Senator Scott Brown stood before the South Shore Chamber of Commerce on August 14 to deliver what his campaign called a major policy address on taxes. By all accounts, there wasn't much policy behind his speech.
The talk mostly focused on attacking Elizabeth Warren and calling for a special summer session of Congress to stop the Bush tax cuts from expiring. While the Bush tax cuts have predominantly helped millionaires, Brown talked about easing the pressure on the middle class.
What Brown doesn't want you to know is that where the Bush tax cuts are concerned, he has repeatedly voted against the people of Massachusetts - and for the interests of millionaires.
During a December 2010 debate on extending the Bush tax cuts, Brown twice voted against amendments to keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but end them for households making over $250,000 a year. In the same debate, he also voted against an amendment to keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but end them for people making over $1 million a year.
Brown's other actions have likewise made it clear that he cares more about millionaires than working people. Brown voted to filibuster a resolution proposing that "any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more a year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort."
So 16 months before standing before the business leaders of Massachusetts, declaring a crisis and calling for a special session to prevent "taxmageddon," Brown voted three times for the interests of the wealthy rather than compromises that would extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. This fits with behavior we've repeatedly seen from Senator Brown: call for Congress to do something about an issue and then go down to Washington, D.C., and either waffle or vote for special interests.
We have a question for Scott Brown: If Congress did what you wanted and gaveled in a special session and there was a compromise bill that would extend the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans but asked those who make more than $250,000 to pay a bit more, would you vote for it or would you seek to filibuster it again? Is it more important to you to make sure the rich pay less or that you actually try to help the middle class?