. Let him...the more he does stuff like this

the less chance he will have in gaining re-election. The people of MA have always had a senator who works for them. I really think they didn't think Brown had a snowballs chance in hell of winning and most democrats didn't vote. Now they see the mistake and it won't happen again. You try to tell Democrats that republicans will vote come hell or high water, they are the minority in this country and they want to make sure the get that vote in. If ALL DEMOCRATS WERE NOT TOO LAZY TO GO TO THE POLLS, republicans wouldn't ever get in.

[RBInMaine]

2. Good points, BUT many voters were also simply frustrated with the recession and Coakley blew it

bigtime with a very, very shitty campaign. If Capuano had run, he'd have punished the Naked Man.