Senator Scott Brown was adamant during his campaign last year. He would not vote to raise taxes, he said repeatedly, even for the wealthy. But Brown voted Tuesday for a plan that would increase taxes for households that earn more than $450,000, a compromise that he said is “not perfect.”
Brown did not have much choice on the measure, strategists from both parties said. Most Republicans supported the plan. A no vote would have aligned Brown with the most conservative among them, just as a special election begins to replace Senator John F. Kerry, a race many think Brown will join after relinquishing his seat to Elizabeth Warren.
Comments
This article is ridiculous. What grammar school did Chelsea attend? i am a democrat that voted for Warren and i do believe Scott Brown ran a campaign that was dis ingenuous. That being said, Scott Brown did not vote to increase taxes. He voted to lower taxes. The tax cuts had already expired and this bill was to restore them.
Articles such as this one lend credence of biased journalism. i would prefer to defeat Mr brown on the facts. The editors of the Globe need to put an end to such shoddy journalism.
Brown is a Romney clone worm who will vote however his staff tells him will get more votes.
dewitt is right. The tax cuts were passed as temporary, they expired at midnight. Scott Brown's vote then cut some of the expired taxes again. So he hasn't broken his "no new taxes" pledge. I do wonder why his staff didn't say that.
Along with this shoddy journalism, the basic piece implies that somewhere, somehow, those spending cuts are going to happen. Using what evidence? I can't defend the Globe anymore.
Dewitt and Barbara are both playing word games. The fact is that more revenue is needed and Mr. Brown voted to do that by raising rates...on 0.7% of the richest among us. Not exactly a bold step. Even raising rates on the top 2%, Elizabeth Warren's position, wasn't particularly bold. It was modest. And while we are talking about numbers, what was the magic number that got Scott Brown to change his position on gun control? It must have been 550...because he didn't do so until 20 kids in Connecticut were murdered and the FBI stated that 561 kids had died similarly between 2006 and 2010. Until the national Republican Party stops being beholden to the richest Americans and the NRA, I know where my vote will go. By the way, the "richest" includes Big Pharma whose lobbyists make sure that competition is not part of keeping health care costs down.
Big Pharma had President Obama on their side on making sure that their profits would remain intact. Obama and the FDA's position is that it is better for seniors to skip their heart medication drugs so they can afford to eat rather than import those inexpensive Canadian drugs.
I take WesternSuburbDad's point but not his conclusion. Just as Mass recently passed additional health care reform legislation taking into account what we have learned from actual practice, I would hope that the same thing would happen in DC. None of this is easy but it needs to be done without reactionary ideological fervor. I think we are at a point where the great majority of Americans understand that we need a modern health care system...we've just got to keep working on it for the common good, not just the limited good of Big Pharma.
The tax cuts were temporary, then they expired, then some were renewed. Simple facts too much for you, nahantin? You'll never vote Republican, just focus on taxing "Big Pharma" so it doesn't expend more capital creating life-saving drugs for us; and go get those medical device companies too, so they cut back on creating life-saving, life-enhancing devices for the sick and handicapped.
Oops...you missed the point Barbara258. I am advocating good old capitalist competition and the ability of any group to negotiate prices. When I owned my small business I joined a group that, using the power of the market, reduced my costs. Big Phama should be taxed as any other comparable corporation would be and medical device makers should not receive an special dispensation from the tax laws. And, just so you know, I have voted Republican...but not too often.
Wow, pretty easy to see the Globe is working hard to paint Brown as the 'flip-flopper'. Big headline "Brown reverses on taxes!" ... then you read and they have to admit he didn't have much choice, better to not raise taxes on 99% then vote against the bill. And a week ago, big headline "Scott reverses on assault weapons ban!" ... when he had voted FOR an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts, he did change to favor federal legislation ... of course something that they would credit a Democrat with EVOLVING ( Obama on gay marriage and work permits for Dreamers, of course right before the election).
I take it from this article that the Globe is VERY ANGRY that Scott Brown voted for tax increases. Contrary ro what you might think, the Globe hoped that Republicans would insist on acting responsibly and vote to not raise taxes and balance the budget. After all, the Globe knows that is thr right thing to do.