When I was putting together a post for my blog on Scott Brown's bad day, something that he told WAAF's Greg Hill in his on-air therapy session caught my eye. According to the Herald's account of the interview, Brown claimed that he was going to be trying to change the bill today:
Brown said he is offering several amendments to the “fix-it” bill. Among them is a proposal to repeal a 3 percent tax on medical devices. Brown said there are more than 200 medical device makers in the Bay State that would lose their profit margin if the tax is put in place.
The Herald took that and published this later in the day:
Brown was preparing to file an amendment today that would repeal the medical-device provision, as part of an overall Republican plan to bombard Democrats with amendments as senators vote on a “reconciliation” bill that would make changes to the health-care reform package.
This puzzled me, because I was sure that I saw the list of amendments yesterday. It was my understanding that the debate started last night and the list of amendments needed to be in before the debate started. So I couldn't figure out how Brown was going to file an amendment today.
To satisfy my curiosity, I went to the Senate web site and looked up the list of amendments. I found three things:
- Scott Brown is not the primary sponsor of any amendments, never mind “several amendments to the 'fix-it' bill.”
- Scott Brown is only listed as a co-sponsor to Senator Pat Roberts's amendment to repeal the medical device tax.
- All of the amendments were filed yesterday, March 23.
So what's the deal, Senator? Do you think that tacking your name on as a cosponsor to someone else's bill covers you when you tell the media that you are going to be filing several amendments? Do you think voters won't notice when you over-promise then take credit for someone else's work?
We notice.
Cross posted at No Drumlins.
So, at best, Scott Brown wants to help out Massachusetts by offering insincere amendments on the reconciliation bill in the Senate in order to double the chances of spiking the reform in the House.
<
p>He may as well be from the Tennessee Republican Party at this point.
Scott Brown has a big problem: he has to answer to the supposed people who made him a US Senator. I am not referring about the average Massachusetts voter, I am referring to the angry, vitriol filled “teas partiers” who have taken credit for his win. These out of state yahoos are now demanding that Scott tow the conservative party line….Problem is Scott Brown is not that guy!
<
p>Senator Brown had a decision t make – be true to the voters and citizens of Massachusetts OR buckle to the pressures of the national conservative movement and the tea partiers….Scott Brown has to decide if he is a Bill Weld (progressive/moderate) Republican or a Mitt Romney (progressive turned moderate turned conservative and always opportunist) Republican.
<
p>BTW – no big deal about the filing of an amendment – if you are a co-sponsor of an amendment you can still claim that you filed it. It also is goo home state politics – Massachusetts has many medical Device companies that employ a lot of people.
<
p>Usually the person who co-sponsors a piece of legislation states that relationship clearly. Basic etiquette. For example, Brown should have said, “I have co-sponsored an amendment filed by (fill in the blank) to bla bla bla.” I think nodrumlins point is well taken and instructive. Brown is not ready for prime time in any meaningful way.
Rachel Maddow, right now on her show, RE the email yesterday from Brown fundraising: (paraphrasing) “Even after I said yesterday that I am not running against him in 2012, he doubled down on it.” Them’s the words she used…doubled down…but she didn’t say how. Anyone know what that’s all about?
<
p>I honestly should get on all the mailing lists of these dudes, especially in the 5th, so I get the correspondence from the right…
“…doubled down on it TODAY.” She was obviously reacting to something today. So I’m curious what moronic move Brown made today…
Paraphrased again:
<
p>Maddow (talks about the history of the Brown letter) then: “…But he’s still trying to run against me. He went talk radio on WAAF.”
<
p>Audio: Brown (when asked by the host about this letter): “Well I didn’t realize I had to [find out she was running].”
<
p>Maddow: comments about how it’s never a bad idea to find out the facts…but way more cleverer than that…
<
p>Then more audio from Brown: “I’m just going to do my job and…er, bring ‘er on.”
<
p>Then Maddow proceeds to do her schtick about “Bring ‘er on?? Bring ‘er on?? I’m not running” etc etc
<
p>OMG Well at least you can’t say we don’t get a lot of humor opportunities with our Jr Senator…
from backbench State Senator to backbench US Senator, although with a great deal of glamor and notoriety making him a big draw in his new world. Unfortunately, he was not ready for the prime time he was tossed into, and keeps making rookie mistakes. He has to learn what to say, more importantly, when to say things, and also how to so no to those asking for comments.
Journamalism: it’s HARD WORK.
The Sun did actually get it right, thought they still managed to make Brown sound like a hero for sticking his name on an amendment guaranteed, indeed DESIGNED, to fail.
<
p>Funny, how they don’t have a followup report about how this amendment failed quickly. Or why such an amendment was going to fail. It’s like they don’t really care about the amendment itself…just the mentioning OF it.
Nowhere in any of the news reports have anyone mentioned the profit margin on medical devices, but simply state the tax will destroy the industry.
<
p>The first item from a Google Search on “medical device profit margins” returns Utah Medical Products.
<
p>http://www.utahmed.com/
<
p>On their page, they list their Gross Profit Margin at 53.2% and their Net Profit Margin at 24.1%. I can’t tell if this is representative of the industry as a whole, but does call into question the doomsday scenario our Senator is proclaiming.