Of course they are in trouble and of course the cuts are dangerous. But the question is analyzing why politicians facing bad choices do things, without assuming bad faith as the only answer. Sometimes it is bad faith, but my point is that when politicians are engaging in what is classic "statute of liberty" tactics-- especially in proposed cuts that may get modified later in an actual budget -- it's worth having a more real analysis of how politicians bluff and maneuver. Gambling with other peoples lives may be harsh, but when the alternative is guaranteed pain, a bit of bluff and chicken with the federal government and the rightwing opposition may be the only option.
Of course you should be screaming at Davis publicly-- that's part of the strategy in these fights to raise the public pressure to make tax cuts look inevitable.
But my objection is that folks rush so easily to assume bad faith rather than differing strategies on these issues. I criticize the wisdom of the compromises a lot of more moderate liberals make (as I criticize the strategies of Nader-types for failing to compromise) but except when I get unusually pissed, I try to avoid accusing them of bad motives unless I have pretty good proof. And on these sorts of dire budget straightjackets, it's especially pernicious to too easily turn on the liberals rather than the federal conservatives, since creating internal pissing matches at the state level is exactly what the conservative strategists want.
-- Nathan Newman