Scott Brown Voted Against Giving Help To 9/11 Recovery Workers
At a campaign rally today in Hyannis, ThinkProgress caught up with Brown for comment on why he voted against the measure:
TP: In 2001, you voted against 9/11 recovery workers, giving them aid, do you have any comment on this story?
BROWN: Yes, it was a time when our budget was down. We had a lot of cuts unfortunately, and we had to take care of our own priorities first.
During the same month Brown was voting down efforts to support 9/11 rescue workers, he was pushing a bill to appropriate a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in Norfolk, a city in his district. “Priorities,” indeed.
Also during the same period, he was busy fighting for tax subsidies for corporate interests. According to a 2002 article in the Lowell Sun, Brown scored a perfect pro-corporate tax subsidy rating in the months following his anti-9/11 rescue workers vote: LinkHere
Also during the same period, he was busy fighting for tax subsidies for corporate interests. According to a 2002 article in the Lowell Sun, Brown scored a perfect pro-corporate tax subsidy rating in the months following his anti-9/11 rescue workers vote: LinkHere
One month after the September 11th attacks, Scott Brown was one of only three Massachusetts State Representatives to vote against a bill to provide financial assistance to Red Cross workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts, we’ve learned.
The Brown campaign acknowledged the vote to us, claiming the measure would have taxed already-strained state finances.
The 9/11 attacks flared as an issue in the Massachusetts race today. The NRSC sharply criticized Democrat Martha Coaxley over a DSCC ad, first reported by Politico, that flashed an image of the Twin Towers. Rudy Giuliani, who stumped for Brown today, also slammed Coakley over the ad, saying it was “unthinkable” and “offensive.”
On October 17th, 2001, Brown voted against a bill that would authorize “leaves of absence for certain Red Cross employees participating in Red Cross emergencies.” The bill gave 15 days of paid leave each year to state workers called up by the Red Cross to respond to disasters. At the time, state workers called for such emergencies were required to use sick and vacation days.
The bill was initially filed before 9/11, and after the attacks, it was made retroactive to 9/11, covering the time spent by state workers who’d assisted with 9/11 recovery work for the Red Cross. Brown’s vote against the measure came a little more than a month after the attack.
You can read the bill and the roll call right here.
Brown spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom justified the vote by pointing to the state’s fiscal straits. “At the time, the state was in a fiscal crisis and facing a deficit, and there was no money to spend on additional pay and benefits for state employees,” Fehrnstrom emailed.
Special thanks to reporter Beth Marlowe for the research help.
***************************************
Update: DSCC spokesman Eric Schultz responds:
“On a day with Scott Brown bringing in Rudy Giuliani, he ought to give the people of Massachusetts an explanation as to why he voted against relief for 9/11 workers. We knew Scott Brown was a shill for Wall Street and corporate interests, but I cannot imagine what excuse he comes up with for this vote. He ought to be ashamed of himself and he ought to apologize to the Mayor of New York.”
The Brown campaign acknowledged the vote to us, claiming the measure would have taxed already-strained state finances.
The 9/11 attacks flared as an issue in the Massachusetts race today. The NRSC sharply criticized Democrat Martha Coaxley over a DSCC ad, first reported by Politico, that flashed an image of the Twin Towers. Rudy Giuliani, who stumped for Brown today, also slammed Coakley over the ad, saying it was “unthinkable” and “offensive.”
On October 17th, 2001, Brown voted against a bill that would authorize “leaves of absence for certain Red Cross employees participating in Red Cross emergencies.” The bill gave 15 days of paid leave each year to state workers called up by the Red Cross to respond to disasters. At the time, state workers called for such emergencies were required to use sick and vacation days.
The bill was initially filed before 9/11, and after the attacks, it was made retroactive to 9/11, covering the time spent by state workers who’d assisted with 9/11 recovery work for the Red Cross. Brown’s vote against the measure came a little more than a month after the attack.
You can read the bill and the roll call right here.
Brown spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom justified the vote by pointing to the state’s fiscal straits. “At the time, the state was in a fiscal crisis and facing a deficit, and there was no money to spend on additional pay and benefits for state employees,” Fehrnstrom emailed.
Special thanks to reporter Beth Marlowe for the research help.
***************************************
Update: DSCC spokesman Eric Schultz responds:
“On a day with Scott Brown bringing in Rudy Giuliani, he ought to give the people of Massachusetts an explanation as to why he voted against relief for 9/11 workers. We knew Scott Brown was a shill for Wall Street and corporate interests, but I cannot imagine what excuse he comes up with for this vote. He ought to be ashamed of himself and he ought to apologize to the Mayor of New York.”
With the race for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat nearing a nail-biting conclusion, Democrats claim they gained a major boost Thursday night after Republican Scott Brown said he opposes a proposed tax on big banks that is designed to regain TARP funds and curb compensation practices.
The Massachusetts state senator, who vaulted ahead of his opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley in one of several late-stage polls, told the Wall Street Journal that he is "opposed to higher taxes, especially in the midst of a severe recession."
"Raising taxes will kill jobs," Brown's campaign added in a statement. "Martha Coakley's tax-raising policies will make it harder to get our economy back on the right track."
In coming out against the big-bank tax, Brown joins the ranks of other conservatives including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. But it may be dangerous political terrain. In the minutes after Brown's position went public, the Democratic Party machinery trumpeted it as a revelation of his proximity to both the financial industry and the far right. A strategist working on the race emailed the Huffington Post with the following synopsis:
This is significant marker... this is Brown giving up the populist ground that was fueling his campaign. It also undermines his central argument that he's not a lockstep Republican who will put Wall Street ahead of middle class families. Look for us to highlight and make him pay the price for this choice [Friday].
Democrats appear intent to use the big-bank tax as a political cudgel in the weeks and months going forward. On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs all but dared Republicans to oppose the measure, which would raise an estimated $180 million in revenue per firm per year.
The Massachusetts state senator, who vaulted ahead of his opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley in one of several late-stage polls, told the Wall Street Journal that he is "opposed to higher taxes, especially in the midst of a severe recession."
"Raising taxes will kill jobs," Brown's campaign added in a statement. "Martha Coakley's tax-raising policies will make it harder to get our economy back on the right track."
In coming out against the big-bank tax, Brown joins the ranks of other conservatives including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. But it may be dangerous political terrain. In the minutes after Brown's position went public, the Democratic Party machinery trumpeted it as a revelation of his proximity to both the financial industry and the far right. A strategist working on the race emailed the Huffington Post with the following synopsis:
This is significant marker... this is Brown giving up the populist ground that was fueling his campaign. It also undermines his central argument that he's not a lockstep Republican who will put Wall Street ahead of middle class families. Look for us to highlight and make him pay the price for this choice [Friday].
Democrats appear intent to use the big-bank tax as a political cudgel in the weeks and months going forward. On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs all but dared Republicans to oppose the measure, which would raise an estimated $180 million in revenue per firm per year.
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 9:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home