Op−Ed | American Independence: Senator Scott Brown
Published: Monday, November 5, 2012
Updated: Monday, November 5, 2012 06:11
The call to service in President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address will forever remain the standard for American citizenship and governance. The Kennedy family devoted their lives to serving the people of Massachusetts and the United States, an endeavor for which many of them paid the ultimate price. The Kennedys followed in the footsteps of our nation’s founders, men and women of Massachusetts, those who believe that government exists only at the consent of “We the people.”
The Commonwealth deserves a representative in the Senate devoted to public service and independence. On Nov. 6 we have a chance to re−elect an incumbent whose life and career has been devoted to exactly those two things. He has served in nearly every form of Massachusetts elected office and is the second most bipartisan Senator in the United States Senate. Massachusetts deserves Senator Scott Brown (LA ‘81).
Massachusetts is the historic birthplace of American independence and it has remained its fervent defender. If history resonates wholly across the state, it comes as no surprise that Scott Brown would one day become such a bipartisan leader. Financial hardships prompted Brown to become a Republican because he identified with it as the party of fiscal responsibility; the group advocating for decreases in government spending rather than increases in taxes.
After marrying a Waltham girl and prominent Boston reporter, Gail Huff, Scott Brown settled down as a local real−estate attorney while beginning his public service career with humble roots and modest aspirations.
He started locally as the Wrentham Town Assessor in 1987 and continued his ascent until eventually becoming one of five Republican State Senators working on Beacon Hill in 2004. Senator Brown moved up the political ladder by earning a reputation as a moderate Republican who could work with Democrats to serve the greater good in the Commonwealth.
Scott Brown’s victory in the special election for the late−Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in 2010 may have sent shockwaves throughout the national media and Washington Machine, but it came as no surprise to the voters in Massachusetts. This state highly regards its individuals devoted to public service and places the utmost value on politicians proven to represent their diverse beliefs.
While in Washington, Senator Brown has remained resolute in his commitment to Massachusetts’ tradition of independence, earning the title of Washingtonian Magazine’s least partisan Senator. He carefully reads every bill while voting nearly 50% of the time with each party.
Liberal Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren scolds her opponent for voting against the President’s “Jobs Bill,” which would have raised taxes on some Americans by $450 billion over the next decade. She obviously doesn’t mention all the times that President Obama has signed job creation bills that Senator Brown helped write, bills that passed without raising a dollar in taxes.
This legislation includes the “Hire a Hero Bill” that gives tax credits to businesses for hiring unemployed veterans, the “Crowdfunding Act” that enables entrepreneurs to raise up to a million dollars of capital online, and the repeal of a 3% withholding stealth tax. When President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address called for an end to Congressional insider trading, it was only a matter of weeks before he put his signature on Senator Brown’s “STOCK Act” to permanently end the practice.
Professor Warren has repeatedly tried to demonize Senator Brown’s character and distort his voting record on women’s issues by citing the vote he took against the “Paycheck Fairness Act.”
Although the bill sounds great in name, further examination reveals that it would only impose intrusive regulatory burdens on small businesses during this crippling recession. Senator Brown wants equal pay for women and strongly supports the “Lilly Ledbetter Act,” but he could not sign legislation that provided the wrong solution to a problem just because the bill had a glamorous title. He is not that kind of politician. He is a moderate Republican that unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade, broke with Republicans to continue funding for Planned Parenthood, and voted for 90% of the female judges that President Obama has proposed. He fights for women in Washington the same way he fought for his mother during his childhood and has taken a lead role in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
Our country finds itself at a fiscal cliff, still in a recession, and accumulating an unprecedented amount of debt. Professor Warren may want taxpayers to write her bigger checks, but Senator Brown wants to give Washington a reality check.
Higher taxes and a bigger government aren’t the solutions. Already having spent $16 trillion more than we can afford, it’s clear that our government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. That is why Senator Scott Brown supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that would finally force the federal government to get its fiscal house in order and save future generations from paying the price. Professor Warren opposes that idea.
If you are only looking for a warm−body liberal to send to Washington who will march in lockstep with the Democratic party, leaving “blood and teeth on the floor” before compromising across the aisle, then Professor Warren is your candidate.