tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82196654174270260282024-02-02T14:44:10.281-05:00Kennebec BluesRita Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13262909440146153523noreply@blogger.comBlogger239125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-27583370537088444492012-12-14T12:37:00.000-05:002012-12-14T12:41:24.288-05:00The Politics of Selfishness <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLiFSDQr-K4nIdLW790t-bEKdP2Rp4j_od5qVhl0e1FE7vcGj1uvyWv2kgqmJwblUTleZzsGhwQtL-De4yL7zPopbDXFEzDFYoWiAu3Cf1ATIqwF_tKNh4RVN10dCzoYBH_TWUomZqG4LV/s1600/loser.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLiFSDQr-K4nIdLW790t-bEKdP2Rp4j_od5qVhl0e1FE7vcGj1uvyWv2kgqmJwblUTleZzsGhwQtL-De4yL7zPopbDXFEzDFYoWiAu3Cf1ATIqwF_tKNh4RVN10dCzoYBH_TWUomZqG4LV/s400/loser.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
In another crass classic column in the Kennebec Journal by M.D. Harmon titled, <a href="http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/columnists/if-more-murder-victims-had-guns-maybe-they-wouldnt-be-killed_2012-12-07.html">“If more murder victims had guns, maybe they wouldn't be killed,”</a> he engages in an outrageous blame the victim screed:<br />
<br />
<i> “…if Kasandra Perkins had a gun, that is what could have helped her be alive today. But she was defenseless against an [sic] violent man's rage, and so she died.”</i>
<br />
<br />
Pushing Harmon’s wild-west, everybody-packing, shoot-em-up, and dangerous gun fantasy aside for the time being, one must wonder what prompts such a blatant and boorish blame the victim stance. There is a straightforward unstated motivation - responsibility avoidance.<br />
<br />
Stating that a woman victim died in a horrible murder because she did not have a gun, Harmon pushes the blame for what occurred onto the victim. He and therefore society is not responsible. Sound laws to reduce gun violence that society could enact are unnecessary because the victim had a less government intrusiveness recourse available and did not take personal responsibility for her own defense. ‘It was her problem, not mine’ is the implication.
<br />
<br />
The proceeding convoluted inane formula forms the core of much of the mindset currently expressed in the right wing’s “politics of selfishness.”
<br />
<ul>
<li>Individuals languish in poverty because they are completely responsible for their own position in life; governments bear no responsibility to provide any services.</li>
<li>Elderly individuals had a lifetime to save for retirement; Social Security and Medicare actually encourage an abdication of responsibility.</li>
<li>The responsibility for environment degradation lies with individual litterers and consumers not packagers and manufacturers.</li>
<li>Clean elections funding violates individual (i.e. corporate too) power regardless of any suggested common level playing field good.</li>
<li>The safety of food and medicine is best determined by individual consumers doing their own research not some regulator or government researcher.</li>
<li>Banking and finance practices are best left to wonders of the free market where individuals will win or lose according to their own wits.</li>
<li>The idea of a good well funded public education available for all should be replaced by individuals buying the educations they can afford.</li>
</ul>
On and on the “politics of selfishness” goes, destroying what we hold in common care and concern as society. The worshipers of the "politics of selfishness” are a large and wide alliance of so called “liberty” libertarian leaning Republicans, anti-any-tax tea partiers, corporate GOP profits before people operatives, and the audiences and purveyors of the talk radio and faux news entertainment industry. The “politics of selfishness” absolves its adherents of societal commitments made through just taxation, recognizing regulatory realities, and far more philosophically important - citizenship responsibility.
<br />
<br />
To paraphrase a worn out gun quote: ‘Taxes, protecting people, and shared responsibility doesn’t kill societies; the "politics of selfishness” does.’Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-62850291252186080102012-12-09T10:28:00.001-05:002012-12-10T12:38:15.081-05:00My Dinner with Paul<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxxZLUlITiHrAvpxCpERgXmYyzN-aH9kLxZREVSeQPcvu2JqajRUBlDamlLNKDdlfEtMM0yQ0RgyXROtLVY4NAjV3kFwlz8Xe468mBeD5Ge2QZy9bBiEWUGLfNFf-gypb7sjbMfTBY0vEm/s1600/dinner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxxZLUlITiHrAvpxCpERgXmYyzN-aH9kLxZREVSeQPcvu2JqajRUBlDamlLNKDdlfEtMM0yQ0RgyXROtLVY4NAjV3kFwlz8Xe468mBeD5Ge2QZy9bBiEWUGLfNFf-gypb7sjbMfTBY0vEm/s1600/dinner.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Senate President Justin Alfond can’t seem to get a meeting with Governor Paul LePage despite the current critical budget concerns afflicting the state. So with all good intent, Senator Alfond has extended an invitation to the Governor and his wife to break bread. It’s a start to building a relationship that the people of Maine need to have for the wheels of governance and political cooperation, consensus, and compromise to turn in the direction of solutions and progress.<br />
<br />
Now Senator Alfond has basically said that the dinner can be anywhere the Governor chooses to dine. My suggestion is that ought to be at a private residence or even the Blaine House which belongs to the people of Maine.
While some might think it would be best to serve a large helping of crow and a fat slice of humble pie to Paul LePage, I’ll risk proposing a menu. <br />
<br />
First there ought to be no neckties and formalities along with a comfortable sit down to a long pre-meal get-to-know-you chat with simple hors d'oeuvres and a couple craft beers from Bayside Bowl. Dinner probably ought to be of the meat/seafood and Maine potatoes kind but the talk-no-politics-at-dinner rule should be shucked. After all that is precisely why we need you guys to get together. Dessert hopefully will be a lingering affair with maybe coffee or an after dinner nightcap occurring because it’s hard to end the conversation.<br />
<br />
Dinner invitations can always present the tricky little problem of how you return the favor once the meal has been concluded. Do you extend an invite to dine again or what? I’d offer that if Governor LePage followed up by inviting Speaker of the House Mark Eves and Laura Eves to dinner or even a good hearty breakfast that Maine people would breath a sigh of relief and gain some confidence that the wheels of governance have not ground to a halt because of any one person.<br />
<br />
Let’s hope the dinner offer is not spurned and pushed aside with other excuses. Without doubt, Governor LePage, the people of Maine do expect you to accept President Alfond’s courteous invitation. There’s really no downside to dinner. It will be private, you can be you, and we all have to nourish ourselves and our important relationships.Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-25452405054100863772012-11-30T11:33:00.003-05:002012-12-10T12:38:57.743-05:00Didn't the Maine GOP get the memo?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHOFSKaAbnim_Z72OjCFO0fi1MMi0svVmo8mb8uOrnRF_aOHlb0Xs31Eqb5dnshpR2g8QekAUlH54bz8vFaQvVB_xVLE0nUWZxYbxiNBiXj1EbXvqLOENi61fqam65Vru6Yhvqx1MOJSEK/s1600/memo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHOFSKaAbnim_Z72OjCFO0fi1MMi0svVmo8mb8uOrnRF_aOHlb0Xs31Eqb5dnshpR2g8QekAUlH54bz8vFaQvVB_xVLE0nUWZxYbxiNBiXj1EbXvqLOENi61fqam65Vru6Yhvqx1MOJSEK/s400/memo.png" width="244" /></a></div>
Two op-ed columns in the Kennebec Journal this week advise the new Democratic landslide legislature to essentially focus on Republican priorities and to approach lawmaking with Republican ingredients. Didn’t they get the memo? It was from Maine voters who overwhelmingly turned over both houses of the legislature delivering strong majorities to Maine Democrats. <br />
<br />
The Maine public rejected the wild ride to the right and heartless policies of both the Republican legislature in the last two years and the arrogant service slashing and reset of government priorities from serving people to serving Governor Paul LePage’s corporate friends, moneyed interests, and ego.
<br />
<br />
Yet now we get <a href="http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/columnists/practical-advice-for-democrats-and-republicans-in-legislature_2012-11-27.html">advice like this</a> from the “Naive” Conservative George Smith:
<br />
<blockquote>
“The smart move would be to out-Republican the Republicans and to recognize that Maine people want bipartisanship and collaboration among legislators, and public officials who can lower their tax burden and expand their economy.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“Make those your themes and stick to them in 2013. Put on Republican clothing, no matter how ill-fitting and uncomfortable, and you'll emerge at the end of this session with the support and thanks of all Maine people (well, almost all Maine people).”</blockquote>
Excuse me, we won by a landslide of <strong>89</strong>-58-4 in the House and a decisive turnaround of <strong>19</strong>-15-1 in the Senate by campaigning on Democratic issues and concerns and should now govern on Republican themes? Most mind-boggling is that Smith believes doing so would lead to the gratitude of Maine voters because we chose to ignore their Election Day message which was specifically and overwhelmingly not the Republican one they rejected.
