Re-elect Craig Hickman

I am urging voters in Readfield and Winthrop to join me in re-electing Craig Hickman to the Maine House in 2014.

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.

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.

Chellie Pingree, Thank You for Representing Us

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.

Paul LePage has littered his letters and press releases with the following invectives in the past few days:

“Pingree has made it crystal clear that she’s siding with the Obama Administration over the people of Maine.”

“She’s part of big bloated government…”

…you have become part of the jet-setting Washington culture…

“Your title says that you are a Representative from Maine, but apparently you prefer to represent the power of bureaucrats…”

“…you sing from the same old songbook…”

“I write to ensure you that her [Rep. Pingree] position does not represent the State of Maine…”

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.

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 “the government closest to the people is the one that governs best.” 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.

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.

Thank you Chellie for representing Maine.

Tax Boogeyman for President!

Mitt Romney and all those running down ballot in the Republican column are convincing themselves that the upholding of the Affordable Care Act has a poisonous silver lining: taxes.

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, high crimes and misdemeanors free impeachment, 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.

Maine Republican Chair Charlie “bus-watcher” Webster was quick out of the gate with the newly improved GOP attack-du-jour:

“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’.”

Will voters fall for an anti-tax line again?

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.

However, at the very core of this debate, one thing is visibly lacking: a viable Republican alternative. 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.

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 “Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care” in Massachusetts under then Governor Mitt Romney. But, hey, why go there?

Maine GOP Senate Race Over

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps the most telling part in the campaign is that not a single candidate is saying, “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.”

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.

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.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...

A – The governor’s man, Dan Billings at As Maine Goes:
"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."

B – The legislative insider, Representative Andre Cushing, Assistant House Majority Leader in the Bangor Daily News:
“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.”

C – The candidate, Representative Dana Dow in the Lincoln County News:
"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."

D – The loose cannon, Maine State Republican Chair Charlie Webster in the Bangor Daily News:
“I don’t think an individual election changes the next one. It’s a good win for them but it doesn’t change our plans.”

Hey gang, here's a bit to ponder and even a free not taxpayer funded suggestion or two:

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.

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.

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.

D – Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, you’re not going to change your plans? Please, please, please do keep thinking that way. (See drawing above.)

Snowe Abdicates Responsibility Once Again

Senator 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 Huffington Post piece mentions a summertime photo-op walk through Saco:

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.

“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.’’

In another piece published last Saturday in the Kennebec Journal, Senator Snowe goes on with more “poor-me-us” lamenting:

"Unfortunately, everything is concentrated in political messaging, and the art of governing and legislating has been virtually lost," she said.

and

"Everybody is trying to orchestrate their political positions to score political points," she said.

"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."

and further

"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."

She said the national electorate appears divided as well, viewing events through either "MSNBC or the FOX News prism."

"It's either-or," she said.

Snowe, a moderate, has enjoyed support from Maine Democrats and independents.

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.

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.

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.

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:

- What is she doing about this other than complaining and not taking any responsibility?
- Why isn’t she independently leading with her three decades of experience in Congress?
- How can Maine voters continue to accept such an ineffective lack of leadership?
- Where is her “moderation” really and has it helped Maine at all?
- What will we get out of her serving in the next six critical years?

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.

Conversations With Republicans: Spending and Welfare

Today 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.

First fact, and it's one that the media is finally picking up after 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.

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.

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.

As I pay a bit of attention to such things, being a social work major, I informed them that fraud is about 2/10 of 1% 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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

More on this conversation later this week.