In a not-all-that-surprising move, Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) has announced that he will vote against the Paul Ryan/House Republican budget. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) is likely to hold a vote on the plan sometime this week.
Brown had given mixed signals as to how he’d vote, but clarified his position Monday in an op-ed for Politico. The senator offers some light praise for the Ryan’s plan for having “at least finally jumpstarted the debate” on Medicare reform, but while Ryan recommends transitioning the program to a “premium support” model, Brown says lawmakers should “work inside” the current Medicare framework to make it more solvent:
While I applaud Ryan for getting the conversation started, I cannot support his specific plan — and therefore will vote “no” on his budget.
Why can’t I go along with the Ryan Medicare plan?
First, I fear that as health inflation rises, the cost of private plans will outgrow the government premium support— and the elderly will be forced to pay ever higher deductibles and co-pays. Protecting those who have been counting on the current system their entire adult lives should be the key principle of reform.
Second, Medicare has already taken significant cuts to help pay for Obama’s health care plan. The president and Congress cut a half trillion dollars to the private side of Medicare — meaning seniors are at risk of losing their Medicare Advantage coverage.
Another key principle is that seniors should not have to bear a disproportionate burden. But that doesn’t mean we do nothing. If Medicare is to survive for current beneficiaries and future generations, we must act. The sooner Congress addresses this, the less painful it is likely to be — but more difficult adjustments will be required if we delay.
We should start by making improvements to the traditional Medicare plan.
Brown doesn’t offer much in the way of an alternative, hauling out the well-worn “waste, fraud [and] abuse” motif, predicting greater savings through “increasing congressional oversight,” calling for tort reform, and stressing the need to “get started now.”
Brown joins Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) in opposition to the Ryan plan. Collins announced back in April that she would vote against it.
UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin wonders if Brown even bothered to read the Ryan plan.
Round up the usual suspects.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. Remember when there were all those people burbling "Scott Brown for President"?
B. Why should we hold this against him since he's just echoing the concerns of Newt Gingrich that Paul Ryan is a radical extremist social engineer?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love Ryan and I like his plan, but isn't anyone paying attention to NY-26. The Ryan Plan is going to be a neuce around the neck of many Republican candidates next year unfortunately.
I'll chalk up Collins and Brown's rejection of the plan as simple electoral politics. Come ask them again when the plan has a chance at getting past the President's desk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott Brown has joined his colleagues Richard Lugar and John McCain as a member of the U.S. Sentators Most Likely to Disappoint Republican Voters Club. He enthusiastically accepted campaign support from conservative constituents he now has thrown under the bus in favor of more moderate and liberal constituents. He obviously believes a lean to the left is a better political strategy in liberal Massachusetts and that he can get reelected without the conservative Republican vote. We shall see.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"neuce"? Neisse one....
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewell, at least he didn't call it "radical right-wing social engineering."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne must have reasonable expectations for GOP senators from what are, by inclination, blue states.
One cannot expect party-line votes from them 100% of the time. Their participation is invaluable, however, both in (a) providing such with-the-party votes as they do, and (b) preventing a Democrat from holding that seat.
You may turn up your nose and call them RINOs if it makes you feel better. The obvious truth, however, is that they are still to the right of even the most "conservative" or "yellow dog" Democrat.
We're quite a ways yet from seeing Massachusetts elect someone to the right of Scott Brown. Until then, I'm glad to have him in the big tent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Jenna - "Massachusetts and that he can get reelected without the conservative Republican vote. "
You used "Massachusetts" and "Conservative Republican" in the same sentence - that might be a first in the history of the English language.
Brown remains the single most popular politician in MA, and he's there for votes exactly like this. Even if he loses all six of the "conservative Massachusetts voters", he'll still win. And, so long as he votes for Republicans in Senate leadership positions, that's all anyone should care about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Jenna, re your assertion that "[Brown] obviously believes a lean to the left is a better political strategy in liberal Massachusetts and that he can get re-elected without the conservative Republican vote."
So you think the "conservative" thing to do would be what? Vote for a Democrat? Throw away a vote on some token third-party candidate? Not vote?
With due respect: No, no, and no. Only the most obstinate and, frankly, self-destructive "conservative Republican" would fail to vote for Brown's reelection. There will be some, of course, but you're describing what I think is actually a very, very small set, even among those Massachusetts Republicans who'd prefer someone farther to Brown's right in the best of all possible worlds. They live in Massachusetts, not the best of all possible worlds -- and anyone who's earned, bought, found, or been deeded with a clue ought to understand that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBrown is a coward who wants to be re-elected ... pure and simple ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"[Brown] obviously believes a lean to the left is a better political strategy in liberal Massachusetts"
Yup, thats pretty much the point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoliticians have been saying that we can "save" medicare by getting rid of fraud and waste for at least 50 years.
So either they are:
lying; there is no fraud and waste
fraudulent; there is fraud and waste, but getting rid of it is harder than they let on
lazy; The previous dozen times they promised to get rid of fraud and waste, they failed to actually try after promising to do so
All of the above;
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot surprising. It's all about self preservation instead of conviction with these folks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoy these guys are really craven squishes are they not? I guess they're just happy as clams to keep going down the same path as always. What will happen when we run out of money? Don't care for right now, we'll deal with that when the time comes.
We don't want seniors to have to bear more of the burden. Right - we'll load it onto the young, we'll bankrupt their children and grandchildren. When the whole thing collapses under its own weight and EVERYONE is hurt, including seniors we're trying to "protect from having to pay more", well I guess we'll deal with it then. No sense worrying about it now when we have elections to win in a year or so. Just because we can deal with the problem now and avoid a catastrophe we all know is coming, doesn't mean we should or want to.
Massachusetts - where all the courage got used up in the 1700's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a Massachusetts voter (and someone who gave to Brown's campaign), I'm pretty disgusted by Brown's behavior here.
With that said, we have to look nationally as well: Brown's political calculus likely wasn't an entirely local issue, and it was likely impacted by Gingrich's statement last week. Gingrich's imbecilic verbal diarrhea is going to make it difficult for Republicans around the country to support the Ryan plan, no matter how good it is (and it is good).
I can hear the Gingrich campaign ads already: "Vote Newt: More than any Democrat, he'll make it difficult for politicians to be conservative!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am missing something. When Harry Reid holds a vote, are there no opportunities to amend the bill? Why aren't our senators making suggestions as to how to amend it to make it better and hold off of proclaiming whether they'll vote for it or not until the bill actually is debated and set for voting? This seems premature. I'm usually a fan of Scott Brown, and I live in MA, and this is very disappointing because he is not joining the conversation (which he applauds) with a detailed proposal for an amendment which solves what he complains about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs an avid Brown supporter and MA voter, this is the first time that I’ve been genuinely disappointed in Senator Brown. I understand that he must face reelection in a liberal state, but Ryan was the ONLY serious plan on the table attempting to fix entitlements, and this principle was important enough that Senator Brown should have risked losing the election to vote in favor of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@SueL - "When Harry Reid holds a vote, are there no opportunities to amend the bill?"
I believe that was the "deal" that was struck when Reid agreed to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. It's an up or down vote with no amendments.
Reid agreed to the vote so he could paint people like Brown into a corner, and McConnell agreed to the vote (I guess) because he wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff. Only time will tell who made the smart, prudent decision here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOutstanding post, bandmom.
I love the last line and couldn't agree with you more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis hasn't completely soured me on Brown, but I am disappointed.
All we ever hear from these Northeastern GOPers is how they can stick with being "fiscally conwervative" but their voters won't allow them to vote with the Christian right. Well the reality is these people are totally unreliable on the crucial FISCAL votes as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse