Cape Cod Today reporting beats the Boston Globe's

[Mass]

Every week Cape Cod Today gives a summary of the Cape Cod delegation votes. Here is the title today

Kerry & Brown agreement continues, Delahunt misses a couple
05/31/10 · 10:20 am :: posted by CCToday ShareThis
A look at how our members of Congress voted over the previous week
Brown and Kerry agree on everything, Delahunt misses 2 of 9 votes

Here are the selected votes, not that I agree with Kerry on all of those,

SENATE VOTES:

Senate Vote 1:
EXEMPTION FROM FINANCE RULES FOR AUTO DEALERS: The Senate passed a motion sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., to instruct conferees with the House on the Restoring American Financial Stability Act (H.R. 4137). The motion would instruct the conferees to insist the final conference report include a House-passed provision excluding auto dealers from the regulatory authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The sponsor said the instruction would avoid the redundant regulation of auto dealers when other regulations already covered the providers of car loans. An opponents said it was "unfair...to have two sets of rules" for financial products by giving auto dealers an exemption from the regulations. The vote, on May 24, was 60 yeas to 30 nays.
YEAS: Sen. Scott Brown R-MA, Sen. John F. Kerry D-MA

Senate Vote 2:
EXEMPTING INSURANCE AFFILIATES FROM FINANCE RULES: The Senate passed a motion sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to instruct conferees with the House on the Restoring American Financial Stability Act (H.R. 4137). The motion would instruct the conferees to insist the final conference report exempt the normal operations of insurance affiliates of insured depository institutions from restrictions on proprietary trading. The motion sponsor said the exemption would "allow regulated insurance entities to continue to operate as they currently do in a manner that ensures payment of claims and annuities for years to come." The vote, on May 24, was 87 yeas to 4 nays.
YEAS: Sen. Scott Brown R-MA, Sen. John F. Kerry D-MA

Senate Vote 3:
U.S. FORCES REDEPLOYMENT FROM AFGHANISTAN: The Senate rejected an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4899) that would have required a plan for the safe, orderly and expeditious redeployment of U.S. armed forces from Afghanistan. Proponents of the amendment said it "would require the President to provide a flexible, nonbinding timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan" although it would not set a specific date for the withdrawal of troops nor require the President to redeploy troops and it wouldn't place any restrictions on funding. Opponents pointed out that the language of the amendment would require the President, by Dec. 31, 2010, to submit a timetable for the completion of the redeployment of troops out of Afghanistan and that it would cause additional panic in a region that relies heavily on the support of the U.S. military. The vote, on May 27, was 18 yeas to 80 nays.
NAYS: Sen. Scott Brown R-MA, Sen. John F. Kerry D-MA

Senate Vote 4:
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS: The Senate passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4899), sponsored by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., to make emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and also to provide for summer jobs for fiscal 2010. The legislation would provide $5.1 billion for FEMA disaster relief and $600 million for 300,000 jobs for youth ages 16 to 21, the age group with some of the highest unemployment levels in the country. The legislation also extends the small business lending provisions in the Recovery Act for an additional month and provides up to $60 million to cover it. Proponents noted that the spending to cover the legislation would be offset through rescinding emergency funding that is not needed in other areas. Opponents said that, while it was good to provide aid to Americans suffering from natural disasters, it would be irresponsible to put millions of dollars into the legislation to cover summer jobs, when they were
available through other means. The vote, on May 27, was 67 yeas to 28 nays.
YEAS: Sen. Scott Brown R-MA, Sen. John F. Kerry D-MA

Well, they seem to have proved their title, dont they? Except that there were a lot more than these 4 votes last week(14, if I can count) And, among those 14, Kerry and Brown only agreed on 5, I think. Amazing. The media search for truth in march.

Here is the total list from the Senate website.

