From the Maine Heritage Policy Center:
Congratulations to our nominees
The Maine Heritage Policy Center congratulates Democrat Senate President Elizabeth "Libby" Mitchell and Republican Mayor Paul LePage for winning their parties' nominations for governor.
We look forward to Ms. Mitchell, Mr. LePage, and the three unenrolled candidates; Eliot Cutler, Kevin Scott and Shawn Moody; running exciting campaigns that focus on the issues important to Maine people.
The next governor faces significant challenges. Our nearly $12 billion public debt, budget shortfalls, declining student enrollment, stagnant job growth, and budget busting entitlement programs are holding Maine back from becoming the Opportunity State we know it can be. Each of these challenges must be addressed to get back on track to economic recovery and long term financial security for Maine families.
Although MHPC does not endorse any candidates, we will continue to promote our research and ideas for change. We hope to work with all the candidates running to promote responsible, free market reforms that will make a difference for Maine.
Mainers repeal tax shift plan
YES On 1 prevails!
Maine voters overwhelmingly rejected the so-called tax reform plan that would have reduced income taxes for some while dramatically expanding the sales tax and meals and lodging tax for all Maine taxpayers.
The Maine Heritage Policy Center endorsed the repeal of the tax-shift plan at a press conference last month after chief economist Scott Moody and David Crocker, Director of the Center for Constitutional Government, found that the legislation would not only create a net tax increase for most Mainers, but also included unconstitutional provisions that would likely have caused the legislation to be struck down in court.
Maine's towering debt rises
The Maine Heritage Policy Center had been the earliest and most active opponent of the four borrowing questions on last night's ballot. With an $11.5 billion public debt nightmare for which Maine families are already on the hook, we felt adding an additional $108 million to our public debt was just too much for Maine families to afford.
Last night, Maine voters decided the investments were worth the higher debt. Bond supporters mounted a costly campaign, particularly in support of Question 2. With limited resources available, MHPC mounted its own modest outreach campaign, but unfortunately, we did not have the resources to effectively compete.
Despite last night's vote, the next governor and Legislature must take bold steps to reduce Maine's towering public debt. Unless our public debt is brought under control through spending cuts and fundamental reforms of government programs, our debt will continue to grow.
EVENT REMINDERS On June 17, learn how MHPC is defending your constitutional rights.
MHPC's Center for Constitutional Government hit the ground running with a lawsuit filed against the taxpayer-funded Maine Municipal Association for interfering, and giving nearly $2,000,000 in cash and resources to electioneer and influence the outcome of political campaigns.
On June 17 in Portland and Brewer, David Crocker, director of the Center for Constitutional Government, will present: Dismantling the Administrative State the Constitutional Way.
David will discuss the latest details behind the Maine Municipal Association lawsuit. He will also discuss the growth of an over-reaching government stripping away our liberties, why it's unconstitutional and what we can do to stop it. Attendees will also receive a free copy of the Maine and United States Constitutions.
"Dismantling the Administrative State the Constitutional Way"
David Crocker, Director
Center for Constitutional Government
Thursday, June 17
Portland
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
DiMillo's Floating Restaurant (25 Long Wharf, Portland)
$15.00 - Lunch and Constitution Included
***
Brewer
6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Jeff's Catering (15 Littlefield Way, Brewer)
$5.00 - Light Refreshments and Constitution Included
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
JUNE 8 BALLOT QUESTIONS - NEW INFORMATION
Next Tuesday, when we head to our Town Offices to vote on the School Budget and the various candidates for Governor and Legislature, we will also be faced with FIVE important Questions - one to repeal a tax-related bill passed last year by the Legislature - and four Bond questions.
At first I was inclined to vote against all of the bond issues - as though this state needs any more debt. But after reading a few well written and reasonable articles in the May/June issue of "Maine Ahead", a new Maine magazine directed for Maine businesses and people interested in political and innovation thinking for Maine's future, I have reconsidered my position on at least two of the Questions.
Let's start at the beginning with Question #1 - the repeal of the so-called "Tax Reform Bill."
