Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Democrats voted Thursday to defeat the first piece of legislation offered by Sen. Scott Brown, despite a plea from the newly elected lawmaker for bipartisanship.

The Senate voted 56 to 44 to derail an amendment sponsored by Brown (R-Mass.) that would have allocated $80 billion in unobligated stimulus funds to pay for a tax cut for 130 million people in the workforce.


The amendment failed when senators voted to enforce a procedural objection Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) raised against the measure. A majority voted to sustain the motion.

In his first Senate floor speech, Brown asked Democrats to support his proposal, reminding them he was the first Republican to vote for a $15 billion jobs package offered by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Brown and four other Republicans voted for the Reid jobs bill, giving Senate Democrats their biggest bipartisan legislative victory of the year.

Brown asked his colleagues to return the favor.

“Let me remind colleagues in this chamber that bipartisanship is a two-way street,” Brown said.

Brown noted that Democrats “appreciated my effort to reach across the aisle last week and help pass the jobs bill that the majority leader was pushing to put people back to work.”

“And I took some heat for it,” Brown added.

Brown repeated his plea immediately before the vote but only two Democrats responded: Sens. John Kerry (Mass.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) voted for the amendment.

Brown’s amendment would have cut workers’ payroll taxes by about $100 per month, up to $500 per person and $1,000 per worker.

“Some people in Washington may not think that $100 or $500 or $1,000 is a lot of money but I can tell you I know the value of a dollar,” Brown said. “The people in my state know that’s real money.”

The proposal would not have added to the federal deficit because it would have been fully offset by unspent stimulus funds.

Brown offered his amendment to a package of tax extenders the Senate is considering this week.

danefan wrote:Actually an interesting concept. I wonder what the rationale by the dems was for voting against it.

houndawg wrote:Did he say $100 was real money with a straight face?

GannonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:Did he say $100 was real money with a straight face?

Well, in his defense, he did also inlcude, in the same sentence, $500 and $1000 as well.

But hey, I wouldn't mind an extra $100 a month in my pocket - $1200 a year really is real money.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Scott, we all know your a tool, but your voters didnt elect you to be bipartisan. They elected you to be conservative. Figure this out now or you will be gone in the next election.

GannonFan wrote:

danefan wrote:Actually an interesting concept. I wonder what the rationale by the dems was for voting against it.

I would imagine because that stimulus money that is approved but just sitting there is a tempting pile of money to claim. No sense letting it go out for tax cuts when it can be earmarked at a later date for something more pointedly beneficial to particular politicians (on both sides of the aisle, mind you). It'll be part of the stimulus that just keeps on giving (even if it doesn't really "stimulate" anything).

HI54UNI wrote:Brown's idea would've done more for the economy that whatever pork project will receive the money.

I hope Brown has learned his lesson. The idea of bi-partisan to the Democrats in Washington is you cave in to what they want.

HI54UNI wrote:Brown's idea would've done more for the economy that whatever pork project will receive the money.

I hope Brown has learned his lesson. The idea of bi-partisan to the Democrats in Washington is you cave in to what they want.