00176 27-May H.R. 4899 On Passage of the Bill Passed H.R. 4899, As Amended; Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010
00175 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4273 Rejected Burr Amdt. No. 4273; To strike section 901, relating to the transfer of amounts to the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.
00174 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4299 Agreed to Inouye Amdt. No. 4299; To allow unobligated balances in the Construction, Major Projects account to be utilized for major medical facility projects of the Department of Veterans Affairs otherwise authorized by law.
00173 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4253 Agreed to Collins Amdt. No. 4253; To prohibit the imposition of fines and liability under certain final rules of the Environmental Protection Agency.
00172 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Motion Rejected DeMint Motion to Suspend Rule XXII; Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010
00171 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Cloture Motion Agreed to Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Committee Reported Substitute Amendment to H.R. 4899; Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010
00170 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 4232 Agreed to Motion To Table Coburn Amdt. No. 4232; To pay for the costs of supplemental spending by reducing Congress' own budget and disposing of unneeded Federal property and uncommitted Federal funds.
00169 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 4231 Agreed to Motion To Table Coburn Amdt. No. 4231 As Modified; To pay for the costs of supplemental spending by reducing waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending within the Federal Government.
00168 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4204 Rejected Feingold Amdt. No. 4204; To require a plan for the safe, orderly, and expeditious redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan.
00167 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Motion S.Amdt. 4202 Rejected Motion to Waive Sec. 403 of S. Con. Res. 13, 111th Congress, Cornyn Amdt. No. 4202 As Modified Further; To make appropriations to improve border security, with an offset from unobligated appropriations under division A of Public Law 111-5.
00166 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Motion S.Amdt. 4228 Rejected Motion to Waive Sect. 403, S. Con. Res. 13, 111th Congress, Kyl Amdt. No. 4228 As Modified; To appropriate $200,000,000 to increase resources for the Department of Justice and the Judiciary to address illegal crossings of the Southwest border, with an offset.
00165 27-May H.R. 4899 On the Motion S.Amdt. 4214 Rejected Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline re: McCain Amdt. No. 4214; To provide for National Guard support to secure the southern land border of the United States.
00164 24-May H.R. 4173 On the Motion Agreed to Hutchison Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 4173; Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009
00163 24-May H.R. 4173 On the Motion Agreed to Brownback Motion to Instruct Conferees Re: H.R. 4173; Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009

[karynnj]

1. Your "reporting beats both by a country mile

I don't get their agenda in saying that Kerry and Brown agreed on everything. Are they implying that both are voting independently or that Brown is voting with the Democrats or Kerry with the Republicans? Votes they label 2 or 3 were 80 plus in one direction or the other. (It would be a big deal if Kerry or Reed had voted yes on the Afghanistan amendment.) The big vote there in terms of voting against your party was the emergency supplemental, where Brown was one of a small group crossing party lines.

The only one where Kerry and many other Democrats, including Boxer, Menendez, and Lautenberg, voted with the Republicans was the Brownback instructions. Here is Brownback's explanation:

on the House floor, and it was defeated as far as to put the auto dealers in the regulatory process, so it was excluded in the House--full consideration at the committee; at the full House level, excluded.

What we are asking, now that this bill has passed, is in the motion to instruct our conferees, the Senate conferees, in going with the financial regulatory reform bill, to recede to the House position regarding the auto dealers.

I think this is a good motion to instruct conferees. I think it is something we ought to do. I think it is something that will be very helpful. I make this simple point to my colleagues: Under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 100 percent of all auto loans will still be covered. If you vote for the Brownback instruction, if we recede to the House position, 100 percent of the auto loans will still be covered. We are saying in this, and the House position says: If you actually loan the money--if you are GMAC, if you are some other financiers up the street, you are under the CFPB. If you are simply the retail storefront, which is what the auto dealers are, you are not covered under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You are not covered if you are just the storefront arm of this, but 100 percent of the loans are covered.

If you are an auto dealer and you make the actual loan yourself and it is your money you are lending, you are covered under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If you are simply the storefront operation out here doing this, you are not covered.

The auto dealers are asking for this. They do not want the additional cost and burden of this regulation on them. They are the quintessential Main Street business throughout the country. There is not a single auto dealer on Wall Street--none of them, not one. You can go up there today and try to buy a car and you cannot get one.

These are Main Street businesses, and they took it on the chin last year. We lost, last year alone, 1,700 dealerships across America resulting in the loss of approximately 88,000 jobs. Why would we want to put a duplicative set of regulations on top of them that are already covered upstream and they have already had these sorts of losses and difficulties in a Main Street business?

