It’s been an interesting legislative session – some would say weird. People who’d never spent much time in Augusta were elected, and some probably shouldn’t have been.

A freshman Republican from Alfred diverted public campaign funding to his own use in a ploy so brazen an election official called it “mind-boggling.” He now faces criminal charges. Another Republican, from Garland, pulled a gun in a Waterville parking lot and threatened a photographer he didn’t even know. He also resigned.

But there was equal opportunity weirdness. Near the end, two young Democratic House members, from Brunswick and Belfast, had a spectacularly messy breakup, with she accusing him of stalking her. He probably won’t stand for re-election.

But the personal tribulations were as nothing compared to the story line majority Republicans put together, led by their chief bulldog, Gov. Paul LePage. From the beginning, LePage made it clear he was against “welfare” for working-age Mainers, a term he flexibly defined as including health insurance through Medicaid. He said Maine “couldn’t afford” to provide health care, then set out to create a matching reality.

The key was to low-ball costs of the MaineCare program and other services the Department of Health and Human Services provides, and sign a biennial budget bill last June that included $170 million in tax cuts, plus future promises of $360 million more.

This year, the administration suddenly discovered DHHS was $220 million in the red, even though only a small amount resulted from unanticipated spending. The first part of the bait-and-switch was in place, and the Legislature went along, accepting the idea that health care benefits had to be scaled back.

Last year’s budget removed 14,000 Mainers from health care; the one just pushed through solely by Republicans axes another 24,000. LePage wants more, but 38,000 people without health care is a lot, more than 10 percent of those receiving benefits. Forget “structural change,” the administration’s favorite phrase. This has nothing to do with reform. It’s cutting, pure and simple.

Democrats responded by complaining about specific people who will be hurt, as they doubtless will be – not to mention hospitals that will treat thousands more people with no revenue. That may not, unfortunately, be a winning argument with voters. With the economy still flat, voters facing the threat of their own unemployment may not be sympathetic.

The correct answer is that tax cuts produced the shortfall, and next year’s much larger tax cuts can’t be sustained. For good measure, Republicans just shoveled another $28 million in future tax cuts onto the pile. In other words, we could easily afford to offer health care without tax cuts for the 1 percent.

The LePage-led strategy is clear: Reduce revenues, largely through tax cuts for the wealthiest, to the point the state can’t afford to do much of anything. Aid to towns and cities, support for education, small business assistance – all will have to be drastically cut.

The governor insists we obey the “national average” on Medicaid enrollment, but not, for instance, the average sales tax rate, which would be higher than 5 percent, or the rooms and meals tax, which would be much higher than 7 percent — Florida fleeces tourists for 12 percent in most counties.

Democrats have to construct a better argument if they want to win this debate. It starts with the idea that it’s good for Maine when its citizens have health care. It’s good for business, because people can go to work rather than stay home with untreated illnesses. It’s good for kids, so they can attend school. And it’s good for the economy because, freed of ever-escalating rates, businesses can hire more workers and support more jobs.

One major achievement of the Baldacci administration was to reduce Maine’s uninsured rate to the lowest in New England. Yes, it was expensive, but help is on the way. The Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature achievement, will – the Supreme Court willing — cover almost all the people now thrown off Medicaid within 18 months. Instead, why not invest some of the state’s current $50 million surplus to keep them healthy?

At that point, the federal government begins paying 100 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion for three years, and 90 percent permanently. But to make this argument, Democrats would have to defend “Obamacare,” something most failed to do during the 2010 election, or since.

Defining a story line and sticking to it is crucial to success in politics. Whether you agree with their policy or not, the Republicans have done that. In a few months, we’ll know whether Democrats can create a better story.

Douglas Rooks is a former daily and weekly newspaper editor who has covered the State House for 25 years. He may be reached at [email protected].