The future is suddenly a bit brighter

Political season makes me kinda’ crazy. It’s not that I don’t enjoy debating the issues and that I don’t understand some of the political machinations. More and more, it’s just the lack of rationale discussion and clear-headed give and take that brings me down.

Occasionally, wading through the forest and swamps of talk radio and right-leaning electioneers, a ray of light manages to peak through the fog of fear and ideology. When that glimmer of hope emanates from someone still finding their way in life, setting down their own roots and values, makes it even sweeter.

Back in 2000, two skinny 16-year olds were the final cuts from that spring’s Greely varsity baseball squad. One of them was my son Mark and the other one, Brent Lemieux, became fast friends. I had the privilege of watching their baseball developments, from JV stalwarts, to varsity co-captains their senior year, with both exhibiting traits that would later serve them well in their college baseball careers.

After being teammates for four years at Greely, they went their separate ways during college; Mark at Wheaton and Brent roaming the outfield for USM’s Huskies. Some of my fondest memories were seeing them reunited for three summers, when I coached them in Portland’s Twilight League.

On Wednesday morning, I opened Portland’s Press Herald, Maine’s largest daily newspaper and lo and behold, Brent’s op ed jumped out at me. I shouted out to my wife, “Brent’s op ed is in the newspaper.” Best of all, it addressed articulately, TABOR, the right-wing “slash and burn” attempt to gut social and community services in our state, all in the name of further tax relief for Maine’s wealthy.

As I read the op ed, I was impressed with Brent’s clear and concise approach at presenting his take on TABOR, exhibiting the critical thinking skills that seem to be lacking in so many of my fellow citizens.

Of course, the comments that accompanied it were primarily from right-wing trolls who somehow think that all societal ills will magically disappear if we just eliminate evil government and slash everyone's taxes.

One comment summed up my thoughts, as I angrily scanned some of the vitriol aimed at a fine 22-year-old young man who hasn’t had his own well poisoned by cynicism and political n’er-do-wells.

A commenter named Howard had this to say to much of the drivel that one could politely deem comments.

“After reading comments in these columns for some time I've come to a few conclusions. A great many conservatives memorize two or three pet phrases and use them continuosly in defending their point of view. Usually these are from the Heritage Center handouts or from some television ad. Certainly they don't look into an issue in depth.

Some of the TABOR supporters who can debate the merits of the issue at least have my respect for speaking intelligently.

Some of these other "Adults" merely resort to name calling when they can't win any other way. Did you people have parents? Or were they too busy making money to teach you common sense and values?

You folks are really the right wing equivelant of our now infamous Halloween protestor. Maybe you slept through school but you need to know that name calling proves nothing. The young man who wrote this article made several good points. Don't condemn him because you folks don't have the ability to respond intelligently. I can assure you that I pay my share of taxes to, which isn't easy these days, and I agree with him on some points.

TABOR is not an answer to our problems. The answer in a nutshell is learning to run our governments more efficiently and use good business practices at all levels. TABOR won't do that at all. "

I’m proud of this young man and count myself privileged to have had an opportunity to witness his intellectual growth and maturity, as well as enjoying watching him on the baseball field.

I’m printing his op ed in its entirety, because it is one of best and most well-reasoned pieces I’ve read on TABOR.

I realize that the future of our state and our country is in the hands of these young men and women and maybe we’d do well to step aside and let them lead us, instead of continuously putting our hopes in the bunch of dried up, bitter and twisted old men we’ve hitched our wagons to up until now.

Portland Press Herald, Nov. 1, 2006
MAINE VOICES

TABOR no answer to Maine's problems
by, Brent Lemieux

The Press Herald's recent support for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights has me concerned that your editorial recommendation for its passage will affect the outcome of the vote on Election Day.

The paper claimed TABOR is the best next step in the right direction, but it feels more like a blind step in a direction that has yet to be determined.

I have to agree that the timing of the respectable lobbyists of the Maine Educational Association, the Maine Municipal Association and the state Chamber of Commerce in putting forth their alternative proposal is suspect. But I disagree with this sense of urgency that your paper and other supporters of TABOR are pushing to pressure voters to pass it.