<br />
<br />
Then we have the <a href="http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/columnists/legislator-hopes-gop-dems-seek-bipartisan-road-for-job-creation_2012-11-28.html">rambling wishful thoughts and chiding</a> of Representative Deborah Sanderson (R-Chelsea) that the legislature should focus on GOP priorities:
<br />
<blockquote>
“In the upcoming session, the Legislature should pass more bills that offer career-specific training to our students in high-demand fields such as computer science, health care and building trades. “
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“Second, I would like to see more government reform to cut costs and improve the efficiency of services to Mainers.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“Third, we need to work with the governor to reduce our electricity costs, which are the 12th highest in the nation.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“For the first campaign season in years, Democrats didn’t run on extreme environmentalism, probably because they realized that jobs should come first.”</blockquote>
There is a certain amount that may be accomplished in the areas Sanderson notes but the Democrats were elected by big majorities to do big things. She certainly should champion her issues but drop the expectation that a GOP-lite agenda is just what voters statewide ordered. It wasn’t by a long shot.
<br />
<br />
Democrats will be extending the hand across the aisle to Republicans but it will be to work on a robust agenda to serve all Maine people. Whether the GOP chooses to be attuned to it or not, a large part of the Republican defeat is due to their own legislative overreach in the last two years and acquiescing to Governor Paul LePage’s plurality tea party and the Maine Heritage Policy Center’s agenda of effectively, ‘people last.’
<br />
<br />
So if Republicans missed the memo, here it is again:
<br />
<strong><br />You are decidedly not in the majority any more, you will be respected, but Democrats have much repair and new work to do on behalf of the voters who overwhelmingly chose them to lead and to serve. Compromises must be true to the voters’ democratic and Democratic message.</strong>Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-1885403430982544992012-11-17T17:18:00.003-05:002012-12-10T12:39:56.501-05:00A Time to Build<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicprzwAfiRFUFhxSHRYslD9qtOQqamov7uD6bfTvQ9SNZl2WMwRkE4f03IzAh5W1E3lOueu4UJWZd7yHar29gPMzrJtb_fDPWwxj3Z3L-SXF2SxiZ4FIeoeOo-7YqMcW-f4S19BBDgCQwJ/s1600/BuildingBlocks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicprzwAfiRFUFhxSHRYslD9qtOQqamov7uD6bfTvQ9SNZl2WMwRkE4f03IzAh5W1E3lOueu4UJWZd7yHar29gPMzrJtb_fDPWwxj3Z3L-SXF2SxiZ4FIeoeOo-7YqMcW-f4S19BBDgCQwJ/s1600/BuildingBlocks.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
With the elections behind the Democratic Party, both nationally and in Maine, it is now time to build our operational capability, add understandable structure to our core beliefs and philosophy, and enhance our ability to communicate effectively with voters. Yes, we won a significant electoral sweep, especially in Maine. However, in addition to the excellent ground work that made it possible, candidates who carried the day on issues, and leadership focused on taking back the Maine legislature, we need to assume that some part of our victory was based on a reaction to Republican overreach and that party’s current inability to connect on matters of issue currency within the 2012 public’s mind in this past election. We ought not to assume our accomplishment is trend or permanent.</div>
<br />
The determination to press on with party building for future success is essential. We need to in particular create a conscious public association directly with Democratic Party identity. We should focus on connections not only regarding specific issues but especially developing a trust to reliably govern well in the best interests of Maine citizens. And we must understand that we will not know we have accomplished that task until the public tells us the trust exists. Elections are one measure of trust but we need to pursue a common agreement with the general public that we carry that trust everyday. Becoming “of the people” to reinforce “for the people” is key.<br />
<br />
The effort to become a reliable spokesperson for the interests of Maine people and develop a public conviction that our approaches to issues that exist now, those unspoken, and ones that will arise ought to be a central goal. While I believe our core approach to governance connects well to the aspirations of Maine citizens, that understanding needs to flow both ways. Striving between elections to achieve the objective of having voters, far more than activists and issue focused groups but yet including all, being able to articulate an understanding of what the Democratic Party stands for in the context of a positive embrace of the future should be the measurement of our goal. I want to sit in that coffee shop, walk on our Main Streets, and work beside people who can easily define us in straightforward terms and most of all answer that “yes of course” they trust us.
<br />
<br />
With that accomplished, we might once again see campaign signs that say <em>“_________, Democrat for”</em> Governor, Senator, Legislature because we will have transformed the Democratic Party into an emblem of aspiration and a badge of trust.Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-29820721956259617852012-11-06T08:27:00.002-05:002012-12-10T12:40:30.968-05:00Re-elect Craig Hickman<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg12NdeIX7yYFPtmx28z5Rc4xWdAlacro4TDq3G6Yr3AAvh2zKIr5rwkw_qG2RkeWacgveP4t3wlGyTGz9GqFvlvAd3nmXkktchwVg9ZRmryWf9RnHzAgRv136rIkqsQREd0QNXz22Ah5ba/s1600/Craig.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg12NdeIX7yYFPtmx28z5Rc4xWdAlacro4TDq3G6Yr3AAvh2zKIr5rwkw_qG2RkeWacgveP4t3wlGyTGz9GqFvlvAd3nmXkktchwVg9ZRmryWf9RnHzAgRv136rIkqsQREd0QNXz22Ah5ba/s1600/Craig.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
I am urging voters in Readfield and Winthrop to join me in re-electing Craig Hickman to the Maine House in 2014.<br />
<br />
In order to do so, you would want to reflect on a term of service that included his continued dedication to the needs of all people in our community, a record of assisting the educational aspirations of all students and their families, positive actions to assist our small businesses based on his direct experience, wise stewardship of Maine’s precious natural resources, and applied practical use of his experiences as a farmer to grow our local food, economy, and middle class. You would want to feel that Craig Hickman put the words ‘public servant’ into action as your representative, never left you or your neighbor behind no matter his or her station in life, and always studied and listened about every issue with an open mind to find effective solutions to meet the challenges we share.<br />
<br />
I believe based on Craig Hickman’s current dedication and tireless giving, casting your vote in this 2012 election for him will most certainly reap a record we can be proud of and support continuing two years from now. I strongly support him because I care a great deal about both the immediate and long term future of all us and I know he does as well.
Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-8268854480356573472012-07-13T00:06:00.000-04:002012-07-13T00:06:04.593-04:00Chellie Pingree, Thank You for Representing Us<br />
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; text-align: center;">
<img src="http://www.dirigoblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Chellie-Pingree-e1336944623949.jpg" style="background-color: white;" /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
While controversy swirls around Governor LePage’s “Gestapo” comments and his subsequent digging a deeper hole for his poor reputation, some may think that his attacks on First Congressional District United States Representative Chellie Pingree might be his way of trying to divert attention from himself. It is doubtful that is the case. Instead, while the Governor has a great deal of attention, he has decided to strut his negative stuff in an egotistical bid for even more notice.<br /><br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Paul LePage has littered his letters and press releases with the following invectives in the past few days:<br /><br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em>“Pingree has made it crystal clear that she’s siding with the Obama Administration over the people of Maine.”</em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em>“She’s part of big bloated government…”</em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em>…you have become part of the jet-setting Washington culture…</em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em>“Your title says that you are a Representative from Maine, but apparently you prefer to represent the power of bureaucrats…”</em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em>“…you sing from the same old songbook…”</em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em>“I write to ensure you that her [Rep. Pingree] position does not represent the State of Maine…”</em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
The Governor’s case against Chellie Pingree rests completely on the matter of representation. He believes that stripping Maine residents of health care access protections is his mandate; Representative Pingree believes Maine residents deserve those protections in today’s fragile economy.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
It is a tragic travesty that Paul LePage with his 38% plurality, strong arm tactics in getting his way with a deeply divided State Legislature, and anger driven agenda believes that lecturing one of our United States Representatives in his bullying manner carries more weight in representing Maine people than Chellie Pingree’s 55% majority in her contest and the genuine concerns she has expressed. The Governor also said that <em>“the government closest to the people is the one that governs best.” </em>While he was obviously attempting to set up a typical right wing divisive state versus federal government argument, it is actually Representative Chellie Pingree who in this case embodies the “government” closest to the people and is acting in their best interests.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Paul LePage, by virtue of being the Governor with the loudest disrespectful and crass words does not represent all of the people of Maine and his approval numbers have certainly indicated that he does not even represent a majority. Chellie Pingree is working very hard at actual real representation to address real needs and concerns.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Thank you Chellie for representing Maine.</div>Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-34228116709999760522012-07-02T22:24:00.001-04:002012-07-02T22:25:41.532-04:00Tax Boogeyman for President!<a href="http://www.dirigoblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/PresVader.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="border: 0px; color: #005689; font-family: PTSerif, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Tax Boogeyman for President!"><img alt="" class="colabs-image wp-post-image " height="255" src="http://www.dirigoblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/PresVader.jpg" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" width="303" /></a><br />
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: PTSerif, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Mitt Romney and all those running down ballot in the Republican column are convincing themselves that the upholding of the <em style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Affordable Care Act</em> has a poisonous silver lining: taxes.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: PTSerif, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts decided that the penalties for not purchasing mandated health insurance coverage are a tax and therefore Constitutional. After Republicans thrashed Roberts verbally and even pushed their shrill rhetoric to include one of their favorite wind-up toys, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77947.html#.T_GWK1UnKJ4.twitter" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: #005689; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">high crimes and misdemeanors free impeachment</a>, they got back to their cynical and selfish selves to reframe the battle for health care to be all about taxes. The bottom line for the GOP on health care is neither solutions that extend coverage for the US population nor an alternative vision of true affordability and access, especially for the poor.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: PTSerif, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Maine Republican Chair Charlie “bus-watcher” Webster was quick out of the gate with <a href="https://www.mainegop.com/2012/06/webster-speaks-on-obamacare/" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: #005689; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">the newly improved GOP attack-du-jour</a>:</div>
<blockquote style="border: 0px; color: #666666; font-family: PTSerif, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
“I thought Obama said he would never raise taxes on the middle class. Well, this is obviously another bait and switch tactic the Democrats used to push their tax, borrow, and spend agenda on the American people, when all along they said this was ‘not a tax’.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: PTSerif, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Will voters fall for an anti-tax line again?</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: PTSerif, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
Frankly it remains to be seen since Citizens United basically allows unlimited money to pour into our politics. Even should there be widespread support for the Affordable Care Act, it’s just from mere people not the self-important elitist financial interests with the most cash. And cash spends pretty easy and with more pronounced results tearing down something as a tax versus making an articulated case for fulfilling a genuine need in our society that requires fair investment support.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: PTSerif, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
However, at the very core of this debate, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/mitch-mcconnell-demonstrates-repeal-and-replace-tap-dance?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: #005689; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">one thing is visibly lacking: a viable Republican alternative</a>. Anyone giving reasoned review to the GOP mantra about competition knows that it just leads to the high deductable, low benefit equation that benefits insurance interests’ bottom lines and only results in competition for the largest chunk of poor and middle class’s wallets in their struggle to avoid the gambling chance of medical bankruptcy. And the other GOP standard fencepost, competition between the states, is really about being able to buy into the worse levels of regulation from states that care less about their citizens and are more in political pocket of big insurance.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: PTSerif, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; vertical-align: baseline;">
The bitter truth is that health care is not really a Republican priority; it neither fits with their market worship of picking winners and losers nor their “got mine, you’re on your own” attitude of class warfare. The anti-tax party is exposed once again as the anti-people party. We have not seen anything creative dedicated to health care delivery since the 2006 <a href="http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=30684" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; color: #005689; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><em style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care”</em></a> in Massachusetts under then Governor Mitt Romney. But, hey, why go there?</div>Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-15775969073997141072012-05-03T17:22:00.000-04:002012-05-03T17:25:33.844-04:00Maine GOP Senate Race Over<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZgWdZPdC-qeoe47vxGSmE8xDFRGmbjm83T23cipZ0915nsftxo13AnnY__I6Oxdb0gAgnvEL3WHwwdD8nu7WOy5_Y06c2GwUaMAT7TChTHHtB6LDTlcyobVFlM6PA4MaCpdsdxzrryv1t/s1600/DemintMcconnell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" mea="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZgWdZPdC-qeoe47vxGSmE8xDFRGmbjm83T23cipZ0915nsftxo13AnnY__I6Oxdb0gAgnvEL3WHwwdD8nu7WOy5_Y06c2GwUaMAT7TChTHHtB6LDTlcyobVFlM6PA4MaCpdsdxzrryv1t/s1600/DemintMcconnell.jpg" /></a></div>
After several forums featuring the GOP contenders for the Senate seat of Olympia Snowe, a loser can be proclaimed: the people of Maine. For all intensive political purposes the race is over, who wins doesn’t really matter all that much. <br />
<br />
But wait a minute you say. We haven’t heard their speeches at the big GOP conclave this coming weekend. Surely there are more forums to come at which to posture and pander. Poliquin hasn’t started to spend his unreported big bucks on ads yet. Summers and Schnieder haven’t concluded their fiercest warrior struggle yet. Bennett hasn’t rowed his boat quite all the way to the right hand shore yet. And D'Amboise and Plowman haven’t finished their tea chugging contest yet. <br />
<br />
It’s over because we know the type of candidate that will emerge no matter who wins the primary. The election is between the far right of the Republican Party and its far, far, right. The nominee will either be an acolyte of Jim DeMint preventing forward progress and reasoned compromise or a disciple of Mitch McConnell preventing forward progress and reasoned compromise. Either will cast the necessary cloture votes as directed by the Senate Republican leadership to prevent consideration of legislation that would be passed by a majority or in the case of a GOP Senate takeover, the necessary opposite maneuverings. <br />
<br />
Perhaps the most telling part in the campaign is that not a single candidate is saying, <i>“I want to step into the shoes of Senator Olympia Snowe, fight for the collegiality and compromise she believed in and continue in the great moderate tradition of Senate representation from Maine of the center of the road beliefs of its citizens. Her leadership is vital to continue; her moderate voice is needed now more than ever, her centrist colleague, our trusted and valued Senator Susan Collins, deserves an ally.”</i><br />
<br />
That speech isn’t coming. Never mind that Olympia Snowe’s myth of moderation was always very overstated when her voting record was examined despite a handful of crossover votes and some degree of moderate reception to environmental issues and the important concerns of women. But that storyline was the basis of her success at the polls and today’s GOP aspirants for her seat have rejected it utterly and in total. <br />
<br />
Thus the nomination is already sewed up and the Republican entrant into the general election field is already known. The moderate and centrist positioning to gain statewide election that drew Republicans in large numbers, independents in good numbers, and Democrats in enough numbers to elect someone like Senator Snowe is passé. Prepare for the full throated tea party, haven’t met a far right litmus test that couldn’t be passed, well sound bite scripted anti-tax, anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-reform, anti-environment, anti-worker, anti-compromise, anti-Obama voice. In all frankness, all that remains is to see the personality and financial packaging of the hawker.Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-29381048893041876092012-02-15T22:53:00.003-05:002012-02-15T22:58:04.492-05:00Excuses, excuses, excuses...<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3Zg0lCiCn9H1WjdDrQAWIORj6mCRThPtqvrUD4ueKI4WSkL-G9FA17MyZnJIi1qxR8SPJWdV74Dt5u62q-IDDpjv7vjnN2MrXQ89snkrCeyVo8zx84W_FTwvDUqY7RQiqcKOBAU8pemep/s1600/GOPdown.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 238px; height: 212px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3Zg0lCiCn9H1WjdDrQAWIORj6mCRThPtqvrUD4ueKI4WSkL-G9FA17MyZnJIi1qxR8SPJWdV74Dt5u62q-IDDpjv7vjnN2MrXQ89snkrCeyVo8zx84W_FTwvDUqY7RQiqcKOBAU8pemep/s400/GOPdown.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5709577761512771986" /></a><br /><br /><br />A – The governor’s man, Dan Billings at As Maine Goes:<br /><em>"Very low voter turnout. The Democrats did a better job motivating and turning out their base vote. Special elections are a different animal -- they are all about voter ID, motivating the base, and get-out-the-vote. Different strategies and different tactics are needed from a regular election."</em><br /><br />B – The legislative insider, Representative Andre Cushing, Assistant House Majority Leader in the Bangor Daily News:<br /><em>“What’s lost in this is that the Democrats knew who they were running last fall, so [Johnson] had a lot more time to meet with voters.”</em><br /><br />C – The candidate, Representative Dana Dow in the Lincoln County News:<br /><em>"I would simply say this vote represents a referendum on the governor and maybe the budget we are trying to get passed. That might have something to do with it. I don't feel its [sic] referendum on Dana Dow. It's bigger than that."</em><br /><br />D – The loose cannon, Maine State Republican Chair Charlie Webster in the Bangor Daily News:<br /><em>“I don’t think an individual election changes the next one. <strong>It’s a good win for them but it doesn’t change our plans</strong>.”</em><br /><br /><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Hey gang, here's a bit to ponder and even a free not taxpayer funded suggestion or two</span>:<br /><br />A – Dan, Republicans with their registration edge in the district are no longer motivated and lavishly outspending your opponent by four to one a strategy that isn’t working (sorta like Mr. Romney)? Maybe it’s your boss's message.<br /><br />B – Andre, Republicans had a name recognition problem and suffered from less time to meet with voters even with running a sitting State Representative and former Senator from the District? Maybe they are waking up to how they have been misrepresented by Republicans.<br /><br />C – Dana, bingo, you’re right on, pass go - collect $200 (that's $50 in Democratic dollars by your spending margin), it was most certainly a referendum on Governor LePage’s plans for our state, that was the big elephant sized issue. A lesson learned would be for you to go back to the House and oppose his agenda. Maybe you should switch parties, call us.<br /><br />D – Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, you’re not going to change your plans? Please, please, please do keep thinking that way. (See drawing above.)Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-48879476461175024482011-08-11T10:37:00.009-04:002011-08-11T10:50:14.200-04:00Snowe Abdicates Responsibility Once AgainSenator Olympia Snowe has been getting some summer back-in-the-home-state press about her head-shaking angst about the toxic partisanship in Congress. A recent <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/olympia-snowe-debt-ceiling-deal_n_923348.html">Huffington Post</a> piece mentions a summertime photo-op walk through Saco:
<br />
<br /><blockquote>Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) talked to people in Saco, Maine about the debt ceiling negotiations Wednesday, and lamented the extreme partisanship that characterized the debate this summer.
