Scott Brown: Fighting For Massachusetts

The Boston Globe has published story critical of Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and his assertion that proposed financial overhaul bill would result in lost jobs in Massachusetts.

Senator Scott Brown’s use of as-yet-unsubstantiated industry estimates to predict the number of jobs that would be lost to greater financial regulation drew fire yesterday as partisan debate continued to heat up in the US Senate.

Brown said yesterday that his weekend prediction on national TV Sunday that tightening Wall Street rules would kill 25,000 to 35,000 jobs in Massachusetts was “based on my speaking with industry leaders’’ in recent weeks, but he did not cite any specific analysis.

That varied from an explanation offered by his representatives on Sunday, when his office said Brown was given the estimate by the chief executive of MassMutual, a large insurance company headquartered in Springfield.

MassMutual officials said Sunday, and again yesterday, that they did not give Brown any firm estimates of projected job losses in the Bay State.

The company said it warned of unspecified job losses in the future and provided him with estimates — dramatically inflated estimates, the company acknowledged yesterday — of jobs lost thus far in the current recession.

I’m not what the problem is. Estimates are exactly that: estimates. Based on information Senator Brown has, he gave an estimate of the number of lost jobs and has brought that issue to the forefront. Forget about the specific number of jobs lost…the real point is:  jobs will be lost.

The idea that the financial overhaul bill would cost jobs has not, until Brown’s weekend assertion, been part of the debate in Washington.

“No one has argued to us this is going to be cutting jobs as an overall in the economy,’’ said Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who authored the House version of the financial overhaul. “I have no idea where that figure came from. I don’t think anybody does. It may have just been spewed out by the Icelandic volcano with some of the other debris.’’

If Brown’s estimate on “Face the Nation’’ were true, the measure would eliminate up to 17 percent of the 207,000 jobs in the Bay State’s financial services sector.

“I stand by them,’’ Brown said in a brief interview yesterday in which he defended the remark. “And there will be larger numbers nationally.’’

Pressed to describe the source of his estimate, Brown said the figure was “based on my speaking with the industry leaders over the last month or so.’’

Brown aides last night also cited a study by the Business Roundtable — which largely opposes the current bill — estimating that a crackdown on a financial tool called over-the-counter derivatives would cause companies to be less profitable, resulting in 100,000 to 120,000 direct and indirect job cuts nationwide. The industry group did not provide any Massachusetts-specific figures.

Although MassMutual’s initial calculation put the number of financial sector jobs lost to date at 33,000, data compiled by the state’s Department of Labor and Workforce show there have been 18,700 jobs lost in all financial activities — including finance, insurance, and real estate — over the last three years.

There were 225,700 jobs in those categories in March 2007, and 207,000 as of last month.

The Boston Globe’s story is completely missing the point. As it stands today, this financial overhaul bill is will subject Massachusetts companies that didn’t take TARP funds, or contribute to financial meltdown, with huge fees and burdensome regulations, and will certainly cost the Commonwealth jobs. That is what Senator Scott Brown was saying on Sunday. Whether is 2,000 or 20,000, jobs lost in the Commonwealth is an end result we sent Scott Brown to Washington to prevent from happening. Thanks to him, now it’s being discussed.

Scott Brown is in Washington standing up for the interests Massachusetts. This bill, as currently written, would negatively impact the more than 200,000 Massachusetts employees. The financial services industry is important to the Massachusetts economy; and Scott Brown is fighting to keep those jobs. What more could we ask for?

Thank you, Senator Scott Brown, for doing exactly what we sent you to Washington to do.

Today’s Local Headlines

I read the news today…

Scott Brown Winning Boston.com Survey on Who Won The Debate

It may not be a scientific poll, but if I was gonna predict how a Boston Globe online survey would turn out regarding the outcome of last night’s debate, I figured Coakley would have been able to rely on the state’s significant party loyalty advantage to flood the poll with people who would vote for her as the winner.

Well, apparently, there just aren’t enough who believe she won, because with nearly 11,000 votes, Scott Brown is currently winning with 74.6%. Only 20.9% think Martha Coakley won.

Desperate Coakley Launches Attack Ad

After losing last night’s debate, Martha Coakley decided that desperate situations call for desperate measures, and immediately released an ad attacking Scott Brown.

Why would she go on the attack? I like how Holly Robichaud answers that question.

Do you still believe the Boston Globe’s poll that Martha Coakley is ahead by 15 points?  If you do, I have some swamp land to sell you.

Yesterday Martha Coakley released an ad attacking Scott Brown.  It is the first negative ad by a candidate during this General Election campaign.  It begs the question: If Martha is leading in the polls, then why attempt to discredit a competitor who is behind?  Clearly Scott Brown is running a competitive campaign and this race is neck and neck.  Hence, Martha believes that attacking her opponent is the best way to win.  Furthermore, it also shows that voters are not responding to her message so she needs to make Scott out to be the bad guy. 

Interestingly enough, the ad was reported pulled already because “Massachusetts” is misspelled.

In response to Coakley, false, negative attack, Scott Brown has released a response.

 
Support Scott Brown for U.S. Senate!

Finally… Some Polling in the Senate Special Election

Waiting for a poll in the Senate Special Election? Wait no longer…

There has been a notable absence of public polling in the January 19 special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. That will begin to change tomorrow, when Scott Rasmussen releases the results of a poll that he’s conducting tonight.

But THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained the results of a private poll conducted last week by a reputable non-partisan firm. In that survey, Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley led Republican state senator Scott Brown in the ballot test by 50% to 39%–not bad for Brown in a state Obama carried by 23 points. More interesting, perhaps, is that while Coakley’s favorable/unfavorable rating was 61% to 32%, Brown’s was 56% to 26%–in other words, they were virtually identical at +29/30. That suggests a potentially very competitive race: If Brown can make his case against another Democratic vote in the U.S. Senate, or against rewarding a member of unpopular governor Deval Patrick’s administration, some voters who currently prefer Coakley might be open to voting for Brown, since they view him favorably as well. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has also learned that an earlier poll, done in mid-December by another firm for another client, had similar results in the ballot test–but that the poll also found that the race tightened significantly, down to a low single digits margin for Coakley, among those judged most likely to vote. Furthermore, a careful analysis by Sean Trende shows, that if one assumes a swing against the Democrats like that in New Jersey and Virginia two months ago, the race could become very close.

Of course, Massachusetts is a tough state for a Republican to win. But anecdotally, the enthusiasm and momentum seems on Brown’s side, as Jim Geraghty describes in his post titled “Anecdotes for Cheer, Data for Gloom.” The anecdotes include the fact that Coakley is hiding from the media and avoiding one-and-one debates–to the disgust of the Boston Globe!, and that there are lots of reports of a surge in Republican enthusiasm. And if Curt Schilling is for Brown, who can rule him out?

This is getting real interesting. If the gap is closer than Democrats have long thought, will Coakley come out from under the rock she’s been hiding?

Still, there is a long way to go if Scott Brown wants to emerge victorious, but it may be safe to say he’s not quite the “long-shot” he was once thought to be. Help him out by donating to his campaign.

UPDATE: From Rasmussen:

Both candidates get better than 70% of the vote from members of their respective parties, but Brown leads 65% to 21% among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. In Massachusetts, however, Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans and it is very difficult for the GOP to compete except in special circumstances. Eight percent (8%) of Democrats remain undecided while just 3% of Republicans are in that category.

See survey results.