Since he came into office, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) has complained about the nation’s deficit, at one point blocking a crucial extension of unemployment benefits because it wasn’t offset with spending cuts. “The federal government continues its binge spending at an astonishing pace — running up our national debt and leaving our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren with an ever-expanding IOU,” Brown wrote in a Politico op-ed.
However, according to an analysis by independent budget analysts requested by the Boston Globe, Brown’s opponent — consumer advocate Prof. Elizabeth Warren — would do more to reduce the deficit if her preferred policies were put in place:
In response to a request from the Globe, the two competitors in the nation’s most high-profile Senate battle provided five ideas for bridging the nation’s $1.2 trillion deficit, with the results highlighting why the problem has deadlocked Washington. The candidates were also asked to explain what cuts they would make to entitlement programs, and to describe how they would raise more revenue.
Though Brown has made the deficit a larger issue in his campaign, an analysis prepared for the Globe by a nonpartisan group showed that responses offered by Warren, and positions taken on her website, would trim 67 percent more from the debt over 10 years than those offered by Brown.
Neither candidate submitted a full plan for deficit reduction, but still, the fact that Warren’s policy preferences came out so far ahead in terms of deficit reduction should prove that Brown is just a deficit peacock: willing to use the deficit to score political points, but not actually interested in reducing it. Warren’s reductions were largely the result of tax increases on the wealthy, while Brown actually lost some deficit reduction when he proposed repealing President Obama’s health care law.