<br />
<br />“I’m embarrassed by all of us,’’ Snow said, according to the Associated Press. “I’ve never seen a worse Congress in my whole political life.’’</blockquote>In another piece published last Saturday in the <a href="http://www.kjonline.com/news/a-do-nothing-senatesnowe-says-everything-is-politics_-no-real-work-gets-done_2011-08-05.html">Kennebec Journal</a>, Senator Snowe goes on with more “poor-me-us” lamenting:
<br />
<br /><blockquote>"Unfortunately, everything is concentrated in political messaging, and the art of governing and legislating has been virtually lost," she said.</blockquote>
<br /><center>and</center>
<br /><blockquote>"Everybody is trying to orchestrate their political positions to score political points," she said.
<br />
<br />"And you would have thought in the aftermath of the election that we would have begun a new session with a different tone, laying the basis and the groundwork for rebuilding the economy and concentrating on jobs."</blockquote>
<br /><center>and further</center>
<br /><blockquote>"There are fewer and fewer senators who represent a broad, diverse political constituency anymore," Snowe said. "You either represent a red state as a Republican or a blue state as a Democrat."
<br />
<br />She said the national electorate appears divided as well, viewing events through either "MSNBC or the FOX News prism."
<br />
<br />"It's either-or," she said.
<br />
<br /><b>Snowe, a moderate,</b> has enjoyed support from Maine Democrats and independents.</blockquote>The miraculous moderate myth lives on despite the fact that she has acted in near absolute lock step with the Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican minority throughout her term to extend filibusters and cast negative cloture votes time after time to block legislation and to kill bills that would have passed with an absolute majority.
<br />
<br />On unavoidable extreme high profile issues, on a very minuscule number of occasions, Senator Snowe plays the moderate in front of the press such as voting to move health care reform out of committee after badly diluting it and then when the rubber hits the road voting against it. For this investment of a bit of non-productive time and posturing in the spotlight, the moderate franchise gets built back home.
<br />
<br />Maine voters want to believe that they send moderate independent minded Senators to Washington but in truth have party-line operatives who contribute to the very gridlock and partisanship that Senator Snowe laments. She and Senator Collins simply play the game differently to build their mythical moderate fable while being part and parcel of the misrule and misrepresentation by a super-minority, line-in-the-sand, and stalemate supplying cabal of the very partisanship gridlock they bemoan for Maine digestion.
<br />
<br />Senator Snowe has been in Congress for over three decades and appears to now be apparently seeking a fourth term in the Senate. Her complete abdication of responsibility for the Senate atmosphere based on her lengthy career begs the questions:
<br />
<br /><em>- What is she doing about this other than complaining and not taking any responsibility?
<br />- Why isn’t she independently leading with her three decades of experience in Congress?
<br />- How can Maine voters continue to accept such an ineffective lack of leadership?
<br />- Where is her “moderation” really and has it helped Maine at all?
<br />- What will we get out of her serving in the next six critical years?
<br /></em>
<br />It is time for Senator Snowe to go. She is totally ineffective, contributes greatly to legislative gridlock, has shown next to nothing in the way of independence when it counts, hoodwinks us with her moderate myth, and now laments, complains, throws her political hands in the air, and does not take any responsibility at all for her lockstep partisanship with Senator McConnell and the GOP minority strangling the United States Senate.Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-82374139539571166712011-08-02T15:23:00.006-04:002011-08-02T17:08:26.178-04:00Conversations With Republicans: Spending and WelfareToday at the car dealership, while awaiting the repairs from the annual dreaded task -- the state inspection -- I ran across a couple of local Republicans waiting for some work of their own to be completed. On the television was the discussion of the debt ceiling, as the bill had just cleared the Senate and was awaiting Obama's signature. They were having a lively chat about how important it was that we cut spending, and I decided to chime in.<br /><br />First fact, and it's one that the media is finally picking up <span style="font-style:italic;">after</span> the bill was passed -- deficit reduction during recessions harms economic growth. In the 1930s, FDR faced a similar situation. The country had spent significant amounts of money through the New Deal, including work programs such as the Works Progress Administration. He was pushed by conservative Democrats, Republicans, and a few trusted advisers that spending had to be reduced, and he did so. The economy collapsed, and the word "recession" was invented so as to not create panic over us re-entering the Great Depression. The cuts were reversed in 1938 through emergency spending, and the economy rebounded.<br /><br />After hearing this information, they were a little hesitant to be supportive of this debt deal, but still felt we should cut spending. I asked them where they'd seek to cut, and one of them said that we shouldn't touch Social Security or Medicare, and we shouldn't touch military spending. I asked if he felt we should remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he stated that he didn't, he just felt that the troops are in harm's way and should be cared for. I suggested we bring them home, give them their GI Bills, and let them begin civilian careers -- and he thought this was a good idea.<br /><br />They both shifted gears to welfare fraud -- too many people collect checks that shouldn't. They felt people use their TANF check to buy drugs, or they have more kids just to collect more benefits, or other kinds of fraud. They suggested drug testing for welfare recipients, and launching a deep investigation to find fraudulent welfare cases.<br /><br />As I pay a bit of attention to such things, being a social work major, I informed them that fraud is about <a href="http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/realfacts/top_ten_tanf.htm">2/10 of 1%</a> of all cases in the state -- and it would cost more money to find the fraud than it would to allow it to continue. I asked if their concern was the morals or the money, and they said it was the money -- so by the end, they'd disposed of the fraud investigation. Still, drug testing was relevant.<br /><br />I asked them why this was. I can't disagree with them being angry that people on welfare use state money to abuse drugs. If I knew someone doing this, I'd probably be angry with them, too. Still, I know the reality of drug addiction. Again, I asked them -- is this about money, or morals? This time, it was about the morals, they felt stolen from. Okay, hard to argue this, and I really wouldn't try.<br /><br />But I did ask them, did they know that TANF checks go to parents with children? They did know this, and felt that women got pregnant so they could get more money. I asked them if they felt that they knew any woman who would go through nine months of pregnancy for an extra $1,500 or so a year -- and their eyes popped when they realized how little extra the woman would get. This argument, too, went by the wayside.<br /><br />Then, back to substance abuse -- do they want the children starving? Well, of course they don't, they said. Do you want the children going into an already struggling foster care system, when that would cost the state money, and we know outcomes are better for children to remain with parents, even if they are dysfunctional? (Note: This is why DHHS works for 18 months to reunify children with parents.)<br /><br />And so I suggested, maybe we should tie a positive drug test to required substance abuse treatment to keep the TANF flowing. I can't disagree with this as a "moderate" solution, we can combat a social problem and keep people fed at the same time. So, okay, we'll do drug tests and add a sensible condition to welfare. Fine by me. This is called being responsible with our money.<br /><br />What I took away from this conversation overall was that these older, middle-class Republicans weren't so much concerned about spending as they were about spending badly. They were fine with the welfare checks, so long as most of them were being spent by people who needed the help and people weren't just using them to buy drugs. Helping the disadvantaged is a liberal message. Not spending taxpayer money on people who abuse that help is a conservative one. We can do both.<br /><br />More on this conversation later this week.Ed Lachowiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17528660552240565927noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-33654003598156073432011-07-05T12:21:00.000-04:002011-07-05T12:23:17.018-04:00Prove It CharlieRegardless of position, using facts and not fiction in debate is expected of our civic leaders. When someone purposefully veers into outright deception and spreading false claims to build support for one’s particular position, it is disservice to Maine citizens. Argue with passion, debate vigorously, but tell the truth.<br /><br />LD 1376 which reduces Maine citizens’ access to the polls by denying them the continuation of same day registration unanimously enacted by a Republican legislature in 1973 and continually used by Republicans, Democrats, and unenrolled voters without problem is a case in point. For partisan and rhetorical reasons Maine’s GOP joined the national trend to restrict ballot access using sound bite and talk radio reasoning.<br /><br />Most disheartening is the largely unchallenged and I contend false assertion made by State Republican Chairman, Charlie Webster, published on June 27th regarding “witnessed busloads of new voters who register Election Day, folks most of us have never met and frankly most of us may never see again.” <br /><br />I’ll be upfront; I do not believe Mr. Webster. The sad element in this affair is that his motivation seems to be to spread fear of people who for understandable reasons register at election time rather than welcoming greater involvement in our electoral process.