TABOR is not the solution, and it's not Maine's best bet, no matter how impatient we become.

All the talk lately has been about Maine's tax burden. There has been relentless rhetoric on the topic of how Maine is the heaviest-taxed state in the country.

Where do these claims come from? Yes, taxes are high in Maine, but according to the U.S. Census Bureau we are the 19th-highest-taxed state in the nation, which is far from the first.

If you have been following TABOR at all, you have also heard about LD 1 and all its poor reviews. But, what we need to keep in mind is that LD 1 is young, being that it was only instituted in January 2005, and that it's going to take time to see significant results.

For those who are impatient, I'll mention that since LD 1, the state's annual growth rate of the local property tax has slowed to 1.6 percent, a far cry from the average annual increase over the past 20 years of 6.6 percent.

The main argument behind TABOR is that it will put more control into the hands of the people. But at what cost, and just how much is "more"?

According to TABOR, Maine citizens will vote on almost all financial issues concerning any level of government that exceed the law's spending cap, but only if the budget that does so is approved by a two-thirds majority from the governing body.

If only a third disagree, then the vote will never see the light of day. TABOR wouldn't be giving power into the hands of the public, it would be doing just the opposite, consolidating the power into a select few.

If TABOR did go into action and we did get to vote on every cap-exceeding financial issue, it would come at a cost. Our election officials estimate that an average voting session would cost a minimum of $25,000. We now have to forfeit 25 grand before anything actually gets done beyond the minimum. That just seems backwards to me.

It would be difficult to cut budgets in our cities and towns without neglecting the people. A decrease in spending for our towns would naturally lead to a decrease in town employment and lower levels of basic maintenance care.

Towns would have trouble scrounging up the money to repair cracked roads and sidewalks, old buildings including our schools and libraries, even community landfills that need maintenance care for sanitary reasons.

Just think, every time our town needed more money than the cap permitted to fund such public services that we now take for granted, it would need to hold a costly vote, forfeiting more time and money.

A spending cap would be more efficient if it was community-based and operated on a town-by-town level. This way each town could determine its own future and choose which projects were worth investing in and which were not.

Colorado, our nation's guinea pig in the TABOR experiment, has put a temporary ban on the bill because it isn't working. It's damaged their school systems and their infrastructure. They realize that adjustments needed to be made in order for it to work more efficiently.

The Press Herald appears to recognize this as well, claiming its flaws are fixable and urging us to support it.

So, are we supposed to vote for TABOR then identify its flaws and then fix them? Or, would a better path be to fix its flaws before putting it into effect?
- Special to the Press Herald
[Brent Lemieux (e-mail: brenton.lemieux@maine.edu) of Portland is a USM media studies student and freelance writer. ]

Tom Connolly-Performance Artist

If you live in Maine, you've heard of Tom Connolly. Connolly, a prominent Democrat, defense lawyer, former gubernatorial candidate and the one who alerted local media to George W. Bush's 1976 drunk-driving conviction prior to the 2000 election, is no stranger to the spotlight. On Tuesday morning, he took it to a new level, engaging in guerilla theater, by donning an Osama Bin Laden costume, complete with assault rifle, while waving an anti-TABOR sign, during morning rush hour. You can imagine what happened--a motorist alerted the authorities and Connolly was arrested at gunpoint.

While I'll have more to add to this story, later this evening, here is a link to the video up at our local NBC affiliate, WCSH-6. (Click on the video link-you'll have to endure a short commercial, but be patient)

The simplistic reaction to the entire affair is the usual knee-jerk, which says Connolly was "stupid" for pulling this prank--in fact, that was exactly the word uttered by South Portland Police Chief, Ed Googins. However, there is more to this story that I hope to comment on later, when I'm not rushing out the door, in pursuit of mammon, or as the Marxists say, selling my labor.

