Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Senator Brown introduces bill to tax TARP bonuses! What??

By

Holy cow!  Has Senator Brown turned the corner?  Has he seen the light and realized that being against bank bailouts actually means you have to be against bank bailouts?

SEN. BROWN TO ANNOUNCE BILL TO TAX WALL STREET BONUSES TO HELP MAIN STREET BUSINESSES

Brown to Outline Details of Bill Taxing Bonuses at Companies Receiving TARP Funds from Taxpayers to Help Small Businesses Create Jobs

I’m positively breathless with anticipation!  Give me more!  Could Scottie be the independent voice of the people we were promised?  Could he …

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) will hold a news conference call on Thursday to outline the details of a new bill that would tax bonuses given to executives at firms that received financial help from U.S. taxpayers and use the revenues to help small businesses create jobs.

Oh right.  Senator Sherrod Brown.  The progressive Democrat from Ohio.  

Never mind.  đŸ˜‰

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  4. My feeling has always been that Scott Brown would be in lockstep with the Republicans.  His voting record in MA shows he is not an independent voice and will sell out the workers for big business. I hope all those blue collar workers who voted for Sen Scott Brown understand where he really stands on the issues when he is up for re-election.

    <

    p>As for the taxing of TARP Bonuses, the Dems might bring it to the floor but the Republicans will filibuster it.  Time to either go back to real filibusters where people needed to stand up and talk for days or do away with it.  I don’t expect either since the Dems leadership is spineless.  When the Republicans gain power again I expect them to go all over the airwaves to complain about a single filibuster from the Dems.

    • rather than having your mind made up, why not watch his “actual” performance? Of course, you could end up being right and then he will not be reelected and we’ll get your rubber stamp of choice. OR… you could be wrong and we’ll get 6 more years of a new breadth of fresh air in the US Senate. Of course, your class half empty view is completely your choice!

      <

      p>As for stopping the filibuster… doesn’t the US Senate need 67 votes to change any Senate rule?

      • I am still waiting to see what he will do. He was not an independent voice in MA, so why should I think he would be when he is in the Senate?

        <

        p>And I don’t want a rubber stamp.  The Republicans had that during the first few years of the Pres. Bush Administration and it was horrible.  I want our elected representatives to represent us and not special interests, whether they are Democratic, Republican or other.

      • And I’m smelling the flop sweat from here.

        <

        p>Seriously, what has he done to deserve any kind of “breath of fresh air” moniker?  And I mean ever, not just since his election to the US Senate?

        <

        p>The problem I’m seeing is that we already have the rubber stamp of choice.  It just happens to be the rubber stamp of your choice instead of mine.  I’m willing to be convinced, but it’s going to take more than he’s done so far. (whisper: NLRB vote /whisper)

        • I’m one of the “likes new people” people as in “throw out incumbents” cheered for the Saints because “they have never been there before”…

          <

          p>Look at my other post about Obama being in support of the Wall St. bonuses. Does this mean he is a traitor to “the cause” and cannot be trusted? We need to stop pigeon holing our politicians. Once it starts we all do it to all of them.

          <

          p>Is it possible that Brown’s vote against the NLRB union hack was a legitimate vote which he felt was how he believed AND may have been how the people who put him in Washington (me) believed? Isn’t that his job?

            • Story

              The vote is a setback for organized labor, which was counting on a strong pro-union voice on the agency that oversees union elections and referees labor-management disputes….

              Republicans have held up Becker’s confirmation for months, saying they fear he would circumvent Congress to make labor laws more union-friendly.

              But the task for Democratic leaders turned more difficult when two Democrats – Sen. Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, of Arkansas – joined Republicans in opposing Becker. Both have come under intense pressure from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups to oppose the nominee.

              “Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the administration,” Nelson said in a statement.
              …

              Becker, a lawyer for the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, has spoken favorably on “card check” legislation that would take away the right of employers to demand secret ballot union representation elections. Some of his legal writings suggest that its goals could be accomplished by the NLRB without Congress having to pass the legislation.

              <

              p>Thankfully Scott got sworn in before the vote… THANKS SCOTT!!!

              <

              p>

              Democrats had tried to push Becker through before Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts came into office and took away Democrats’ 60 vote supermajority. Brown voted against Becker.

              • He is qualified.  Remember, Pres Bush recessed appointed 7 of 9 NLRB leaders even though the Democrats did not filibuster. All were corporate lawyers.  Republicans blocked this appointment because they are against workers’ rights and long for the days of the late 1800s to early 1900s, not because he was not qualified.

                <

                p>And when does 52 votes not trump 33 votes.  Just plain sad on the part of the Obstructionist party.

              • but your logic unsound.  You really didn’t answer the question.

                <

                p>You’ve called him a hack.  We use that term quite a bit around here, for all sorts of things.
                * unqualified sibling of pol: hack
                * politically connected gov’t employee who bounces from board to board, across disciplines: hack
                * highly paid position with little/no authority or importance: often a hack

                <

                p>

                <

                p>But in what way is Becker a hack?

                • In that the organized labor was frothing at the prospect of having one of “their guys” in their pocket.

                  <

                  p>In that Becker would go around Congress to get their stuff done.

                  <

                  p>In that he would favor card-check.

                  <

                  p>He was a hack as much as Erroll Southers was going to “unionize” the TSA and be a “hack”.

                  <

                  p>How many more Obama candidates will have to withdraw (Top Intelligence job, TSA Director,  Chief Performance Officer, ) for various reasons or fail muster and have to resign (Van Jones or Cybersecurity Czar, Melissa Hathaway…) before he gets the message. Send the right people!

                • Pursuing an agenda any of us may disagree with does not make one unqualified.  It may be legitimate to oppose (though not filibuster) a nominee if you don’t like his agenda, but lets be honest about it and keep those two questions separate.

                • That he has an ideology (you don’t like) doesn’t make him a hack.  It makes him a human being with a freaking brain.

                  <

                  p>What do you think — that the attorneys appointed by Bush approached the job with a clean slate?  Do you think that anybody who knows enough about labor-management relations to be on this Board comes with a clean slate?

                  <

                  p>

                  <

                  p>Contrary to GOP math, 59>41.  Oh, and 1>0 too.

                • Both Becker and Southers never said they would go around Congress or impose the Union of the TSA.  That is just talking point nonsense.  Southers did say he would not oppose the TSA becoming unionized.

  5. It’s all well and good I suppose to tax these bonuses. The problem continues to be that we have banks that are too big to fail. That sets up enormous incentives for such banks to take risks that banks small enough to fail would avoid. Congress really needs to ensure that all our banks are small enough to fail or that no bank can undertake the risks that contributed to the recent crash.

    <

    p>Instead, we’re getting Peacock Bills like this. Shiny plumage and all, but it doesn’t matter what these guys are being paid if they are still presiding over a huge heads-we-win and tails-you-lose system.

    <

    p>Maybe the politics demand a response like this, but the after-effects of bad policy can have an even worse consequences. (See Bush, G.W. and Katrina.)

    Reminder: one of the things that took down the Wall Street banks was that they were financing long-term debt with a revolving system of short-term debt. The short-term debt was being regularly refinanced. A shudder to the financial system caused that to collapse. Without regulation, competition forced them all to do this. It was hugely risky as late 2008 demonstrated.

  6. At least constituents can email the other Senator Brown–our Senator Brown has a phone and at least a few aides, but is it possible to contact the People’s Senator by email?  

Archives