To the editor,
If the debate about who the best candidate in state House district 37B is going to be about the dubious policy goals of groups endorsing the candidate, then let's reveal some facts about Phil Sterner:
Sterner is an endorsed Democrat. These are the folks that have brought you the massively unpopular health care takeover, government bailouts and want to massively increase the cost of our current energy resources. If you want to see extremism at work, all you have to do is look at Washington and the agenda of Democrats (again, Sterner's party) like Nancy Pelosi.
At the state level, Democrats in the legislature passed -- and Sterner voted for -- a billion dollar tax increase in the face of the worst recession in a generation or more. He also voted to add a billion dollars to the state's debt with the bonding bill.
What's more is that his party's candidate for governor wants a tax increase four times that large. The lower limit for "wealthy" by this candidate's definition is merely $150,000 peryear for a married couple -- not an uncommon level of income for a household with two mid-career workers. Re-defining "wealthy" to the level of folks who are still most deeply concerned about keeping their jobs, making house payments and maybe saving for children's college is nothing if not extreme.
Sterner's state Democratic Party also promotes a government-run single-payer health plan that was even too radical for the Democrats in Washington. Again, which candidate in this race has extremist tendencies?
Sterner may cast himself as a "moderate," but he voted for the extremist leadership in the legislature that has aggressively promoted these policies. He has also voted for these policies, such as the billion dollar tax increase, when this leadership needed his vote.
So, if we are going to discuss a tenuous connection to policy goals of a group supporting one candidate, should we not also examine the policy goals of the political party that endorses Sterner?