The erstwhile Mr Robinson makes a case somehow in his column for the West Bend paper that his no-taxes pledge has not led to the Republicans in the Lege to be obstructionists.
Owen even drags poor Wendy into his bad example of how his household would handle a similar situation. Owen wants to spend $25,000 on a new car while his spouse in the example would hold him to spending $15,000 on a new car. Owen says that since they can't agree that neither is obstructing the process. It's just an unfortunate disagreement. Owen never says how he and Wendy would come to a solution, if they'd just never spend any money because he couldn't have what he wanted so he drove the current car into the ground and wound up walking to work or if he and Wendy acted like actual grown-ups who decided on the relative benefits of buying a different car and working to compromise on an affordable alternative.
That's the difference here. Democrats are saying, "We need to talk. Rising costs have led to the need for rising sources of revenue. We have a level of benefit we need to provide. How can we best fund that program." The Republicans who have signed the pledge are saying, "Nah-nah-nah. I can't hear you. Neener neener neener."
Somewhere between funding all of the Governor's taxation request and sticking fingers in ears and saying, "No!" is a place called governance. If one side has a range of possible actions and the other side has nothing to bring to the table but a single negative response then the are being obstructionist.
They should be honest with themselves and with their constituents. Owen's Op-Ed is a stab at justifying the underlying dishonesty of governing by pledge rather than by statesmanship. I hope he realizes that the public can see childishness for what it is.
Let's take a look at Mike Huebsch and his Budgeteers courtesy of Monty Python.