I have been opposed to this Bill since the final Bill was passed. At the beginning it was touted as a means of including Maine in to those states who are "tourist states" and collect tourist tax dollars to support those parts of the state's infrastructure used by tourists - namely roads, bridges and tourist attractions such as state parks. Great idea, I thought. But this was not the Bill the Legislature passed. Sales tax was expanded to numerous items that are basic to Maine residents - people who manage, somehow, to hang on long after the tourists leave once the leaves have turned and need to be raked - right up until the tourists return which is usually after the snow has melted and freeze heave has left and the roads are - more or less - level (barring the potholes). NOTE: The Snow tourists manage to escape most of the expanded sales taxes in this new Bill.
However, while the Maine Legislators claim this Bill, as it stands, will lower the average Mainer's state income taxes (providing the average Mainer pays an income tax) from 8.5% to 6.5%, this is NOT true. This will only apply to those Mainers with an annual income less than $28,000 (see the BDN June 5-6 letters for more details on this). AND, under this Bill, there will be NO itemizing of state income taxes - no deductions or exemptions. No deductions for your mortgage interest or every-rising property taxes. No deductions for charitable contributions to churches or Salvation Army or Goodwill or Haiti or any other disaster. Yes, you can itemize for your Federal income tax - and then add back in all that income on your Maine income forms. Simple work, isn't it. And do you think your tax rate will go down? Think again. It's called the Bait and Switch con game. Something like "You've just won a Million dollars - you just need to send me $10,000. for the processing of your claim. Mail it to Nigeria." Have you heard of that con game? I think the Legislature got their idea from that crowd.
I'll be voting YES on Q.#1 - YES to repeal.
Another Question (don't have the #) will be a Bond issue for transportation - primarily for the existing rail line primarily in northern Maine. I'm going to quote some of the pertinent information from the Maine Ahead article titled "Maine, Back on Track: (page 72-73).
"Rail remains the most efficient way to move freight, especially heavy cargoes over long distances. Today's trains move a ton of freight an average of 436 miles per gallon of fuel; the figure for trucks is 130 ton0miles per gallon. The trucking industry is working on ways to improve this, such as increasing the efficiency of truck engines, building with lighter-weight materials, and adding additional trailers. Still, the Maine Dept. of Transportation estimates that one freight train can do the work of 280 trucks.
"That's one reason the state wants to purchase roughly 240 miles of rail serving northern Maine, at a cost of $17 million, to stave off the loss of freight rail service for industries that depend on it. It's peanuts compared to new highway construction. A modernized rail system will cost less and do more for Maine's economy than slashing new asphalt arteries through the woods.
"I'm (the writer) not dissing trucks. They have advantages over trains in that they can reach more places and transport perishable goods more quickly to specific destinations. But for long distances, and moving freight from Halifax to Saint John through Maine to destinations in the American heartland as envisioned by Atlantica supporters, a better alternative is "intermodal" transport, where truck trailers can be directly loaded, onto and off of rail cars. The American Association of Railroads estimates that if just 10% of current truck volume was shifted to intermodal, more than a billion gallons of fuel would be conserved each year.
"According to Cianbro, building an east-west highway will cost at least $1 billion, but most experts agree that this is an extremely low low estimate. Moreover, the road will need to be periodically repaved, at a cost of $200,000 to $400,000 per mile, and these costs will accrue often, given the Maine climate and the anticipated use of the road by heavy trucks......"
There is a lot more valid information in this article BUT the Bottom line, for me is that I will be voting YES for the Transportation Bond which will enable the state to buy that railroad line in northern Maine.
Finally... there is another Bond Question having to do with a $23.75 million to support job growth in Maine.
For me, the important part of this Question has to do with the following which was written by James Ortiz, president of Southern Maine Community College, for the article titled "Brunswick's New Economic Engine" (pages 71-72):
"...$4.75 million will be dedicated to renovating three of the four buildings at the Brunswick Naval Air Station for their new use and to make them ADA compliant. The $23.75 million will make Maine eligible for $39 million in matching federal funds.