<br /><br />Mr. Webster ought to post videos of the busloads of undesirable voters swamping polls online. Surely the Republican Chairman has photos, news stories, and hard evidence to make such a charge. He should place sworn affidavits by reliable witnesses in front of us. In other words, prove it Charlie.<br /><br />If proof is not forthcoming then Mr. Webster ought to apologize or the Republican State Committee ought to admonish him. If neither is forthcoming, then we as voters will need to admonish the GOP ourselves next election because truth is important.Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-41081298413049517642011-05-17T12:30:00.003-04:002011-05-17T12:36:07.647-04:00The Lie of Equivalency<b>Representative Paul Ryan puts 47 million Americans on welfare. *</b><br /><br />Simplistic repetition of rhetoric in politics regardless of issue facts or complexity is a tool that has been used with great success on the right to deceive citizens into supporting actions counter to their own interests. It raises its head frequently in the fiscal posturing machinations of today’s über-conservatives’ attacks on progressive taxation, spending that benefits people over political profits, and the mindless worship of the free market which really stands for corporations being free to harm common citizens.<br /><br />Getting the lie of equivalency into circulation is the very first step. Whether it is hanging a banner on Maine’s GOP headquarters saying “Working People Vote Republican” to create an unbalanced perception or planting the specter of a mushroom cloud in the public’s mind to get the nation’s war blood up, this deceptive and simplistic approach is used time and time again to our detriment. And so the images of Republicans “having ladders on their trucks” and Iraq attacking with nuclear weapons us if we do not attack them first are evoked to push actions which makes no sense. Their objective is to ignore the core truth by using a lie of equivalency that only serves to heighten partisanship and destroy consensus, compromise, or cooperation.<br /><br />A now a brand new lie of equivalency is being tested by Republican Paul Ryan as detailed at <a href=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ryan-defends-medicare-privatization-as-strengthening-welfare-for-those-who-need-it.php?ref=fpa>Talking Points Memo</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>…Ryan reframed the entitlement cuts in his budget as "strengthen[ing] welfare for those who need it,"…</blockquote><br />Ryan and his allies trotted the concept of changing Medicare to a voucher program that would put one of the most popular, effective, and needed entitlements on the pathway to filling private insurance company profit coffers and diminishing the level of effective help to citizens by both that action and allowing the benefit to shrink over time in relation to rising health care costs. Ryan and company got a strong negative reaction from across the political and public spectrum and even many Republicans raced to distance themselves from the rapid Ryan repulsion reaction.<br /><br />Ryan didn’t have a good lie in place and just got the obligatory <em>“at least he’s trying to do something and put something out there so we can chat about something and water down something so it looks like we do something”</em> banter. But the powers to be do not want to address the deficit with appropriate progressive tax structures and tough decisions around exorbitant defense spending exemptions from reality. With quick turnaround, a GOP desirable lie is being auditioned to equate Medicare with welfare.<br /><br />Thus cutting Medicare equals strengthening welfare for those who need it. “Those who need it” will be subject to strict and stern definition. In one fell swoop Medicare is the same as welfare and should now guide the future of the program. First there might be WelfareMedicare vouchers, followed perhaps by WelfareMedicare means testing, and of course finally elimination of the WelfareMedicare nanny state.<br /><br />Medicare evokes a positive image of government serving all people well for their societal betterment, the essence of an advantageous entitlement because you are fortunate enough to be a United States citizen. The image of welfare in this context is designed to do precisely the opposite and reinforced by the misleading argument of need as a tepid low value positive over entitlement as an outright negative connotation. Ryan’s pairing of the two, a lie of equivalency, is poised now for rhetorical repeating and will be coming to a GOP theater near you. <br /><br /><b>*</b> <i>Based on 2010 estimated Medicare enrollment.</i>Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-56905455825400415262011-05-11T09:06:00.000-04:002011-05-11T09:07:44.606-04:00Percentage Perspectives<b>Congratulations Senator Dill!</b> You have won a special election by a landslide that if it had gone to the GOP would have led their claims of support for Governor Paul LePage and his right wing agenda. I'm sure they had their downplaying the results spin ready just in case you nosed over the line in a photo finish but alas, they'll need to rewrite it to account for a trouncing that dismisses the idea of referendum on Maine’s direction. Speaking of mandates, you enter into office with a majority 68% win unlike Paul LePage who was sworn in after a 38% plurality of votes cast. <b>As for the *GOTP, let the excuses begin!</b><br /><br />* <b>G</b>rand <b>O</b>ld <b>T</b>ea <b>P</b>artyBruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-59791793040343635972011-04-17T07:03:00.002-04:002011-04-17T07:38:02.154-04:00Death Vouchers<strong>“Do you realize that your leadership is asking you to cast a vote today to abolish Medicare as we know it?” <br />– <em>Nancy Pelosi, April 15, 2011</em></strong><br /><br />The convoluted logic went like this. We were going to take something away in our existing health care system, we were going to have to reduce what was covered, some procedure choices would be pushed out of reach, some spending on inefficient older bodies and minds would need to be trimmed, some people would need to be judged in a faceless bureaucratic court of cost, and health care rationing would be introduced. The empanelled bureaucrats charged with weighing your life’s worthiness of repair would make up a cold hearted “death panel.”<br /><br />The kind and loving face of the right had once again worked overtime injecting fear into the debate of President Obama’s health care reform. Yet whether one agrees with the result or not, there were not, are not, and will not be death panels in the loosest sense. The aim was to cover more people with insurance. Death panels were a leap of hyperbole about rationing.<br /><br />An interesting component of rationing is the use of coupons or vouchers to give everyone the same slice of little. Vouchers are a device that invokes getting a tangible just due reward that one can spend as one sees fit. Misunderstood is that vouchers are also the device to get government money into private business hands with the least amount of government and voter controls. And like a coupon, vouchers are not necessarily intended to cover all costs, just the basics in part with you throwing in the difference. Now if coming up with the difference is a problem, and it will be, for many elderly Americans then the result is…surprise…rationing health care.<br /><br />Senior fixed budgets will be subjected ever greater pressures to choose among the necessities of food, shelter, and health care in a process that is simultaneously going to be inadequate, confusing, and subject to market whims. On the political front it will be easier to reign in spending by trimming coupons a bit here and there depending on who is in power. The ability to indirectly cut Medicare as we knew it by hacking at it one remove away at the voucher level brings to mind reducing what will be covered, pushing some procedure choices out of reach, forcing decisions on spending on inefficient older bodies and minds onto the voucher recipients, leaving some people to be judged in a faceless bureaucratic market of cost, and thus introducing full blown health care rationing for older citizens. One might even call this weighing your life’s worthiness of repair the determinate factor in how one might elect to spend their inadequate cold hearted “death voucher.”<br /><br />Medicare as we know it may face spending structural issues but the essential factor in the midst of all the economic debt fear of the future being spread by the right who want their profits now is ultimately about choice. We need only climb onto a tank and waive a corporate tax file to present our petition.Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-28479517312831503612011-04-04T17:18:00.006-04:002011-04-04T18:35:13.495-04:00Dear Senator;I read the <a href="http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/tired-of-diversions-from-government-by-disrespect_2011-04-03.html">op-ed piece written by Senators Katz and Langley</a> that you co-signed in today’s newspaper. I very much appreciate the sentiment expressed that Governor Paul LePage’s tone, demeanor, and belittling comments have no place in Maine political discourse. Putting people down, dismissing their concerns, and removing expressions of their aspirations absolutely do not serve Maine citizens. <br /><br />However, the op-ed piece strongly endorses the policies and programs that the Governor is pushing and I find that message disheartening. The deeply concerned reaction by many of your constituents to the Governor’s antics also applies to his anticipated actions. It is not only Paul LePage’s tone that has been offensive but it is also the tone of his agenda that is disturbing. <br /><br />Should Paul LePage’s agenda as stated by him on the campaign trail and reiterated by him many times as Governor be enacted without significant compromise and moderation, the negative attitude he has exhibited toward many Maine citizens will be translated into an official negative attitude of our State toward your constituents. <br /><br />Deep cuts in social services set an ill tone toward those who need society’s assistance. Stripping environmental and worker protections from our laws codifies a negative demeanor toward Maine’s most important resources. Unfair payroll taxation of State employees and teachers belittles their important contributions to Maine. Each is just as troublesome as negative public discourse. <br /><br />Again, thank you for taking a public stand in this letter on Governor LePage’s harmful behavior, I urge you to also step forward to stand up to those aspects of his policy and program proposals that will effectively harm the people of Maine. <br /><br />Respectfully;<br />Bruce BourgoineBruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-43143242018712474662011-03-24T17:18:00.000-04:002011-03-24T17:20:11.798-04:00Why Business Should Condemn LePage's Hubris<strong>The moral mural position and self interest ought to trump petty </strong><a href="http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/2601/triumphalism"><strong>triumphalism</strong></a><strong>.<br /><br /></strong>When businesses, large or small, sit down at the table with a union representative or an employee not a member of a labor union to work on some employer/employee impasse or issue, a climate of collaboration is essential to success. Paul LePage's mural madness may seem remote to those discussions in the future but the Governor has with distain added his bit of poison into what ought to be atmosphere of respect for workers, open-minded discussions, and mutual purpose.<br /><br />Businesses currently in Maine are invested for perhaps reasonable or rueful reasons but understandable ones in the red tape roll back and they are also focused on emergence from recession. Adding a bit of employer versus employee toxicity is hardly in their interest. And having the addition of it made in a heavy handed "I'm the boss" approach, based on a feeble flippant fax, for an in-your-face symbolic sophomoric stunt, is counterproductive to a relationship that needs some attention already.<br /><br />Workers should not only feel respected for their work contribution but should also feel they hold personal worth and dignity as more than mere cogs in the wheels of commerce. Removing artwork on labor history from the Maine Department of Labor is very much the wrong message delivered in a brusque, bossy, and bullying matter. It says, "Your history is unimportant, your heroes are rubbish, and your connection here is severed."<br /><br />I contend that it truly does not represent what reasonable employers, business leaders, industry groups, entrepreneurs, and even businesses that might be looking at the state for possible investment and expansion want. Why would the clumsy slap down by a third party of people one needs to partner with be welcome? Why would the intrusion into existing balanced relationships be helpful? Why would one invest to relocate a business to Maine in an atmosphere with unpredictable elements?<br /><br />In closing, businesses in this state have a lot of priorities, and one is not symbolically beating down workers. In fact some of their priorities are the opposite, to increase employer/employee collaboration for best results, to uplift and improve workforce quality built on good relations, and to build a great reputation for attracting topnotch employees, consumer marketing purposes, and being pillars of our communities. "Made in Maine" means, "Made by Mainers."<br />Business leaders should openly condemn Governor Paul LePage's unproductive attack on their employees. I urge them to speak out clearly rather than faxing.<br /><br /><em>Not addressed in this piece is the role many companies and business leaders in this state take in promoting the arts. I never fail to appreciate and often patronize the sponsors noted for exhibitions at museums and the underwriting of play productions and concerts in Maine. To these sponsors of the arts, this is also an affront of petty censorship and artistic expression that they wisely support. </em>Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-90731141732805301702011-02-15T23:22:00.002-05:002011-02-15T23:24:49.624-05:00Triumphalism<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigmUlw_9w3TEmRIROnI7iuZNG7_-OEKbJ4vfUvMI_aPNZ7mIi0zEB5ircZagbFx8X3bB2tDimJ8aEH65vS3Y3knHM05wLXohjQe-uDyARxygU6qj8S3BHm-3KdMiLlTD61uKqrualGGCFo/s1600/NRA+Plate.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 221px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5574138217567284994" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigmUlw_9w3TEmRIROnI7iuZNG7_-OEKbJ4vfUvMI_aPNZ7mIi0zEB5ircZagbFx8X3bB2tDimJ8aEH65vS3Y3knHM05wLXohjQe-uDyARxygU6qj8S3BHm-3KdMiLlTD61uKqrualGGCFo/s400/NRA+Plate.jpg" /></a><br />We now have a bill (<a href="http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/sponsors.asp?ID=280039766">LD 583 & Sponsors</a>) that will create a NRA specialty plate. This is clearly what can be called “triumphalism” when a proposal of this sort is put forth.<br /><br />Such a bill is not about governing, it is about ruling. Have you heard the outcry your fellow citizens seeking that this measure be promulgated and passed into law? Of course not because there is neither rational nor demand for this action. There is only the message; “we will do this because we can.”<br /><br />The NRA specialty plate is pure triumphalism theater. Indeed it can be seen as similar to committing an “excessive celebration” penalty in the NFL. Yes, your team scored but rubbing the opposition’s nose in it to a disproportionate degree is unproductive at best and mean spirited at worse.<br /><br />Our politics have no immediate penalty for “excessive celebration” and in the larger scheme of two coming years of fiscal action, policy realignment, and political redirection; this measure will eventually seem minor in nature. But at present, because no valid reason exists for this action, it speaks volumes in terms of the relationship we can expect from those elected and sworn in to serve all their constituents and their true attitude toward citizens in the minority.<br /><br />Additionally it may just set up a divisive situation where none was sought or desired. This action strikes one as an attempt at taunting; it adds to the right-left gulf instead of working toward a political environment of benefiting all in Maine. There will be denials of such as intentions but this is truly a case of where actions speak louder than words.<br /><br />It bodes ill for Maine when our elected representatives misguidedly engage in political theater that is clearly “in your face” unproductive posturing. That it will send money to a controversial advocacy group politically aligned with the right will be the recurring slap on the other cheek.<br /><br />However, there has been one prevailing historical lesson for those who stridently engage in triumphalism; the willingness to alienate, the dedication to gesture not substance, and the deafness of self-righteousness generally leads to downfall.Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-50911556190606029142011-02-03T16:49:00.003-05:002011-02-03T16:52:40.716-05:00Reform Rx - Snowe & Collins ReduxThe United States Senate last night (2/2/10) voted on an amendment to the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act for the stated purpose of: <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00009">To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010</a>.<br /><br />It failed completely along party lines (51-47) with our Senators Snowe and Collins joining the GOP minority to take away health care reforms for Maine people. We continue to be ill represented by both of our Senators. First each of them played drawn out games to weaken the original legislation substantively and now they continue to attack health care for all us by engaging in this showboat, kneel-to-the-tea-party vote to completely reverse and trash the entire effort.<br /><br />You'll hear from them that their goal is to replace it with a better plan<i>. </i>The better plan time has past, they know it, and this is just one more attempt to reverse health care progress and set our gains back to zero. And despite constitutional bluster about mandates by Republicans, absolutely many essential reforms like covering pre-existing conditions will not work without a larger insurance pool and our Senators are ignoring such facts.<br /><br />We must remember this in 2012 when Senator Snowe, endorsed by Governor LePage (who is himself moving us into an unwanted lawsuit to overturn health care reform) runs for re-election. Yes, this is the same Senator Snowe who voted in the Senate Finance Committee (her pre-existing position) to support a similar bill in 2009. Ever since then her commitment to reform has headed downhill to today voting to overturn the vital minimal reforms we desperately needed. We need to also remember Senator Collins continual gamesmanship on health care in 2014.<br /><br />For more about the price Maine citizens will have to pay by any repeal of the Affordable Care Act for Maine citizens, follow this <a href="http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/repealcosts/me.html">healthcare.gov link</a>.Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-13066266098631878952011-01-17T07:04:00.001-05:002011-01-17T08:02:09.674-05:00Malice of the AbsentFinger forward, thumb cocked back, a squint perhaps, “Bang, bang you’re dead!”<br /><br />Thousands of times daily, fingers on the playground, hands upon mesmerizing games, metaphorically uttered by co-workers, children and adults in the passing parade of people, politicians and pundits, and with desensitized distortions of life and death, on dark city streets, in wayward dusty small towns, borne to empower for fortune or in fear, yielding incidents that lead to tiny popping noises or to rattling deafening echoes flowing from fingers that leave blood on a street or in a hallway with life ebbing away, and with ever alarming frequency, carnage, terror, anguished horrified mourning on campuses, in workplaces, where we entrust our children’s very lives, and in the bright burst of sunshine of a shopping center like thousands upon thousands across the United States of America, reality imitates imagination that imitates reality at the point of a finger or gun.<br /><br />And through all of it we remain in complete denial as a nation. We step beyond our failure to act to covering our eyes, blocking our ears, and failing to deploy our reason in the real forward steps of confronting a highly visible repeated catastrophe directly and vigorously resolving to change the accepted societal rules and laws to decisively correct our defective relationship with guns. Instead we once again weep, we memorialize, we comfort, we grieve, and we struggle with the discomfort of details that flow across our airwaves for a few days or sometimes a few weeks. Ultimately we as a nation in an ultimate irony, choose the weakness of will over the strength of our convictions.<br /><br />Across the road in the early predawn of an autumn morning, a pickup truck backs into a trace of an old logging road across from my home. People get out, finish a steaming cup of coffee, speak in hushed tones, shoulder rifles, and silently move into the woods and fields. I slumber on a mere stone throw away, knowing all this, harboring no fear whatsoever, for these are my friends and neighbors. Across our land this image is repeated on a variety of landscapes in pursuit of a variety of game or perhaps just merely a bit of companionship or solitude.