We need people to create 88,000 jobs, not to eliminate or lose 88,000 jobs. Franchised auto dealers are the retail outlets. They are the storefronts that process the paperwork for various well-known brands with large financial arms. Under the House provision that my motion instructs us to recede to, these financial arms would still be regulated, but the dealers who process the paperwork would not.

Additionally, even if my motion is agreed to, auto dealers would still be regulated by the FTC and various State laws, so consumers would still have protections to ensure the truth in lending still applies.

In fact, I have a couple of pages here of regs--excuse me, of regulatory entities that auto dealers still apply to. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed at the conclusion of my comments. "

I can see why many voted against this - the question is what regulations were removed from the auto franchises by doing this. They weren't responsible for the 2008 crash, but they have been responsible for some irresponsible loans. The question is whether regulating the entity actually lending the money suffices. (I had been totally against this vote, but am not sure having read the explanation. At any rate, as 3/4 ths of the House voted against it, it was unlikely to be in the main bill.

One glaring thing they missed, was that Brown in the Armed Services Committee voted against DADT, where Kerry is a co-sponsor of Leiberman's bill and was for gays serving freely at least since it was an issue in the 1990s. That and their opposing votes on McCain Amdt. No. 4214; To provide for National Guard support to secure the southern land border of the United States and on Kyl Amdt. No. 4228 As Modified; To appropriate $200,000,000 to increase resources for the Department of Justice and the Judiciary to address illegal crossings of the Southwest border, with an offset were important.

[Mass]

2. It is particularly surprising that they missed the immigration votes given that this issue has

invaded the governor's race. I dont know their agenda and I also know they have sometimes reported votes the wrong way, but this seemed amazing to me, though I assume this is part of the media push to portray Brown as a very moderate Republican.

[karynnj]

3. That's kind of a double edged sword for Brown

Kerry is pretty well defined to MA voters. So, conveying the word that they are voting in sync likely will be read by many as "Brown is pretty liberal". I wonder if they think enough independents will vote in the Republican primary or that the MA Republicans will be smart enough to prevent a primary challenge.

It also is hard to know what to hope for here. On important votes, he has voted with us and he seems to be trying to create his own "truth" that voting for cloture is good and is not the same as voting for something. I remember how frustrated I was with Democrats who did that - like on the Alito filibuster, where he would have been stopped had all the no voters voted no on cloture. On things like APA, his cloture vote could be critical. For MA Democrats, who want him replaced, it has to be tough when voting with us is critical to passage, but makes him tougher to fight.

Like you, I am surprised that the immigration votes were ignored - especially as they might not hurt Brown in today's environment.

[Mass]

4. More sloppy reporting, this time from the NYTimes

I remember having read that a few days ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/business/29carried.html?dbk

group of 80 venture capitalists traveled to Boston to urge Senator John Kerry and Representative Barney Frank, Democrats of Massachusetts, to exclude their business from the tax change, according to Jeffrey Bussgang, a partner at the Boston venture capital firm Flybridge Capital Partners.

Interestingly, Jeffrey Bussgang posted this, on Business Week

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/running_small_business/archives/2010/06/carried_interest_debate.html

Setting the Record Straight on the Carried Interest Debate
...
swore I would go offline for much of Memorial Day Weekend. But I cheated and peeked at my email late Saturday afternoon and discovered an email from a friend saying, “I’m surprised to see you take such a public stance on the capital gains tax rates,” with a link to a New York Times article on the topic.

I read the article in the New York Times on the carried interest debate and was shocked to see my name and a reference to me that read:

“As the Senate Democrats sent signs that they were open to a tax increase, investors and their lobbyists mobilized quickly, warning that the proposal could stifle investments that create jobs. A group of 80 venture capitalists traveled to Boston to urge Senator John Kerry and Representative Barney Frank, Democrats of Massachusetts, to exclude their business from the tax change, according to Jeffrey Bussgang, a partner at the Boston venture capital firm Flybridge Capital Partners.”

