[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog. Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.]
Yesterday, Republican Scott Brown delivered remarks that were billed in advance as a “major policy speech.” Given that Brown’s campaign has repeatedly faced charges of lacking substance and seriousness, a “major policy speech” could have proved to be a turning point for Brown. Unfortunately for him, the reviews came in, and they only served to reinforce the fact that Republican Scott Brown lacks substance.
The remarks, delivered to the South Shore Chamber of Commerce at Lombardo’s in Randolph, were billed as a major policy speech, but did not make any new policy pronouncements, instead reiterating themes that Brown has struck throughout his Senate race.
But, in what was billed as a major policy speech, Brown delivered few specifics of his own tax policy.
Cynthia Needham, the Boston Globe’s Metro political editor, tweeted:
Scott Brown is delivering his “major policy speech” now. @noahbierman is live tweeting. Still waiting for the “major” part of it… #masen
So Republican Scott Brown offered nothing major and no new policy in his “major policy speech.” Perhaps Brown remedied his speech’s lack of substance by taking questions from attendees or the media and offering thoughtful answers. Think again.
Brown exited the back door of Lombardo’s, the function hall where Tuesday’s event was held, shortly after wrapping up his speech. Talking on his cell phone as he got into a GMC pickup truck, Brown refused to answer any questions from a small group of reporters.
After his speech, Brown did not take questions from the chamber audience or the press, walking out the back door with a cellphone to his ear as he was chased by reporters.
So Republican Scott Brown bills remarks as a “major policy speech” even though it contains zero new policy proposals. Then, Brown runs out the back door to avoid any questions from voters or the media.
The only “major policies” that Republican Scott Brown’s “major policy speech” reinforced are that Brown truly lacks substance and that Brown refuses to answer to the people Massachusetts.
How committed is Republican Scott Brown to refusing to discuss major policies? Check out this graphic inset from yesterday’s Boston Globe story on Brown tiptoeing around Mitt Romney’s selection of far-right-winger Paul Ryan as his running mate.
Republican Scott Brown “would not answer.” Sounds about right.
When Scott Brown ran against Martha Coakley his mantra was that Coakley would raise your taxes by $2.1 Trillion, a number none of can fathom but we all knew was bad.
Now, he has charged that Warren will raise taxes by $3.4 Trillion. Will her campaign find a way to debunk this myth and use it as an example of Brown’s lies, fantasies and other stories? Or will the Brown-friendly media keep repeating it as they have with the Brown campaign’s other messaging. We’ll know soon.
I am 99.44% sure she favors a carbon tax, which will be a huge tax increase. Do you know if she has put out a position paper on this issue. Brown is against any carbon tax and fought against the EPA from being able to regulate carbon. What is EW’s position?????
Because the Republicans under Ryan’s budget have committed to raising taxes on the middle class in order to pay for tax cuts for the very richest, all in accordance with the “selfishness based ideology” of Ayn Rand, to which they have now pledged ideological allegiance.
Thanks for boosting the comment count on the post, and contributing to the greater glory of Blue Mass Group and progressive politics in Massachusetts.
Next.
One of Brown’s complaints is that he says Elizabeth Warren has spoken in favor of eliminating the $106K income cap on Social Security in order to keep that insurance program solvent. I don’t know if that’s true; but if it is, this would technically “raise taxes” so Social Security could continue to offer current levels of benefits while, let me repeat, staying solvent. So my question to Senator Brown is: If you don’t favor this, what is your plan for Social Security? Cut benefits? Privatization? Let it go bankrupt?
As it is, Mitt Romney’s running mate thinks it’s fine to tell me that it’s OK I paid into the Medicare program for a couple of decades to fund other people’s benefits, but I shouldn’t be allowed to get the same guaranteed benefits when I’m older as I’m paying for today’s seniors to enjoy. Will Senator Brown tell me the same thing about Social Security? Is he just going to let the program slide into bankruptcy? What is his plan that doesn’t involve raising taxes to fund it?
the Social Security issue in no way amounts to $3.4 trillion. I’ve got no idea where Brown got that figure. Maybe he’s got a real list, maybe he’s just exaggerating wildly, like when Dick Cheney told us the Iraq war would pay for itself. Problem is, the way a lot of conventional media is structured, politicians can choose to just make stuff up and it gets repeated — often, with much of the conventional media trying to be “even-handed: one side accuses this, the other side disagrees,” even if the accusation is flat-out made up. What sticks in some voters’ mind is the accusation, and thus it serves its purpose. The benefits of lying start outweighing any drawbacks.