<br /><br />In safety orange, these men and women, do not want or require automatic weaponry to burst out dozens of heavy rounds, armor piecing bullets, or high powered handguns with extended clips for rapid fire. They have planned their excursions since last season, buying what was needed in leisure not haste and if procurement of the necessary equipment required more time, more appropriate checks, longer waiting periods, and fewer places to purchase, they are fully capable of planning accordingly. Yet one disproportionally powerful nationally organized voice and an ongoing chorus of the insensible and inflexible have formed an alliance purported in part to protect the rights of those men and women in the predawn without consent based on honesty.<br /><br />It is so beyond reason to twist every reasoned approach to the reduction of gun violence and the limitation of weapons of small mass destruction into a threat to the traditions and safe pursuits of responsible ordinary citizens who are our friends and neighbors. To rest their ability to have a rifle or two, a couple of shotguns, and yes perhaps even a pistol upon keeping full automatic high powered human assault weapons used in wars and a flood cheap high capacity and therefore high lethality handguns is irrational, irresponsible, and offensive.<br /><br />Yet we continue to tread the path of inaction and to support the inaction of our leaders after every incident that focuses attention on the issue of the role of guns in our society in part because it is too complicated to discuss the issue rationally. And perhaps it is also due in part to accepting that the finger pointed, thumb cocked back, and shout of “Bang, bang you’re dead!”, will always lead to some actualization that we apparently are resigned to tolerate and live with while other lives are cut tragically short.Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-57211769096431443412011-01-09T21:32:00.004-05:002011-01-09T21:48:51.119-05:00All Must Denounce "Eliminationist" Rhetoric<a name="6642"></a>We ought to be very concerned about the political terror violence in Arizonia that not only severely injured Representative Giffords but has now taken several fellow citizens' lives. SarahPAC had placed crosshairs on Gabrielle Giffords district this past election and while one cannot blame this particular act directly on that paticular political imagery, it deserves some focus. These types of highly charged appeals, with the steady angry drumbeat on the right, especially on the radio waves and the ultra conservative as victim web presence, has helped coarsen our politics and invited in hate crime, loner lash-out, and attempting to cast votes of anger with a gun.<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2011/01/08/stop_the_rhetoric_of_violence">Joan Walsh, Salon</a> editor at large:<br /><br /><blockquote>...no conservative leader has yet called for dialing back the rage on the right in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Sarah Palin sent condolences to Giffords' family, but said nothing about her unconscionable SarahPAC map putting 20 House members, including Giffords, in actual crosshairs for supporting healthcare reform, or her infamous Tweet telling conservatives "don't retreat, reload." Giffords' 2010 Tea Party challenger, Jesse Kelly, hasn't apologized for inviting supporters to "shoot a fully automatic M16" to "get on target for victory" and "remove Gabrielle Giffords from office."<br /></blockquote><br /><blockquote>We have no idea why Loughner allegedly tried to kill Giffords Saturday. But the fact that a well-liked, centrist, pro-gun rights Democrat like Giffords faced threats and attacks for her healthcare vote, or that she was targeted with violent imagery by the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president as well as her 2010 GOP opponent, ought to make conservatives pause. More than pause, it ought to make them denounce those in their ranks who are using extremist, eliminationist rhetoric.</blockquote><div align="left">We must reflect on that which we have all always known.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2tTDiZZYCAs?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2tTDiZZYCAs?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div>Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-64522330692932354112011-01-07T21:53:00.000-05:002011-01-07T21:55:34.054-05:00On MessageOne item I have constantly remarked upon is the need to be able to ask a person on the street what the Democratic Party stands for and receive a good accurate answer. Ultimately, getting that answer is up to us because we have to provide it, promote it, believe it, rally for it, support it, stand fast on it, rely on it, and act on it.<br /><br />There is demand within the party to simplify our message. There are many among us that look across the political landscape and envy the simple but always relentlessly on message jingoistic short sound bite mantras of the GOP and now the tea party. They won with such messaging it appears.<br /><br />I for one do not believe we ought to simplify our core beliefs. Governing is complex; issues demand sophisticated approaches and nuance. But I do think supporting those core beliefs with an unadorned, direct hard hitting watchphrase is very appropriate.<br /><br />Consider this: <strong>DEMOCRATS WORK FOR FAIRNESS.<br /></strong><br />Democratic Party members and voters roll up their sleeves and toil for a fair shake. We advocate for it in our workplaces, we support it in our approach to equal rights for all citizens, we push for it for the underprivileged, we seek it in how taxes are raised and used for the common good, we pursue it on environmental fronts to be fair to neighbor and the next generation, we champion it in education, we urge it in matters of justice, we strive toward it in economic policy, and we apply to every facet of societal responsibility.<br /> <br />If we carried such a central core belief into our politics, policy development, legislative undertakings, and governance when in power and principles when in opposition, and even into the recesses of our party structures, we might just become election winners again. The reason is simple, our living and breathing of such a message would be powerful because despite their current rise in power, Republicans do not ultimately live up to their messages.<br /><br />Some of us might balk at such simplicity. That's understandable, we engage in politics for many diverse ideas, we struggle to put forth solutions to problems that require a degree of policy complexity. But that person on the street is not in the same place.<br /><br />Perhaps that person will get there in approaching the vital concerns of our country in an engaged manner that has depth but we need to understand that it takes time, like swimming. First comes walking in the shallows with our catchphrase and developing an appreciation for it. Wading in deeper and learning about the brief bullet points of our platforms comes next. Risking a little depth and getting a deeper understanding of an issue or two of personal concern comes next. And finally strongly swimming toward vital goals to make our community, state, and country a far better place for now and the future can occur and perhaps even diving in as a party volunteer or public servant will as well.<br /><br />We Democrats need to put forth this kind of progression in our politics. We need to appreciate every person at any point along this continuum and especially cultivate bringing in many with our core beliefs, expressed perhaps in a watchphrase upon which we can stay true to and earn their trust.<br /><br />Maybe then I can walk down the street and ask somebody, "What do Democrats stand for?" Hearing a reply of, "Well they went all out to get that school funding right and paid attention to my spouse's health care, so it's like I keep hearing, Democrats work for fairness."<br /><br /><em>I do not propose "Democrats work for fairness" as the ultimate watchphrase for our Party. But I firmly believe we do need something like it and more importantly the approach to it and allegiance to it outlined above. And I also do believe that we ought to move in that direction without unintentionally kindly killing it by committee. We need to be off and running.</em>Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-34017558583463909432010-12-18T08:30:00.001-05:002010-12-18T08:33:13.109-05:00Democratic Destination: January 23rd DepartureOn Sunday, January 23rd the Democratic Party in Maine will elect a new chairperson and its officers. All of us have a critical stake in this election.<br /><br />The past general election not only reduced our public officeholders but it placed a hold on our agenda of progress and there now exists the most determined effort to roll back advancements made on behalf of Maine workers, our environment, and health care. To combat this effort we must prevail in the next general election within this state. We need to win back the Maine House and Senate. We must force Paul LePage to take up his veto pen, which may lie dormant in these next two years, and we must be poised to override his objections. These are enormous but vital goals.<br /><br />We must have strong candidates and a strong party.<br /><br />The election of our chair is a significant start along the comeback path. The individual elected can represent our party externally with a resonating message, wisely deploy resources toward building a 2012 victory, attract new members, inspire current members, and focus everyone’s efforts and attention toward truly representing the interests of Maine citizens.<br /><br />We cannot afford a chairperson without a clear vision or one who is easily bogged down with internal squabbling, excuse creating, factional power plays, narrow allegiances, or personal detractions. The chairperson can be paid a salary and at present, the chairperson wields enormous influence over selecting the party’s paid Executive Director. In effect, the State Committee is hiring the party’s CEO.<br /><br />You can influence this selection. You must.<br /><br />The chairperson is elected by the Maine Democratic Party Committee. As a start one should identify who they know or have heard of or simply ought to be called or represents their county on the State Committee. <a href="http://www.mainedems.org/statecommittee.html">Find those members here.