System, your analysis has a bit to be desired. Scott Brown has mouthed and attached himself to the worse parts of the Republican agenda. It is a summary of Mitch McConnell's plan of attack against the American people in favor of his "freebie market" buddies. The only entitlements Sen Brown wants to save are for corporations who only want to pad their executive's wallets. His program would punish those who had no hand in our present problems by cutting programs that affect the vulnerable in our country. He remains hawkish to an extreme and shows he has learned little from our military misadventures. In this regard he is off with an overwhelming majority of the American people. As for defense savings this man voted for a GE jet engine the Pentagon did not want. So much for his clear eyed approach to that budget. Elizabeth Warren's approach seeks to protect successful social programs and actually cuts the deficit more in the long run. She does not have the same sympathies for those who drove this economy in the ditch or were scamming the system. Sen Brown instead works to give tax breaks to his special group of rich ethically challenged buddies. They do not deserve it under the ruse they will create jobs. They haven't. Over a trillion dollars of idle cash is sitting on the sidelines of mega businesses. They will not even use it to fulfill their role as entrepreneurs to invest in American workers. Instead of get quick rich schemes they should make money the old fashion way---earn it. So Sen Brown's views are set backs on several issues. He has learned little how our country's problems surfaced--he presses failed solutions from the past on several issues--the economy, health care, war and peace, civil rights, small business, federal programs for the vulnerable, and the role of extracted cash by large businesses. He is a "severely conservative Republican." Now where have I heard that before.

What Scooter doesn't realize is that his positions are mostly in direct opposistion to the positions and goals of Massachusetts voters. I am sure there are voters who agree with Scotty, but not in Massachusetts. With any luck the Mittster will eliminate the problem by giving him a job this summer.

There's one surprise in this article. Scott Brown would actually reduce military spending more than Elizabeth Warren. But both candidates are missing huge opportunities to cut Pentagon waste -- trillion-dollar weapons platforms that don't work, Cold War relics, unnecessary nuclear "modernization," and Washington's fixation on policing the world, which is costliest of all. Cutting military waste and moving money into education, transit, and healthcare would give jobs a big boost in this state. We'd gain up to 17,000 jobs if Congress moved $1.65 billion from military to domestic federal spending in Massachusetts, according to a recent UMass study (http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/MA_Military_May2012.pdf).

I'm Scott Brown and I approved this message.

So, if we combine the spending cuts they both want, we actually have something. Both fall short, however, in addressing how to turn around the national debt. Reducing the deficit is not the same as balancing the budget, but even a balanced budget leaves us with, what, $14Trillion in debt?

At least we now have the opportunity to make substantive comparisons.

I'm not sure you understand what the debt really is or how it works. Some of the proposals may cut costs but fail to increase revenue. Revenue is increased by more than raising taxes but by increasing high quality jobs and income. In this mode, many of Brown's ideas are just bad whether combined or not.

NO substantive comparisons here: the analysis performed by the budget project committee failed to include and account for Brown's support of the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill which would have sliced $111 billion from the increasing debt and the committee also failed to include Brown's support for repealing the Obama health care bill. This is NOT the time for Americans to pay this huge cost after being hit with loss of retirement investments, unemployment for many (including students) and Obama's bill RESCUE PLAN/BAILOUT to WALL-STREET. The numbers of people found to not have health insurance is climbing with the projected number more than 50 million persons. People who have NEVER had health care services, suffering from multiple illnesses, obesity and poor nutrition.No matter what the Democrats think - there is no hidden pot of gold to cover the bankruptcy hurtling at us.

good points. As also said, neither plan is complete. They are both addressing questions of entitlements and taxes primarily. There are other areas in which to reduce costs. I have some national security concerns with some of Brown's proposals.

I think you should read them and think about them yourself. I realize that this is yet another set of facts that shows the moral and intellectual corruption of the Republican party and the vacuous nature of this fashion model Senator. It is interesting - even amusing that you proclaim your affections and contempt for Elizabeth but you cannot explain them. Anyone who has followed these comments knows how you feel but you have no analytic explanations - never. Do what you tell others to do and read it. READ THE INDEPENDENT analysis which the globe has provided a link to. Demonstrate thought and analysis. If you really try, you may not be so sanguine on your candidate. If you really try, you may realize that Elizabeth Warren is actually more like the old sane Republicans than a Democrat in many aspects.

Since there is no 'sarcasm font' you missed the tenor of my comment. What I am saying, as you have in other posts, is that no candidate is addressing the whole, only the parts they like, or, to be more cynical, only the parts compatible with their ideologies.

Well here's just one of many examples of economists that think raising taxes will not hurt the economy, but help it: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-70--solution Health spending is the largest driver of deficit growth and Obamacare could very well slow that growth. That impacts the deficit both through the savings in the bill itself, and indirectly through lower spending on Medicare and Medicaid.

Oh really the depth and breath of Sen. browns reply , you've got to be kidding "Deficits exist because politicians are addicted to spending other people's money". This is from a Senator? This is clearly lacks any understanding of the reality of the economy and what got us into this mess. If you don't understand the problem you can't solve it, and Sen. Brown does not understand. By the way do you really think he wrote that response. Read it again and you will see its was most likely writtne by his and Mitt's buddy Eric.

Really, so what is this "creative accounting" of which you speak? It would be interesting to hear you provide numbers and facts to support your remarks. I do not think you or anyone else can. In point of fact the most objective,respected and expert accountants have addressed exactly this issue and utterly do not support your silly remarks. Really, there is no basis for anything you say in the world of objective reality or fact. The Republican party is utterly lying on this subject. What is interesting is that they have no basis for their statements. It's time to realize what this rendition of the Republican party really is and most particularly what it isn't. I refer you to the Congressional Budget Office analysis and to most economists comments.

The "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill has been carefully analyzed by the CBO. It's claims are utterly not supportable. Numerous arithmetic errors were found in it. It literally did not add up. Yes, Brown supported it. Thank you for pointing out yet another Republican, Tea Party, Knee Jerk reaction of his that was struck down, not on philosophical grounds but as something with utterly no merit. You obviously did not read what Brown wrote or the analysis of it. Brown did not offer the "Cut, Cap and Balance bill" in his claims. Why? Because it is disgraced. So, since he didn't propose it, the analysis did not include it. You didn't read that. When will Republicans learn to argue with ground truths and arithmetic? Never. When they do, they leave the party.