Well, this is interesting:
In Massachusetts, Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for Senate, feels that "some of these bonus payments are obscene," said spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.
But efforts to limit compensation "should be handled by the board of directors or by the stockholders themselves," said Fehrnstrom in a statement. "We have to be careful not to invite too much government involvement in our private, free-market system."
A spokesman for Martha Coakley said the Democratic Senate candidate thinks some government action is justified.
"Martha Coakley does not believe businesses or banks that received taxpayer-funded TARP money should be able to use those monies for employee bonuses," said Alex Zaroulis. "She also believes there should be stronger shareholder oversight in the for-profit business sector regarding the disbursement of CEO compensation packages."
link: http://news.bostonherald.com/...
Some? Some? Which ones? The ones in the hundreds of millions, or only the tens of millions? And do you do anything about it with the Wall Street banks that took billions of taxpayer dollars in bailout money when their bets didn't pay off?
Nah.
Far easier to go after a small, non-profit organization trying to help poor people because it's a pander to your base:
State Senator and U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown says he has filed a bill to suspend funding for ACORN, the advocacy group under national fire for misconduct and alleged voter fraud.
snip
According to the Boston Globe, a branch of the group, ACORN Housing, received a $33,000 grant last April from the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation to counsel first-time homebuyers and homeowners facing possible foreclosure.
link: http://www.necn.com/...
So, let me get this straight: it's okay to take billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and reward your executives bonuses, "some" of which are obscene, and the government can't do anything about that. But a videographer makes a splash on Fox News by with a creative cut and paste hit job against a non-profit, and you get to use the power of the government to take their grant money away, grant money that's been allocated to help homeowners facing possible foreclosure due to the housing mess that the bailed out executives receiving obscene bonuses created?
Yeah, that seems fair.
But this also comes from the same guy who thinks that the Bush administration had nothing - nothing at all - to do with the economic meltdown that happened on Bush's watch:
Dan Rea: Scott Brown, let me ask. This is a question directed to you. The financial meltdown, and we only have a couple minutes left.
Scott Brown: Sure
D.R.: Your party was in charge from 2000 to 2006. They apparently failed to see the storm coming and enact regulations to reign in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the hedge fund board on Wall Street.
S.B.: Well let’s just—I disagree with that Dan. The financial meltdown was caused by the housing bubble and the bundling of mortgages and sale throughout the world.
D.R.: But it occurred during their watch. They controlled the Senate and the corner office from 2000 to 2006.
S.B.: Actually the bubble burst very recently and a lot of that problem happened in the last couple of years. The meltdown that we’ve had and the beginning of the recession we’re in right now.
D.R.: Weren’t the problems laid during that period of time during 2000 to 2006?"
S.B.: I don’t think so Dan. And I think a lot of the problems that we’re having, we had plenty of regulations, what we needed was the proper federal agencies to make sure they enforce the regulations. And if there are problems, in certain parts of that, then we should try to fix them.
link: http://www.marthacoakley.com/...
This is the same guy who thinks that a government run public option at the federal level would - and I quote - "dumb down the medical services and medical insurance in Massachusetts" and that the response to the economic meltdown shouldn't be tighter government regulation:
So pulling back on the financial [regulations], I think if you do too much too soon, it doesn’t have a chance to catch up and see if we can work out of this ourselves through free enterprise, through private enterprise, intervention and creativity.
So I’m all in favor of just holding back for a little bit and letting private enterprise try to get us out of this mess.
link: http://www.wbur.org/...
And we haven't even gotten to his stance on the Bush tax cuts:
She [Coakley] also questioned Brown’s support for Bush-era tax cuts, which are set to expire.
Coakley asked him if he understood that the tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers.
He did not directly answer her, however.
"If you’re not going to give a yes or no, then I don’t want an answer. Thanks!’’ Coakley said.
link: http://www.boston.com/...
You know, it takes more than a teabag, pair of gaiters and a powdered wig to try and say you're a man of the people. You need to be tough enough to take on the corporate interests when they step out of line, and cloak yourself in policies that help real people, not just empty platitudes.
Seems like in this area, Scott Brown's nakedness is showing through.
UPDATE: Show Martha Coakley some love, and donate, call, canvass or just go vote! More info here: http://www.marthacoakley.com/