Um…here’s the problem. I never spoke to the reporter, David Kocieniewski, who wrote the article (although I later found a voice mail from him). Other than the fact that my name and firm name are accurate, nothing else in that sentence is correct.
...
Since the reporter never spoke to me, I can only assume that the reporter was referring to a blog post I did regarding a trip to Washington, D.C. (not Boston) with 80 business leaders from Massachusetts regarding an organization I co-chair called the Progressive Business Leader Network (PBLN). In fact, the trip had nothing to do with carried interest taxes and there were only three or four VCs as part of the business delegation from PBLN. If he had actually read the blog post, he would have realized that it was a trip with a wide range of topics, including cap and trade, innovation investment, deficit reduction and financial reform. We did not meet with John Kerry, although I did report that we talked to Barney Frank about financial reform and that he did articulate his own position that venture capital would be exempted from the carried interest tax.
...

Now, we can imagine that there was another meeting last week in Boston (though my guess is that they were in DC at that time), but in any case, this seems a very poor reporting.

[beachmom]

5. Here is an NYT article about Brown that just posted

and I just did not find it very good at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/politics/02brown.html?hp

I do not remotely think Brown is a "centrist" or a moderate in the vein of the two senators from Maine. Instead, he is clumsily trying to carve out a record that hopefully won't be used against him in 2012 in MA, although I have found it quite incoherent (he should have voted for the repeal of dadt). Other than the health care reform vote, I don't see any pattern in his other votes (and his waffling on filibustering financial reform then voting for it) other than tactical political moves.

I have increasingly become unimpressed with the NYT after they really blew it on the Blumenthal article then acted like they didn't make any mistakes.

[karynnj]

7. I think it is that they are giving him the benefit of any doubts and taking his spin

as truth. It may well be that he is a centrist on the national scene. He very likely is in whatever political economic ideas he has closer to Snowe than DeMint. I do think the "independent" thing is his ploy to have it both ways. To keep some of his national Republican base while not completely alienating Massachusetts.

I think his DADT vote, with his explanation that he wants to wait until the report comes comes is an attempt to not anger the Republicans. He is conflating the vote which was whether to remove it with the report, which is more on what the problems will be and how best to do it.

He also did a great job spinning that his vote on financial regulation came only after getting the concession that some MA financial companies would not be affected. The fact is that had already been dealt with between Kerry and Geitner and Frank. I read many of the comments and he won this PR effort in that many did point out that at least he did this - and some contrasted that Kerry was just a yes vote. This is a dangerous spin. It can lead to some thinking that having someone whose vote has to be won by the Democrats is better for MA. (The BH, but not the BG covered Kerry's meeting with Geitner on this very topic. The BG did a good job in the first article where they spoke of getting explaining the bill to Brown when they biked.)

I thought when he was elected that he would have to chose the right or getting re-elected. All in all, he is doing better than I would have thought possible in doing both. I don't think it is clumsy - and I think he has gotten a huge amount of help from the media. I wonder if the media has its thumb on the scale because they WANT the centrist Republicans to have a resurgence. The current very right wing profile of most Republican Senators has been a large reason why there have been no compromises when the Democrats are in power. As such, the person, Scott Brown, seen in detailed interviews - on Face the Nation or in the BG transcript - is not the Scot Brown (office/advisers etc) that they are covering. He is just the front man.

[karynnj]

8. Brown's task of being "independent" and a Republican favorite - look at this BH article

I doubt this is what Brown wants to see - a long article with Barney Frank as the one who was able to get Brown's vote. The comments are hilarious. (It also comes closer to the truth, that what Brown wanted was what Frank already was supporting. Seriously, the RW posters are having a problem with the image of Frank in gym shorts and a tank top.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20100602rep_barney_franks_call_from_gym_helps_bring_scott_brown_on_board/

[karynnj]

9. This has a great chart that backs you up - half of Brown' s own voters want him to work with

the Democrats. If he doesn't - he can't win re-election. http://trueslant.com/jamellebouie/2010/06/02/scott-brown-is-not-a-centrist/

[karynnj]

6. Wow, so much for the paper of record

That's pathetic. This writer literally made the story up. This goes beyond what you could attribute to not having adequate resources to do a good job. (Could this be an effort to take whatever heat there is off Schumer, who has really been the person most behind protecting Wall Street?)