Once again, Democrats have used their majority muscle to shove through a one-sided budget. Once again, Republicans are miffed at being made bystanders to a $280 million decision.

They should be miffed, as should all Mainers. The problem with this parliamentary power play is not just what gets done without full and open debate, but what does not get debated at all.

Exhibit A would be the state’s involvement in the retail liquor business. Maine has hundreds of outlets for the purchase of the hard stuff; all but 28 are private agency operations, from supermarkets to mom-and-pop groceries. Operating those 28 state-staffed redundancies, with 108 jobs the private sector is fully capable of filling, costs taxpayers $8 million per budget.

Republicans called for closing these wasteful state stores in their budget plan. Gov. King has long preached the same sermon. Democrats, more concerned with staying on the right side of organized labor than with doing the right thing, pretend not to hear.

What could be bought with that $8 million? For starters, it could allow the state to catch up on its lagging support for homeless shelters, those havens from domestic abuse and poverty that to a great degree illustrate the human cost of substance abuse. Since 1988, when there were 12 shelters statewide, the Legislature has contributed $500,000 every two years, about half the total cost of operations. Today there are 37 shelters and that half million covers just 8 percent.

The new supplemental budget ups that contribution by another $500,000, but that doesn’t even come close to making up for a decade of neglect. A task force of state and non-profit mental health and substance agencies recommended a $2.6 million boost, but lawmakers ignored that expert advice and cut the increase to one-fifth due to the lack of money.

Republicans also wanted to put the snack tax on the table, if not to repeal it, at least to make it less than utterly confusing. No money. They also wanted to do more for tax relief, perhaps through the income tax. No money.

Right move, wrong direction

The money, of course, is there. It’s just tied up in state liquor stores. And that, apparently, is where it will stay until the majority party decides to lead rather than to be lead.

The Legislature actually did something about state liquor stores this session — it moved ahead with a plan to create an agency discount store in Calais.

At first glance, this is good. The regular state store in that city would close and 3.5 state jobs would become the responsibility of the private sector. Budget-conscious drinkers Down East would have the same access to cheap booze as do those in Kittery.

Upon closer inspection, this is not good. A popular brand of whiskey goes for a state-mandated price of $4 a bottle less at a discount store than it does at a regular state or agency store. Along with that comes a smaller piece of the action for the state. The fiscal note attached to this legislation estimates a loss of state revenue at about $225,000 a year due to the reduced profit margin on existing liquor sales shifted from the state store and the agency stores in the region.

It’s that last part that’s especially troubling. The agency stores in the region are family-owned markets in Eastport, Lubec, Woodland, Pembroke and even Calais. These stores rely upon liquor sales to help keep their doors open. Now, they’ll get to compete against a state subsidy.

The rationale for the discount store is that it will attract tourists, especially Canadian tourists. With the Canadian dollar currently not worth enough to buy a pack of American gum and with Canadian Customs agents fiercely determined to search and to tax, this windfall seems improbable.

A loss in state revenue, premeditated damage done to existing private businesses, dubious expectations and cheap booze for a region with enough trouble already — this is economic development as seen through the bottom of a shot glass. Even worse, the legislation includes the odd sum of $5,225 to study the feasibility of establishing a state-run discount liquor store in Fort Kent, thus adding back the state jobs eliminated in Calais and harming the County’s agency stores.

Maine squanders a fortune running a tiny part of the retail liquor trade, yet it plays the tightwad with agencies trying to help alcohol’s victims. It seeks to boost economic development with discount stores it knows will hurt those already in business. These are serious concerns deserving serious consideration. That won’t happen until Democrats at least are willing to talk about it.