Add Diane Lanpher (Add-3) to the growing list of lawmakers on the left indicating she likely won’t support the budget emerging from the legislature. It’s becoming clear that, not only will this budget not pass with a veto-proof majority, it won’t pass with many from the progressive end of the caucus.

Listening to reactions to this budget have been like watching a new film release’s tomatometer ratings drop as the reviews come in. So much of the growing frustration among the left and the constituency groups has been about the pointless political posturing/packaging of an income tax cut (particularly the cuts on the top tier) that – lets face it – is going to come at the cost of jobs. The legislature has done an exemplary job finding revenues and making careful cuts, but coming out with the income tax cut against the backdrop of the growing revenue hole strikes me as an act of self-sabotage.

The question is why. The last legislature seemed to live in terror of the political power of the governor, while this one has gotten over that terror in a resounding way (for the latest example, read about the VY decommissioning bill here). Why, then, are they negotiating on the Governor’s behalf, given that he keeps refusing to negotiate in good faith? Senator Shumlin has said “We have tried to strike a balance between what we hate and what they hate,”.

Dude – why make a point of looking out for his interests if he won’t give you the time of day?

Dunno. There is a strong, free floating fiscal conservative streak among the triumverate that seems to call so many of the shots in the Senate (Shumlin, Campbell and Republican Illuzzi). It’s a streak that seems to buy into much of the right wing line about taxes without having a clearly articulated ideology behind that buy in. As such, it feels far more to come from a simple fear of being outflanked politically. And that fear feeds a gamesmanship.

Fair enough. There is gamesmanship here, and it may well be that the weakness in the House (and to some extent, the Senate), is an honest desire not to play games with the people’s business. A desire to try and create a genuine compromise that people dealing in good faith who disagree can meet halfway on. The problem, again, is that assumption that they’re being dealt with in good faith by the Governor. They’re not. As such, going for a split-the-difference compromise at the expense of the serious concerns of members of their own caucus is a big loser. All you do is end up inadvertently sticking it to your own team – and where do you fall back to next after the Governor throws it back in your face?

So I respect the impulse to nobility, but its the wrong impulse in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And for god’s sake, if I hear one more time the “well, why aren’t you riding the Governor about this – it’s all his fault cop out one more time, I’m gonna turn large, green and dangerous. Open your eyes folks – we beat up on this Governor every day. But the colossal shortcomings of our chief executive do not translate to a get out of criticism free card. Criticism and scrutiny come with the job, just as praise does (and I haven’t seen anyone asking us to take back the significant amount of that we’ve been handing out this session – this aint a cafeteria, folks – this is politics).

In the Senate, Shumlin and company seem to recognize the game of it all, but not only are they working from a completely ungrounded and uncoordinated fiscal conservative narrative, they’re playing the wrong game. I get the feeling that Shumlin is playing chess, working out clever feints and subtleties of positioning, while the Governor is playing football. You can play some misdirection in football, but generally nothing more nuanced than a draw play. If you play it all as chess, by the time you’ve set up your Lasker-Bauer combination, Douglas has just run his fullback right over the board.

(It’s worth noting as well, that playing football would mean moving to a team sport, rather than one player moving pawns based on a secret plan, but I digress.)

In any event, its clear that – with the insistence of this cut of the most progressive of revenue sources in play against the painful program cuts and job losses – the legislature has opted for an approach to get the Governor on board, rather than to try and keep the whole caucus on board – or at least keep the left on board. And it kinda sucks, after all the great stuff this session, to feel planted right back in captive constituency land again. It may well be that this caucus simply can’t be held together, so working with the Governor is the only option (I’m not convinced of that, as this approach of half of what we hate vs. half of what the other team hates could just as easily be applied within the caucus across the progressive/blue dog divide, where at least you have a much better chance of having all parties play honestly).

There is one longshot scenario, though, that wouldn’t be so bad. If (when) the Governor rejects this budget, rather than go back and bend to his desires further, the legislature says fine, we tried this in an equatable way, but you wouldn’t play in good faith – now we’re doing it our way, and work – as I suggested in a previous diary – to craft a generally progressive budget to keep the left on board, with a couple big ticket gimmes to the blue dogs that they can hang their hats on. In fact, that’s the only reason I can see to continue to do the Governor’s negotiating for him after he’s picked up his toys and gone home. And actually, such a strategy would probably play quite well in the media and the public – and would certainly recapture the position of strength this legislature seems to be walking away from (as well as re-energize its traditional allies and constituency groups).

But that’s probably wishful thinking.

Sorry. I’d really like to feel less cynical about this. Maybe I will tomorrow. If I’m wrong and the Governor plays honorably and signs this pre-packaged compromise, I promise I’ll eat my computer. Figuratively, at least.