Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

More Bumper Stickers

Eric Luedtke’s Winners and Losers special session “analysis” offers yet another example of the left’s bumper sticker mentality.

Republicans: Their participation in the debate around the budget crisis amounted to little more than childish foot stamping about tax increases. And the decision of Assembly Republicans to oppose slots when O’Malley proposed them, after supporting them when Ehrlich proposed them, shows just how much integrity the Maryland Republican Party has. None.

“Budget crisis” What budget? There was no budget on the table in the special session. In fact we have no idea what O’Malley’s budget is because he not presented it to the legislature. Those $550 million in so called “budget cuts” are not cuts, they are merely recommendations to the governor, who is not bound to abide by them. Sure the General Assembly can make the cuts themselves, but does anyone honestly believe this legislature will actually cut anything. The only crisis was one of O’Malley’s making. The governor knew that the only way to get his tax increases was to ramrod them through a condensed three-week special session.

“Childish footstamping about tax increases” Witness the main argumentative tactic of the left. Republicans are whiny children. If all Eric can come up with is lame name calling, and can’t honestly address the substantive philosophical and economic reasons Republicans oppose tax increases, than he really doesn’t have much of an argument to begin with. If Republicans standing up for their constituents, whose calls and emails shut down the legislature’s phone and email systems, is “childish footstamping,” then I say stamp away.

“And the decision of Assembly Republicans to oppose slots when O’Malley proposed them, after supporting them when Ehrlich proposed them, shows just how much integrity the Maryland Republican Party has. None.”

It was entirely honest and honorable for the majority of Republicans to oppose slots in this session. Why? Because O’Malley’s slots plan is greatly flawed. The plan creates an opportunity for a constitutional right to slots, it also enshrines a payoff to O’Malley’s financial benefactors in the constitution, and the slots plan does not generate as much revenue as Ehrlich’s previous slots plans or this year’s Republican alternatives.

Republicans also opposed slots because they knew if O’Malley’s slots plan went under there was a good chance that the tax increases would sink with it. The lesson here is, and if Eric needs hand puppets and flash cards I’ll provide them; Republican opposition to slots was part of their principled stand against tax increases. Call me crazy, but that sounds like integrity to me.

The real question about integrity, one that Eric does not want to ask, is that why, if the majority of Marylanders want slots, did Democrats overwhelmingly oppose them (supposedly on principle) during Ehrlich’s tenure, only to follow O’Malley’s election flip flop and vote for slots. What principled stand were the Democrats taking?

crossposted on The Main Adversary






Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend