Thread: Brown voted against helping 9/11 workers

More and more information is coming out about Scott Brown. Greg Sargent finds this very troubling vote he took after the 9/11 attacks. This shows the character of the man.

One month after the September 11th attacks, Scott Brown was one of only three Massachusetts State Representatives to vote against a bill to provide financial assistance to Red Cross workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts, we’ve learned.



The Brown campaign acknowledged the vote to us, claiming the measure would have taxed already-strained state finances.



The 9/11 attacks flared as an issue in the Massachusetts race today. The NRSC sharply criticized Democrat Martha Coaxley over a DSCC ad, first reported by Politico, that flashed an image of the Twin Towers. Rudy Giuliani, who stumped for Brown today, also slammed Coakley over the ad, saying it was “unthinkable” and “offensive.”



On October 17th, 2001, Brown voted against a bill that would authorize “leaves of absence for certain Red Cross employees participating in Red Cross emergencies.” The bill gave 15 days of paid leave each year to state workers called up by the Red Cross to respond to disasters. At the time, state workers called for such emergencies were required to use sick and vacation days.



The bill was initially filed before 9/11, and after the attacks, it was made retroactive to 9/11, covering the time spent by state workers who’d assisted with 9/11 recovery work for the Red Cross. Brown’s vote against the measure came a little more than a month after the attack.



You can read the bill and the roll call right here.



Brown spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom justified the vote by pointing to the state’s fiscal straits. “At the time, the state was in a fiscal crisis and facing a deficit, and there was no money to spend on additional pay and benefits for state employees,” Fehrnstrom emailed.

Right---sure--OK.



Americablog writes:

Um, I don't seem to remember any other politician crying poverty in the weeks after 9/11. And, the vote was 148 - 3. Brown was one of those three. Classy guy. He'd fit right in with Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint and David Vitter. He can't win on Tuesday.

The Political Carnival writes:

How's that Noun, Verb, 9/11 thing going for you now, Rudy? Bringing Giuliani in to slam Coakley on terrorism should be enough to disqualify Brown from holding office. Bringing him on anything should prove Scotty's mental incompetence.

Jed Lewison adds:

So in the aftermath of worst terror attack in American history, Scott Brown put his right-wing vision of fiscal austerity ahead of helping the nation's recovery efforts. That's pretty much the definition of radical conservativism -- and it reflects the exact opposite of the values that Ted Kennedy fought for his entire life.

There you go. That Scott Brown is some kinda guy.

CNL - Read it anyway, you might learn something.



So, there's two ways this story is gonna play out. Either it will get ignored outright OR the right will go into spasms over how 'unfair' the left is being by bringing up Brown's voting record.

A very important incite into the character of Scott Brown. Thanks for posting this thread!

[quote name='metheron' date='16 January 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1263683855' post='100485']

How did this end up being paid for? Did the state already have the money in its coffers to offer this assistance? I mean to some people financial accoungtability is important.



I have a feeling we don't have enough information to make a complete accurate judgement. It sounds to me, on the surface this is an argument of bleeding heart versus financial accountabilty. Liberal versus (traditional) conservative.

[/quote]

Oh damn - in 2001 any state offering to provide assistance to the 9/11 efforts was championed as patriots and heros.



Now, almost 9 years later, it is viewed as sound financial conservatism to vote against giving such aid, offering such help.



How telling is that?

[quote name='Vortex' date='17 January 2010 - 08:26 AM' timestamp='1263738379' post='100542']

Oh damn - in 2001 any state offering to provide assistance to the 9/11 efforts was championed as patriots and heros.



Now, almost 9 years later, it is viewed as sound financial conservatism to vote against giving such aid, offering such help.



How telling is that?

[/quote]

If I felt like spending this beautiful Sunday digging through the forum, I'd be interested to see what Metheron's stance on helping out with Haiti. Well... you know, before Bush II got involved and it became acceptable for the last 29% of this country.