"The $4.75 million allocation needs to be seen in an important context: The U.S. government had given SMCC the buildings. For a relatively small investment, the people of Maine will benefit from a resource that promises to both solve problems and create opportunities.
"...Southern Maine Community College is the fastest-growing community college in New England. In 2009, SMCC turned away 3,000 degree-seeking students due to lack of capacity. Once fully operational, the Brunswick campus will enable the college to serve 2,000 additional Maine students.
"SMCC's new campus will be an economic engine for Maine as well as an opportunity for students to be trained in high-paying, high-demand jobs. Courses will be offered in Maine's most promising economic clusters, including composites, engineering, manufacturing, heavy equipment, and health science. These courses will be offered cost-effectively, thanks to some exciting partnerships.
"The campus will be a hub for a consortium of higher education institutions, including the University of Maine, USM, UMaine-Augusta, Bowdoin College, Southern New Hampshire University, allowing students to glean from all of these institutions at a single location.
"Another pivotal initiative at the Brunswick campus is the Maine Advanced Technology & Engineering Center (MATEC), a collaborative venture of Southern Maine Community College and the University of Maine-a seamless education pathway leading from associate to bachelor to master in engineering degrees.
"At present, Maine is 49th in the nation for engineers per capita. While the national average for graduating engineering students is 5.2%, Maine's rate is only 3.6%. MATEC will help bring more of these vital professionals to Maine's workforce.
"MATEC will also be a regional innovative cluster and R&D magnet that will attract new industries, and support business and job growth in Maine. Projected businesses MATEC could attract might produce structural components for bridge beams, wind blades for energy turbines, and even airplanes composites...."
Again, there is more relevant information in this article - but this should show readers why I have decided to vote YES for this Bond issue.
There is also an article written by Orlando Delogu regarding Question 5 which pertains to safe water.
Interested in reading MaineAhead? Go to http://www.Maineahead.com - or look for the May/June issue at Hannafords. The cover has a beautiful yellow kayak because the feature story is - "Why Old Town Canoe is Still on TOP". That, too, is a good article about an outstanding Maine business. If only we could elect a state government that would utilize the same good business practices maybe this state could get out of the bottomless sinkhole 34 years has created. Maybe if we voters use our heads instead of our entrenched stubbornness to be nothing more than what we have ever been we can get out of this mess.
At first I was inclined to vote against all of the bond issues - as though this state needs any more debt. But after reading a few well written and reasonable articles in the May/June issue of "Maine Ahead", a new Maine magazine directed for Maine businesses and people interested in political and innovation thinking for Maine's future, I have reconsidered my position on at least two of the Questions.
Let's start at the beginning with Question #1 - the repeal of the so-called "Tax Reform Bill."
I have been opposed to this Bill since the final Bill was passed. At the beginning it was touted as a means of including Maine in to those states who are "tourist states" and collect tourist tax dollars to support those parts of the state's infrastructure used by tourists - namely roads, bridges and tourist attractions such as state parks. Great idea, I thought. But this was not the Bill the Legislature passed. Sales tax was expanded to numerous items that are basic to Maine residents - people who manage, somehow, to hang on long after the tourists leave once the leaves have turned and need to be raked - right up until the tourists return which is usually after the snow has melted and freeze heave has left and the roads are - more or less - level (barring the potholes). NOTE: The Snow tourists manage to escape most of the expanded sales taxes in this new Bill.
However, while the Maine Legislators claim this Bill, as it stands, will lower the average Mainer's state income taxes (providing the average Mainer pays an income tax) from 8.5% to 6.5%, this is NOT true. This will only apply to those Mainers with an annual income less than $28,000 (see the BDN June 5-6 letters for more details on this). AND, under this Bill, there will be NO itemizing of state income taxes - no deductions or exemptions. No deductions for your mortgage interest or every-rising property taxes. No deductions for charitable contributions to churches or Salvation Army or Goodwill or Haiti or any other disaster. Yes, you can itemize for your Federal income tax - and then add back in all that income on your Maine income forms. Simple work, isn't it. And do you think your tax rate will go down? Think again. It's called the Bait and Switch con game. Something like "You've just won a Million dollars - you just need to send me $10,000. for the processing of your claim. Mail it to Nigeria." Have you heard of that con game? I think the Legislature got their idea from that crowd.
