Scott Brown’s "Strong Step" About Bipartisanship, Not Jobs

When I heard that Scott Brown had voted for the second stimulus/jobs bill, I had a bit of a meltdown.  All over Twitter.  Furious.  Disappointed.  Yes, even surprised.  So I thought I’d better wait, get a good night’s sleep, marshal up some perspective, and do the requisite blog post “tomorrow.”  Well, today is tomorrow, and I still want to think about it tomorrow (don’t start calling me Scarlett, heh).  I’m still mad as hell, feel duped and betrayed, and want to scream at something.

Here’s the deal.  The bill is useless.  Useless.  More spending to accomplish pretty much nothing (at the low low cost of only $15 billion, we may–may–create 250,000 jobs, jobs that employers are incentivized to keep for a whole year.).  Woo. And hoo.  The only people who will hire a full-time employee and get the benefits of this Social Security payroll tax “holiday” (for ten months) and the one time $1,000 tax credit are people who were going to be hiring anyway.  This isn’t incentive to hire, not when massive taxes on businesses are pending in the form of Cap and Tax and (again, like Jason from the Friday the Thirteenth series) the newly-revived healthcare reform, replete some are saying with the public option.  So this bill, like the bigger, stupider bipartisan one that Harry Reid trashed, is going to be as super-effective as the first stimulus.  You know the one, the one that Scott Brown said “didn’t create one new job“?

What’s hard to understand about this simple concept:  the government cannot create jobs.  They can create an environment that is private industry/small business-friendly, but they cannot create jobs.  Or save them (whatever that means “officially”).  The government can, however, kill job growth, and that is exactly what this government is doing in flirting with the aforementioned disastrous legislation that will kill millions more jobs, and they honestly think that tossing a thousand dollars at someone is going to prompt them to hire anyone?  Insane.  What’s the payoff for that when the economy’s in the toilet, no one is spending money (except the government), and businesses are struggling to hang on to the employees they already have?  Or opting out of the business world altogether?  Even the businesses that are doing well are holding off on hiring until they find out how much it will cost them for each new employee once Cap and Tax (or the “backdoor” approach via the EPA) and government-controlled healthcare are passed.

Enter Scott Brown, newly-elected senator from Massachusetts.  Here’s why he said he voted for the “jobs” bill:

I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families. This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.

I was disappointed with the continuation of politics-as-usual in the drafting of this bill, as it was crafted behind closed doors, without transparency and accountability. I hope for improvements in that process going forward. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have to work together to get our economy back on track. I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington.

Talk about a tin ear.  I don’t remember him running as an Indie, nor do I remember his platform being “restoring bipartisanship in Washington.”  So he voted for a bill that he recognizes is flawed, that was business-as-usual in order to restore bipartisanship?  Huh?  Let’s think for a minute about “restoring bipartisanship in Washington.”  That’s what got us into this mess in the first place:  republicans trying to work with progressives in dem clothing and agreeing to massive spending, massive expansions of government, and massive pressure to force banks to lend to people who could never ever pay back their mortgages or loans.

Bipartisanship sounds great, all lovey dovey, let’s sip Coke and link arms and sway back and forth in peace and harmony.  The trouble is that this administration is driving this country into a brick wall at a hundred miles an hour.  How do you work with that?  Say, gee, we could slow down to eighty miles an hour, maybe put on our seatbelts.  Won’t that be a nice compromise?  Problem: wall, country, boom!  When someone you are supposed to be working with is a dangerous maniac bent on wrong-headed policies that go against the grain of America, you don’t work with them.  You avoid them.  Like the plague.   

Unless you’re Scott Brown.  Then you jump on board and put your foot on the gas.