</a><br /><br />Advocacy of your aspirations for our party’s future is vital. Communicating our interests and creating awareness of our scrutiny with this election can help empower a good result. And if you encounter silence and stones, think about going to your next county committee to discuss and perhaps act upon your expectations.<br /><br />Candidates for chairperson <a href="http://www.mainedems.org/409.html">are listed here</a>. More candidates will be announced and some may be nominated from the floor on January 23rd. Be sure to seek out these individuals messages about their candidacies and find out as much as possible about what inspires them to seek this position, how they plan to fill the role, and what they will do to accomplish the many significantly challenging tasks ahead.<br /><br />You can get an advance look at candidates in forums that are beginning to happen around the state. Contact your <a href="http://www.mainedems.org/countycommittees.html">county committee</a> and/or <a href="http://www.mainedems.org/localcommittees.html">local committee</a> to see if it plans to hold a forum for party chair candidates and be sure to suggest one if such an offering is not occurring in your area or at reasonable driving distance.<br /><br /><strong>Kennebec and Sagadahoc Counties are jointly supporting a forum</strong>; open to all democrats, for Maine Democratic State Party Committee Chairperson candidates on <b>January 8th at 1:00 pm </b>with a snow date of January 15th at 1:00 pm. It will be held at the Kennebec County Government Center at <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&expIds=17259,17311,27642&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=125+state+street+augusta+me&cp=19&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&wrapid=tljp1292675932625035&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=125+State+St,+Augusta,+ME+04330&gl=us&ei=a6sMTYqfB4OB8gb8_enaDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQ8gEwAA">125 State Street</a>, in Augusta, Maine.<br /><br />This will present an excellent opportunity to hear candidate remarks, questions poised by the county committees to all candidates, and your questions from the floor. All serious candidates should be in attendance. All serious democrats are invited and welcomed to attend and participate.<br /><br />The election of a new chairperson on January 23rd is our next important destination. It can signify a new beginning, a strategic departure toward a future destiny.<br /><br /><b><i>Please feel free to email, post, and pass along this article in full or part anyplace it will encourage interest and participation.</i></b>Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-9365887418629222112010-12-10T10:43:00.000-05:002010-12-10T10:45:46.282-05:00Reform Number OneThere is a great deal of angst among many voters who object to the administration’s tax cut for unemployment compromise with Republicans as well as voters who accept such action. Stick to your guns, shouts one side! Kick him while he’s down, bellows the other side!<br /><br />Democrats find it aggravating that our legislative process is being held hostage by Republicans. Deploying a political maneuver that promised to hold up all legislation pending passage of an extension of the Bush era failed tax policy, the Republicans set up a “who will blink first” situation.<br /><br />It matters little who blinked if the result is capitulation and not compromise or if the result is ineffectual compromise and not constructive consensus.<br /><br />We have witnessed a legislative power shift in Washington over the last several decades that concentrated raw power into fewer and fewer hands. Congress is not representative of her citizenry as a consequence yet that seems of little concern. Power shifted from majorities building coalitions in both congressional bodies to a new ultimate seat of power, the House-Senate conference committee on any legislation. And it has shifted again to the new ultimate current power structure, denial of legislative service, by a filibustering minority in the least representative body.<br /><br />The United States has a new method of negative legislating – a parliament dominated by lords of the minority.<br /><br />Every issue now requires 60 votes in the Senate to even proceed for deliberation, the very reason we elect representatives. Instead every issue is now reported in terms of a crass procedure, cloture, rather that of proposal, substance, merit, reflection, debate, and action. In a party split of less than solid 60/40, all attention focuses on the personal whims of a few shifting votes that may or may not be in the center. We are drowning in tactics and not swimming in substance.<br /><br />Today with the Republican signed pledge of 42 votes to hold up deliberation by the majority 58 as well as some of the 42 who might be inclined in temperament toward legislating, we have moved decidedly toward parliamentary block voting. A president elected by a solid majority and a house elected along more proportional representative lines in 2008 did not seem to matter to the Senate minority lords. Indeed, it can be contended that the damage done by block voting and the frustrating of a popular legislative majority and administration through dramatically weakening health care, successfully diluting financial reform, and stalling addressing environmental climate concerns is precisely one of the prime assisting agents that created, distorted, and capitalized on voters’ economically rooted fears to produce the conservative 2010 Republican electoral gains. It’s a case of creative destruction for further destroying creations.<br /><br />In parliaments, governments can fall if ruling blocks fail on a key vote. In our system, the government will not fall on a key vote but a determined block minority can make it fail to serve its citizens time and time again until that minority can make it fall at a term’s end.<br /><br />Changing the Senate rules at present may well not yet have the votes, there is an absence of a directly spoken mandate for reform, and there appears continued resignation to the current practice of obstruction. And again and again, the media focuses on scoring stances not probing circumstances. The filibuster is a toxic deficit in our democracy and is not a mere issue among others for it profoundly affects the others. Ending its potency, deployed by either party, ought to be reform number one.<br /><br /><em>Further reading:</em><br /><a href="http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/filibuster_abuse/">Filibuster Abuse</a> [PDF] by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law<br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/12/the-silenced-majority/7230/">The Silenced Majority</a> [The Atlantic] by Matthew YglesiasBruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8219665417427026028.post-77606919279458945292010-12-03T11:50:00.007-05:002010-12-03T12:08:40.799-05:00No Love LetterYes, Maine's Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, have signed the <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/12/republicans-threaten-to-block-all-democratic-legislation.php?page=1&ref=fpa">letter</a> <em>(the link shows the signatures)</em> below to block all legislation unless the Bush tax cuts are extended to the wealthy. That includes legislation to extend unemployment benefits as we approach the holidays and coldest months of the year. If you're rich throw some gold tinsel on the tree; if not make a pot of spruce soup for supper and burn a few branches to keep warm.<br /><br />Not only did Collins and Snowe sign on to this blocking plan; they actually exposed their claims to be moderates as entirely bogus.<br /><br />What greater indicator can you have than observing a professed moderate who may wield power to allow bills to come up for debate and a vote within a closely divided Senate where their single yea or nay might have actual impact moving something forward versus playing a waiting game that may lead to their yea or nay on some issues being far less effective in the next Senate year with an even larger minority with extra buffer votes less reliant on getting Collins or Snowe to play cloture ball?<br /><br />Complicated? Not if you’re really not a moderate.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><em><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>Dear Leader Reid,<br /><br />The nation's unemployment level, stuck near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans. Senate Republicans have been urging Congress to make private-sector job creation a priority all year. President Obama in his first speech after the November election said "we owe" it to the American people to "focus on those issues that affect their jobs." He went on to say that Americans "want jobs to come back faster." Our constituents have repeatedly asked us to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job growth; it is time that our constituents' priorities become the Senate's priorities.<br /><br />For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.<br /><br />Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase and providing economic certainty should be our top priority. Without Congressional action by December 31, all American taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual income-tax rates and investment income through the capital gains and dividend rates. If Congress were to adopt the President's tax proposal to prevent the tax increase for only some Americans, small businesses would be targeted with a job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time. Specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a tax increase, which will affect 50 percent of small-business income and nearly 25 percent of the entire workforce. The death tax rate will also climb from zero percent to 55 percent, which makes it the top concern for America's small businesses. Republicans and Democrats agree that small businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong remedy in this economy. Finally, Congress still needs to act on the "tax extenders" and the alternative minimum tax "patch," all of which expired on December 31, 2009.<br /><br />We look forward to continuing to work with you in a constructive manner to keep the government operating and provide the nation's small businesses with economic certainty that the job-killing tax hike will be prevented. </em></span></blockquote></em></span>Bruce Bourgoinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02269647788143383966noreply@blogger.com0