I'll be voting YES on Q.#1 - YES to repeal.
Another Question (don't have the #) will be a Bond issue for transportation - primarily for the existing rail line primarily in northern Maine. I'm going to quote some of the pertinent information from the Maine Ahead article titled "Maine, Back on Track: (page 72-73).
"Rail remains the most efficient way to move freight, especially heavy cargoes over long distances. Today's trains move a ton of freight an average of 436 miles per gallon of fuel; the figure for trucks is 130 ton0miles per gallon. The trucking industry is working on ways to improve this, such as increasing the efficiency of truck engines, building with lighter-weight materials, and adding additional trailers. Still, the Maine Dept. of Transportation estimates that one freight train can do the work of 280 trucks.
"That's one reason the state wants to purchase roughly 240 miles of rail serving northern Maine, at a cost of $17 million, to stave off the loss of freight rail service for industries that depend on it. It's peanuts compared to new highway construction. A modernized rail system will cost less and do more for Maine's economy than slashing new asphalt arteries through the woods.
"I'm (the writer) not dissing trucks. They have advantages over trains in that they can reach more places and transport perishable goods more quickly to specific destinations. But for long distances, and moving freight from Halifax to Saint John through Maine to destinations in the American heartland as envisioned by Atlantica supporters, a better alternative is "intermodal" transport, where truck trailers can be directly loaded, onto and off of rail cars. The American Association of Railroads estimates that if just 10% of current truck volume was shifted to intermodal, more than a billion gallons of fuel would be conserved each year.
"According to Cianbro, building an east-west highway will cost at least $1 billion, but most experts agree that this is an extremely low low estimate. Moreover, the road will need to be periodically repaved, at a cost of $200,000 to $400,000 per mile, and these costs will accrue often, given the Maine climate and the anticipated use of the road by heavy trucks......"
There is a lot more valid information in this article BUT the Bottom line, for me is that I will be voting YES for the Transportation Bond which will enable the state to buy that railroad line in northern Maine.
Finally... there is another Bond Question having to do with a $23.75 million to support job growth in Maine.
For me, the important part of this Question has to do with the following which was written by James Ortiz, president of Southern Maine Community College, for the article titled "Brunswick's New Economic Engine" (pages 71-72):
"...$4.75 million will be dedicated to renovating three of the four buildings at the Brunswick Naval Air Station for their new use and to make them ADA compliant. The $23.75 million will make Maine eligible for $39 million in matching federal funds.
"The $4.75 million allocation needs to be seen in an important context: The U.S. government had given SMCC the buildings. For a relatively small investment, the people of Maine will benefit from a resource that promises to both solve problems and create opportunities.
"...Southern Maine Community College is the fastest-growing community college in New England. In 2009, SMCC turned away 3,000 degree-seeking students due to lack of capacity. Once fully operational, the Brunswick campus will enable the college to serve 2,000 additional Maine students.
"SMCC's new campus will be an economic engine for Maine as well as an opportunity for students to be trained in high-paying, high-demand jobs. Courses will be offered in Maine's most promising economic clusters, including composites, engineering, manufacturing, heavy equipment, and health science. These courses will be offered cost-effectively, thanks to some exciting partnerships.
"The campus will be a hub for a consortium of higher education institutions, including the University of Maine, USM, UMaine-Augusta, Bowdoin College, Southern New Hampshire University, allowing students to glean from all of these institutions at a single location.
"Another pivotal initiative at the Brunswick campus is the Maine Advanced Technology & Engineering Center (MATEC), a collaborative venture of Southern Maine Community College and the University of Maine-a seamless education pathway leading from associate to bachelor to master in engineering degrees.