16 thoughts on “Scott Brown’s "Strong Step" About Bipartisanship, Not Jobs

  1. Fuzzy
    I must admit I was shocked this morning when I heard what Scott Brown had done… I'm starting to lose all faith… The old saying that you can tell when a politician is lying because his lips are moving is starting to rear its ugly head even with the so called good guys…

    It was my understanding that Brown's vote was just to stop a filibuster… Well DUH! If this reaches the Senate floor, a simple majority will pass it…

    Scott Brown you got some splaining to do…

  2. @ Born Again American, sigh. Me, too, but let's not let this get us down. His election did at least freak out enough dems to stop (however briefly) HCR. That's something. And we did succeed in sending a message to Washington–even if they didn't hear it. Or notice.

    @ Pedaling, I so need to get married, my cats were not in the least interested in this turn of events. heh. “Crap” is right. It's discouraging, but we can't give up. Not now, not ever.

  3. I'll be happy if he continues to battle any HC bill that comes forth.

    And yes, Bipartisan is BS. I have no use for it. It's a concept for people with the mind of a 3 year old.

  4. I think it was pretty clear that Brown was not a Reagan Conservative. Be we needed something. #41. I think I'm ok with him going off the reservation on this one, but the voters of MA need to bring him to heel. His next election isn't that far off.

  5. This is definitely an oh crap moment. But, it is also not surprising since I would classify him as a RINO. I just hope he sticks with us on his being against Obamacare during his campaign. This is definitely going against his supposed fiscally conservative principles. No more compromising!! Your right. That's what got us into this mess.

  6. Although I am not a fan of this particular bill, I am concerned that across all the blogs I have visited yesterday and today, I continue to see comments about how voting with the D's is bad and there is no such thing as bi partisanship.

    Sorry, but I do believe this is part of the bigger problem. I am a believer that if you think the bill makes sense, vote for it. Have your facts behind you and make a good case. And yes, sometimes doing something is still better than doing nothing.

    However,as I said, I am not a fan of this one.

  7. “I was disappointed with the continuation of politics-as-usual in the drafting of this bill, as it was crafted behind closed doors, without transparency and accountability. “

    So WTF???

    I don't drink Coke, so screw that “peace and harmony” crap.

    I drink Dr. Pepper, because it's an original.

    Great, Mr. “I'm the 41st vote,” you got your seat, do your thing.

    Rumor has it you'll be out in two years anyway. Prove us wrong.

  8. @ Kid, we'll see if he does battle the healthcare bill . . . I'm not getting my hopes up on that one.

    @ Deekaman, true, but this was disappointing all the same.

    @ Teresa, exactly!

    @ SG, yeah, he's up for reelection in 2012, and he's not off to a stellar start. We didn't elect him to go work with progressives and spend, spend, spend. We'll see what he does from here, but my guess (given the lack of an attack campaign against him from the powers that be) is that he's going to be the dem's new pet (move over Olympia!).

    @ WMUR, voting with the D's is NOT bad if it is the right thing to do. No one complained about reps supporting BO's sending more troops to Afghanistan. And if ONE rep votes against providing the support our troops need to do their job properly, I will take them to task here, there, and everywhere.

    I have a serious problem with “bipartisanship” because what the progs mean by that is do what we want or you're an obstructionist. Further, and as I mentioned in my post, I also believe that the progressive agenda is anti- and un-American. Anyone who works to destroy this country is a traitor in my book. I guess it all boils down to what you think this administration is up to. Oh. I feel a rant coming on, but it's not directed at you, dear WMUR, so I'll just do a whole post on it. Heh.

    @ Sol, lol, I'm SO with you. I think he thinks that this “bipartisan” bs is part of his job, and I think he thinks, like all progs, that he knows best. And if that flies in the face of what the people he represents want, that's just too darn bad. We did not vote for him (or support him, if you're outside Mass) to go make nice or to be the dems newest biyotch; we voted for him to go be fiscally conservative and stop the progressive madness. If we wanted a friggin' prog in there, we'd have sent Croakley.

  9. TCL, he's trying to be Mr. Conservative now to try to undo the damage, but I'm pretty unhappy with him. We'll see what he does about healthcare, but I'm not getting my hopes up (looks like he won't be needed anyway, as BO pushes for the nuke).

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s