It’s kind of like all these media reports of Paul Ryan being a “fiscal conservative,” even though he voted for all the huge spending programs under Bush that caused the US to go from Clinton’s surplus to Bush’s massive deficit: the Iraq war, the $700 billion TARP financial industry bailout, Medicare expansion. He even supported the auto industry bailout, which Romney opposed. Of course, Ryan also supported the unfunded Bush tax cuts, which further made the deficit soar. Seriously, how is that under any possible definition being a fiscal conservative? Yet because Republicans keep repeating it, it’s the story now.
http://www.scottbrown.com/2012/08/by-the-numbers-elizabeth-warrens-3-4-trillion-tax-hike-over-10-years/
That’s his complaint? Elizabeth Warren wants wealthy people to pay taxes at least at the same rate as the rest of us, and have the U.S. pay the bill for the money we’re spending on wars? These are bad things?
I know it’s a radical idea for Republicans to have to pay for the things they want to spend money on — that’s how we went from the Clinton surplus to the Bush deficit. Just keep peddling the fantasy that wars pay for themselves and cutting taxes increase revenues, and hope that enough voters believe the fairy tale.
It’s pretty obvious this has been the Republican MO for years now: Convince Americans you can have everything you want without any cost: Expensive wars AND tax cuts! Then when the bill comes due, whine about the deficit as if they had nothing to do with it (I didn’t hear much about Bush’s soaring deficit from most so-called “fiscal conservatives” while Republicans were in charge) and blame Democrats for raising taxes.
Are you talking about our social services? We have so many handouts to people and yet they don’t pay for them. THis has become America for many of our people. They get public housing, public education, food stamps (EBT cards), Welfare, free healthcare, free job training, and all sorts of other free shit and sometimes those people (some who I am related to) never pay for any of it. They never go get the job, get the apartment… do anything. Amercians need to understand exactly what you said since we are in world of shit because of it… Americans you CANNOT have everything you want without any cost. Up till now, THEY get, WE pay the costs.
I get that you feel strongly about these things.
Annual federal spending for the “safety net” programs you describe is about $466 B — roughly 13% of the budget. From the link:
In comparison, the Bush tax cuts alone cost about $115 B. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, funded by GOP President and GOP Congress, were paid for by borrowed funds and cost a whopping $2.4 Trillion when interest costs are included, according to a 2007 CBO analysis.
The facts about our national debt and who is responsible for it are starkly different from the false stereotype you repeat here.
From NYTimes August 12, 2012:
IN May of 2000, when George W. Bush was running for president on a platform of extravagant tax cuts for all, his campaign did something that would be considered remarkable today: it submitted his tax plan to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, to see how much all those tax cuts would cost the Treasury.
The bipartisan committee ran through the details provided by the campaign and predicted that the tax plan would cost about $1.3 trillion over nine years, an underestimate but a clear sign of its high price tag. With the budget in surplus at the time, Mr. Bush didn’t dispute that cost, and never tried to pretend that the cuts would be free. Within a decade, in fact, they would turn out to be the biggest factor in the huge deficit he created. (End)
Remember that when posting about the deficit.
Plus: Economist Mark Zandi has analyzed the multiplier effect to the economy and found that tax cuts to the wealthy has very little effect while food stamps has the highest, hence the best, multiplier effect.
So what are Scott Brown’s tax policy recommendations? I guess I should look at other legislators’ websites to get some idea of it.
let’s balance the budget since THAT is the only way to have Americans pay for what they want.
This isn’t the first time you’ve offered this awful rationalization. I ignored it then, I’m going to respond to it now. You are trying to erase these history of WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE TRIED the ideas. We tried it, IT FAILED.
Suppose you gave your family retirement and college savings to a son-in-law who promised to “invest and manage it wisely”, and then learned after the fact that he used your cash to gamble, drink, and carouse — leaving you flat broke. Suppose you then sacrificed, scrimped, and saved so that you began to inch back towards stability, and suppose that the same son-in-law criticized, demeaned, and ridiculed you each step of the way. Suppose that son-in-law now says to you “We should look forward, not back. You should trust me to manage your new portfolio”.
Maybe you would give him the money. I won’t.
Should have been “You are trying to erase the history of WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE TRIED these ideas.”
Unless are Democrats are Jimmy Carter.
Happy days.
For this new Globe survey, Senator Brown didn’t respond to questions about Medicaid block grants, a key plank of the Ryan budget plan.
But last year Brown was clear that he supports the plan:
For Massachusetts, the impact would devastating.
Health Care For All blogged about this last year:
This is on top of the cuts that would come from repealing the ACA. The ACA will fund a critical expansion of our sliding-scale subsidized coverage program for low-income people, allowing thousands who are shut out now from assistance to get some help with premiums.