"At present, Maine is 49th in the nation for engineers per capita. While the national average for graduating engineering students is 5.2%, Maine's rate is only 3.6%. MATEC will help bring more of these vital professionals to Maine's workforce.
"MATEC will also be a regional innovative cluster and R&D magnet that will attract new industries, and support business and job growth in Maine. Projected businesses MATEC could attract might produce structural components for bridge beams, wind blades for energy turbines, and even airplanes composites...."
Again, there is more relevant information in this article - but this should show readers why I have decided to vote YES for this Bond issue.
There is also an article written by Orlando Delogu regarding Question 5 which pertains to safe water.
Interested in reading MaineAhead? Go to http://www.Maineahead.com - or look for the May/June issue at Hannafords. The cover has a beautiful yellow kayak because the feature story is - "Why Old Town Canoe is Still on TOP". That, too, is a good article about an outstanding Maine business. If only we could elect a state government that would utilize the same good business practices maybe this state could get out of the bottomless sinkhole 34 years has created. Maybe if we voters use our heads instead of our entrenched stubbornness to be nothing more than what we have ever been we can get out of this mess.
Friday, June 4, 2010
VETERANS GROUP ON "AMERICA'S GOT TALENT"
I receive a daily email newsletter from IAVA - Iraq Afghanistan Veterans Association - which provides a brief glimpse of military and veterans news from around the world and Washington, D.C. The following was in today's news' clips:
"Formerly homeless veterans from New Directions, a Los Angeles based program that offers a wide array of services, including substance abuse treatment and job training to veterans of all generations, appeared on 'America's Got Talent.' They advanced to the next round after receiving a standing ovation from the crowd and glowing reviews from the judges."
I watched the video of New Directions on America's Got Talent the clip provided. Great stories these veterans had. And their singing - no instruments - is great. The standing ovation was well earned. Watch for them in future shows. If you can pull up the video, try http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=b5z-h92h6ks
"Formerly homeless veterans from New Directions, a Los Angeles based program that offers a wide array of services, including substance abuse treatment and job training to veterans of all generations, appeared on 'America's Got Talent.' They advanced to the next round after receiving a standing ovation from the crowd and glowing reviews from the judges."
I watched the video of New Directions on America's Got Talent the clip provided. Great stories these veterans had. And their singing - no instruments - is great. The standing ovation was well earned. Watch for them in future shows. If you can pull up the video, try http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=b5z-h92h6ks
Thursday, June 3, 2010
MAINE MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION SUED BY MAINE HERITAGE POLICY CENTER
Heritage Policy Center files suit against Maine Municipal Assoc.
6/3/10
By Kevin Miller
BDN Staff
AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Heritage Policy Center filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Superior Court against the Maine Municipal Association, accusing the organization of improperly spending government funds to influence political campaigns.
The crux of the Maine Heritage Policy Center lawsuit is that MMA violated constitutional prohibitions on “government entities” participating in and contributing to political campaigns, in particular five ballot questions. The center points to a 1989 statute designating MMA as an “in-strumentality” of local government.
“The plaintiffs all believe that MMA is an organization that does much good in its mission to ‘lessen the burdens of government,’” David Crocker, director of the conservative think tank’s Center for Constitutional Government. “There are constitutional and prudential limits, however, to the powers and activities of such organizations.”
MMA officials disagreed with the characterization of the association as a “government entity” and, instead, described the organization as a nonprofit organization that provides lobbying and professional services to its voluntary membership. MMA also accused the center of trying to use the courts to enact political payback for losses at the polls.
“We have been doing this essentially for 75 years,” said MMA spokesman Eric Conrad. “We think they are attempting to silence us and other organizations like us for opposing Heritage Policy Center [issues] because they have been beaten several times in recent years.”
In particular, the Maine Heritage Policy Center objects to nearly $2 million that MMA reportedly paid to support or oppose five ballot questions. Those referenda are: two Taxpayer Bill of Rights issues, a 2004 tax cap proposal known as the Palesky Initiative, last year’s effort to reduce the excise tax and the 2004 initiative known as LD1, that aimed to reduce property tax rates while increasing state support for education.
