| Last night, two different people, who don't know each other but are well connected in Democratic circles, posed the question of whether there might not be a power play made in the House over Andy Dillon's capitulation on the Republican budget. That is, would the House Dems dump Dillon as Speaker, and what process would they use? Both people, independent of each other (and even while I was even drinking different kinds of beer), laid out a similar process using shockingly similar terms. It's the kind of thing that might merely be coincidence, but it also has the smell of something that made the rounds among Democrats Thursday. If it isn't, it's something that any angry legislators ought to consider discussing. I see that the AP this morning is reporting that Dillon is looking for an extension budget in case his deal falls through. Again, I understand that a few of the Senate Republicans -- Michelle McManus and Cameron Brown, primarily -- had elated Facebook status updates regarding balancing the budget without raising taxes. I don't think, however, that it's anything to be happy about that a deal has been struck that would cut per-pupil funding for public schools (at a time of dwindling enrollment, which will translate into even fewer dollars per district after the Fourth Friday counts), chop revenue sharing, shave Medicaid reimbursements, or eliminate scholarships for college students on the grounds that no one is being asked to pay an extra 5 cents for a bottle of beer. Yet, this is the budget deal as it stands, and I would hope that Democratic legislators properly angry over its short-sighted, politically-motivated nature would consider long and hard whether leadership that supports it, and colludes with the other party over the objections of the bulk of the caucus, is leadership they ultimately want to follow for another year. |
