So our Governor isn't Arnold and doesn't have a think Austrian accent but the message is the same. Governor Brewer didn't hold back on legislators that won't vote to let the voters decide on a tax increase.
Taking a page from Dwight Eisenhower, she said "The truth is, those of us who are entrusted with the government here in Arizona at this moment in time cannot be weak or timid," she said. "We must be strong. And we must resolve that our differences will be settled, with the triumph going to the best interests of Arizona rather than the best interests of political egos or political futures."
While Brewer didn't name names, it's not hard to find out who they are. Anyone with a D behind their name is on that list along with 4 Republican Senators. The two that take the most heat are Sens. Gorman and Gould. Gould gets the press this time from Howie Fischer.
He plays the old song and dance about how it won't be a fair fight. I always HATE when politician say that. If Gould outspent his opponent in his own race, does that mean they were tricked? How then does he explain the Employer Sanction's revisions on the ballot last year that he supported? They outspent everyone 10-1 yet lost 60-40. Or the payday loan reforms that still lost 70-30? I'd love an explanation there Sen. Gould.
2 comments:
It is silly to claim that "political egos" or "concern about political futures" are stopping or slowing down the tax increase referral, at least as it relates to the Republicans who have opposed it.
There is little doubt that Senators Ron Gould, Pamela Gorman and Jim Waring oppose this based on principle. In the House, Sam Crump and Andy Biggs take the same principled position. They oppose tax increases. It's what they believe. It's what they told the voters they would do.
For THEM, it would be dishonorable to vote in support of a $3 billion sales tax increase referral. When you consider the pressure they are under to violate their word and promise to the voters and disregard their beliefs and principles, they are quite heroic in standing firm. True profiles in courage.
It is the way the system is designed to work. It is the republican (small "r") form of government envisioned and created by our nation's forefathers.
Governor Brewer sincerely believes that the best thing for the state is to have a sales tax increase. The Governor is standing up for what she believes. Agree or disagree on substance, that is honorable as well.
But to disagree with the Governor is not dishonorable. And, it's inappropriate (and not constructive) for the Governor to personally degrade those elected officials (suggesting "personal ego" or "concern about political future") because they substantively disagree with her position on an issue.
In the United States of America it is not only respectable, but fundamental for elected representatives of the people to have an opinion (even if its different than many others) and vote his or her conscience on any issue. It certainly would apply in the case of an issue as important as to whether the state should move toward increasing the tax on Arizona working families, by $3 billion, in the middle of a recession.
You believe it's a good idea? That's fair enough and your right. You should vote for it. And it's honorable. Many Republican members of the Legislature fall into this category.
You believe it's a bad idea? That's fair enough and your right. You should vote against it. And it's honorable. Several Republicans fall into this category.
However, I would offer that there are a couple groups of people being dishonorable in this process to move forward (or stop) a sales tax referral.
First, most of the Democrats want a tax increase. They want the money. They want to try to limit the spending cuts that the state will have to adopt next budget. They want it to pass. But they refuse to support it. It may be expected considering the different parties, but there is no escaping the fact that the Democrats are being dishonorable in that regard.
Then, there is a group of Republicans that claim to be opposed to tax increases. They claim that they believe tax increases are a bad idea. Some even make the wholly dishonest claim while voting for the tax increase that "I am not voting for any tax increase." Balderdash!
These individuals cannot take the affirmative step of voting to bring this tax increase closer to reality, while at the same time claiming to oppose this tas increase. If you believe that a $3 billion tax increase is bad for the state and bad for your district and you "don't support tax increases," you are morally obligated to do all you can by voting to stop this from moving forward. It was the VOTERS and the Constitution that empowered those individuals with that responsibility. They have chosen to abdicate it. It too, is dishonorable and dishonest.
It's political hucksters trying to have their cake and eat it too. They cannot be against this tax increase AND vote in favor of it moving forward. The two are mutually exclusive.
Such double-talk makes people look at all elected officials like they are sleazy, snake oil salesmen. It's exactly why the public is sick of politicians. It gives common, working people another reason to disengage from the process.
The point Candyman is, their "word" is based on a Grover Norquist pledge they took. They cite this "pledge" every time they explain themselves. People are up in arms because Norquist has given his blessing yet these guys are still sitting on their egos.
Post a Comment