The Maine Heritage Policy Center was heavily involved in pushing the two TABOR initiatives, both of which failed at the polls, as well as last year’s unsuccessful attempt to ratchet down Maine’s car tax rates.
The think tank is representing four plaintiffs: three signatories of the 2006 TABOR initiative — including tax activist Mary Adams — and MMA member Cyr Plantation in Aroostook County.
The lawsuit is seeking a court decision barring MMA from participating in future political campaigns. It also wants the association to reimburse municipalities for the political expenditures. MMA generates revenues from member fees and insurance premiums.
Tarren Bragdon, CEO of the center, said the organization does not object to MMA lobbying the Legislature on behalf of municipalities or taking positions on issues, including ballot questions. But he characterized donations to political action committees as “illegal behavior” for an instru-mentality of local governments.
“It’s the scope and scale of the involvement and the repeated nature of the involvement,” Bragdon said.
Conrad said MMA sees no distinction between sending representatives to Augusta to testify to lawmakers on a legislative issue and communicating the association’s concerns about a ballot issue to the public, in this case through campaign contributions.
“We believed we had a moral imperative to tell citizens about the impacts of TABOR II and the excise tax [initiative] on core municipal services, like police services and road plowing,” Conrad said.
During a press conference, Bragdon and Crocker pointed to numerous court cases and a 2004 opinion by then-Attorney General Steven Rowe on the use of public funds on ballot initiatives.
In that 2004 opinion, however, Rowe noted that the line between government officials or agencies disseminating information and improper advocacy is “not easy to define in the abstract.”
“Such determinations are fact-dependent and may be complex, particularly in situations such as this where the subject matter of the issue before the voters has a direct and substantial impact upon the duties and responsibilities of those government agencies and officials,” Rowe wrote.
***
NOTE: During this year's Public Hearing at the Eddington Board of Selectmen, I asked why our tax money should be used for policital purposes by MMA - and what line on the town's budget showed the amount allocated for MMA political purposes. I received a very "general" answer - meaning no answer. But MMA contributed our tax money in opposition to the TABOR NOW - Question 4 last year. I supported that Question - to limit government spending (Isn't $5 Billion in unfunded Mandatory Obligations enough, because you know it will be the taxpayers who will eventually get stuck with that bill, just like the public education bill we're stuck with now?) So maybe this lawsuit is needed. Providing various services to the towns is one thing. Trying to influence the voters with voter tax dollars is something else.
6/3/10
By Kevin Miller
BDN Staff
AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Heritage Policy Center filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Superior Court against the Maine Municipal Association, accusing the organization of improperly spending government funds to influence political campaigns.
The crux of the Maine Heritage Policy Center lawsuit is that MMA violated constitutional prohibitions on “government entities” participating in and contributing to political campaigns, in particular five ballot questions. The center points to a 1989 statute designating MMA as an “in-strumentality” of local government.
“The plaintiffs all believe that MMA is an organization that does much good in its mission to ‘lessen the burdens of government,’” David Crocker, director of the conservative think tank’s Center for Constitutional Government. “There are constitutional and prudential limits, however, to the powers and activities of such organizations.”
MMA officials disagreed with the characterization of the association as a “government entity” and, instead, described the organization as a nonprofit organization that provides lobbying and professional services to its voluntary membership. MMA also accused the center of trying to use the courts to enact political payback for losses at the polls.
“We have been doing this essentially for 75 years,” said MMA spokesman Eric Conrad. “We think they are attempting to silence us and other organizations like us for opposing Heritage Policy Center [issues] because they have been beaten several times in recent years.”
In particular, the Maine Heritage Policy Center objects to nearly $2 million that MMA reportedly paid to support or oppose five ballot questions. Those referenda are: two Taxpayer Bill of Rights issues, a 2004 tax cap proposal known as the Palesky Initiative, last year’s effort to reduce the excise tax and the 2004 initiative known as LD1, that aimed to reduce property tax rates while increasing state support for education.
