Scott Brown (R-MA) thinks the EPA should not regulate GHGs for three reasons:
He’s up for reelection and has decided to go-all-in with a negative campaign strategy. He’s being outflanked by several competitors. He’s especially vulnerable on the merits of his record.
In an editorial, Brown fires back at an ad run locally by The League of Women Voters. The ad attacks Brown’s vote to defund the EPA.
That ad basically states: The EPA and Brown should “protect children not businesses”
Brown’s response: The EPA “burdens our businesses with even more bureaucracy (and kill jobs)…”
This is a blunder. In light of the above, how can Brown argue that he doesn’t side with business when he plainly states that it was business that motivates his votes!?
Look, Brown can win this argument. He just needs to provide evidence that defunding the EPA would have a net negative effect. He has not done so. I think it’s fair to ask Brown for evidence of his claims. Instead, he announces that his reelection campaign will run negative.
The problem is that Massachusetts is a shrinking state. It’s the 9th oldest in the country. There are a lot of colleges and universities here, but students are not staying. They’re moving west and south. I know engineers at UMass who wanted to start clean energy businesses in this state, but have moved to California because they already have GHG regulations in place. I also know many students looking for green jobs - and finding them - out west. These people are creating jobs in other states, while further shrinking the Commonwealth.
Brown needs to see the long view, beyond the political cycle. Cleaner air equates to healthier, more productive people. Unhealthy people are a drag on economies. Why argue against this? So far, the argument supporting Brown’s editorial is, “I do not like that league of voter women.” This is not an argument. Nor does it come close to approaching the merits.
Study after study show (eg, here) that the costs of environmental regulations are always overstated. And that they have high quality rates of return in terms of healthier people, environment, and economies. Brown is preying on people’s ignorance of these facts and I’m pretty pissed about it.
Again, Massachusetts is shrinking. It’s lost a congressional seat, and will lose another in the near future. It has the 9th oldest population in the country. Retirees are moving and students are not staying.
Scott Brown is doing nothing innovative, nothing to keep these people here. He’s demonstrably voting with unnamed businesses and colleagues in DC, and he should respond to his constituents or lose his seat.
Source: Boston Herald
UPDATE: The NRDC shreds - I mean completely masticates - Scott Brown’s response, that I discussed above. They write:
How does asthma affect Senator Brown’s state of Massachusetts? According to the nurses’ report, over 130,000 Massachusetts kids have asthma and over 13,000 emergency room visits are needed yearly to treat kids struggling to breathe.Senator Brown is deluding himself (and misleading his constituents) by claiming that his vote had nothing to do with kids’ health. Our nation’s leading health groups – American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians (to name a few among many) have unequivocally stated that proposals to block the EPA are bad for our health