The Maine Heritage Policy Center was heavily involved in pushing the two TABOR initiatives, both of which failed at the polls, as well as last year’s unsuccessful attempt to ratchet down Maine’s car tax rates.
The think tank is representing four plaintiffs: three signatories of the 2006 TABOR initiative — including tax activist Mary Adams — and MMA member Cyr Plantation in Aroostook County.
The lawsuit is seeking a court decision barring MMA from participating in future political campaigns. It also wants the association to reimburse municipalities for the political expenditures. MMA generates revenues from member fees and insurance premiums.
Tarren Bragdon, CEO of the center, said the organization does not object to MMA lobbying the Legislature on behalf of municipalities or taking positions on issues, including ballot questions. But he characterized donations to political action committees as “illegal behavior” for an instru-mentality of local governments.
“It’s the scope and scale of the involvement and the repeated nature of the involvement,” Bragdon said.
Conrad said MMA sees no distinction between sending representatives to Augusta to testify to lawmakers on a legislative issue and communicating the association’s concerns about a ballot issue to the public, in this case through campaign contributions.
“We believed we had a moral imperative to tell citizens about the impacts of TABOR II and the excise tax [initiative] on core municipal services, like police services and road plowing,” Conrad said.
During a press conference, Bragdon and Crocker pointed to numerous court cases and a 2004 opinion by then-Attorney General Steven Rowe on the use of public funds on ballot initiatives.
In that 2004 opinion, however, Rowe noted that the line between government officials or agencies disseminating information and improper advocacy is “not easy to define in the abstract.”
“Such determinations are fact-dependent and may be complex, particularly in situations such as this where the subject matter of the issue before the voters has a direct and substantial impact upon the duties and responsibilities of those government agencies and officials,” Rowe wrote.
***
NOTE: During this year's Public Hearing at the Eddington Board of Selectmen, I asked why our tax money should be used for policital purposes by MMA - and what line on the town's budget showed the amount allocated for MMA political purposes. I received a very "general" answer - meaning no answer. But MMA contributed our tax money in opposition to the TABOR NOW - Question 4 last year. I supported that Question - to limit government spending (Isn't $5 Billion in unfunded Mandatory Obligations enough, because you know it will be the taxpayers who will eventually get stuck with that bill, just like the public education bill we're stuck with now?) So maybe this lawsuit is needed. Providing various services to the towns is one thing. Trying to influence the voters with voter tax dollars is something else.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
JUNE 3 - PUBLIC VOTE AT HOLBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL ON 2010-2011 SCHOOL BUDGET
Thursday, June 3, will be the first of two votes to be taken regarding the proposed SAD 63 School Budget for 2010-2011. This vote will be conducted - with each section discussed and explained and time for public questions - at the Holbrook Middle School at 7PM. Both this vote and the one to be conducted at each of the Town Offices on June 8 must pass in order for the budget to be approved.
This is an expensive budget - but only because of the failure of the State Legislature to place public education as a priority when balancing the state's budget. It is interesting to note that Libby Mitchell, President of the Maine Senate and Democratic candidate for Governor proudly declares that she presided over the Legislature this past session when it successfully "balanced" the state budget. What she fails to include in that statement is that the Legislature used the Federal stimulus money intended for public education to keep other program going and, "balanced" the state budget on the backs of the property owners in this state. And next year it will be worse because there won't be any Federal stimulus money. But there will be a One BILLION dollar deficit come January 1, 2011. And where will the money come from for public education for SAD 63?
This is an expensive budget - but only because of the failure of the State Legislature to place public education as a priority when balancing the state's budget. It is interesting to note that Libby Mitchell, President of the Maine Senate and Democratic candidate for Governor proudly declares that she presided over the Legislature this past session when it successfully "balanced" the state budget. What she fails to include in that statement is that the Legislature used the Federal stimulus money intended for public education to keep other program going and, "balanced" the state budget on the backs of the property owners in this state. And next year it will be worse because there won't be any Federal stimulus money. But there will be a One BILLION dollar deficit come January 1, 2011. And where will the money come from for public education for SAD 63?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