*[Addendum added to above, at 7:15 pm]
I have no doubt that law and order types to a person will diverge with me on this. Their typical response would be that Connolly is “lucky he wasn’t shot,” which is implied in quotes from the South Portland police chief. Yet, does one automatically run the risk of mortal injury any time they venture out of the house with a toy gun? Has the societal shift over the past five years become so oriented towards force and firepower that police, when faced with a potentially volatile situation, always resort to deadly force? It was instructive to see the video clip, witnessing the officer, gun drawn, proceeding towards Connolly. Would a bullhorn, from a greater distance, ordering him to put down his toy, not been a better choice? Obviously, the noise from nearby I-295 was loud enough that Connolly did not hear the commands of the officer, which would account for the delay in actually laying the toy and his other props, aside.

Let me say, so my point is not misconstrued, that the officer in the video did exercise restraint. Obviously, we could be looking at an entirely different scenario if this public servant, who I'm assuming was someone with some law enforcement experience (not some "wet behind the ears" young buck just out of the criminal justice academy), had gone "Rambo" on Connolly. Can you imagine the reaction and subsequent condemnation that would have been showered on the police officer, if Connolly had been shot, or worse?

Was it obvious that Connolly was in fact dressed as Osama Bin Laden and was holding a gun, dynamite and grenades, or were the imaginations of drivers, police and others, over stimulated from a cultural reference point impregnated with 24/7 news coverage of the “war on terrah”? In fact, while Connolly was holding a sign that said, “I love TABOR,” a passing motorist thought the sign read, “I love the Taliban.” While recent reports clearly indicate some serious educational concerns around performance and perhaps the motorist couldn't read, but maybe, they misread “TABOR,” as “Taliban” due to media conditioning? I wonder how long Connolly would have been aloud to carry on if he was dressed as George Bush, holding a sign that read, "support our troops"?

I'm writing this purposefully ignorant of any local media attention this has received throughout the day. One of the things I'm attempting to do more of is formulate my thoughts and opinions, irrespective of "reaction" journalism. Even as I type, it's hard for me not to flick on the television and catch my local affiliate(s) reporting. In a state like Maine, believe me, this is a major news story.

Unlike many of my fellow U.S. citizens, I don't think the solution to crime is putting more police on the streets. Personally, as someone who has participated in several public demonstrations, involving political themes, more times than not, I've felt less safe in the presence of a law enforcement. Just recently, it was the law enforcement community, in fact, that had an integral role in the censorship of a university art display, by someone who identified themselves as a political prisoner. (In order to be "fair and balanced," here is the mainstream account--notice the headline?)

Our local communities would be better off if first, we identified the root causes of acts of criminal intent, if in fact we could all reach a consensus on what constitutes a crime. Secondly, we then would have to accept the responsibility that comes with that identification and find ways to engage all our fellow citizens in helping to make our communities places where uniformed officers, lethal force and protection of private property wasn't necessary. But of course that would be way too "utopian" for the average American to wrap their little law and order brains around. So instead, we assign the power of life and death to some of our flawed fellow citizens and wonder why 465 page reports detailing human rights violations are part of our reality (a reality that many would deny). As Chomsky has written, the "rabble must be instructed in the values of subordination and a narrow quest for personal gain within the parameters set by the institutions of the masters; meaningful democracy, with popular association and action, is a threat to be overcome." Let me go just a little further with my "egghead" reasoning and quote a little Murray Bookchin, and you tell me if those commuters passing Connolly on I-295, aren't apparent in the following quote:

"...the modern city is a virtual appendage of the capitalist workplace, being an outgrowth and essential counterpart of the factory (where "factory" means any enterprise in which surplus value is extracted from employees.) As such, cities are structured and administered primarily to serve the needs of the capitalist elite -- employers -- rather than the needs of the many -- their employees. From this standpoint, the city must be seen as (1) a transportation hub for importing raw materials and exporting finished products; and (2) a huge dormitory for wage slaves, conveniently locating them near the enterprises where their labor is to exploited, providing them with entertainment, clothing, medical facilities, etc. as well as coercive mechanisms for controlling their behavior. "
[The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of Citizenship]

Connolly will be interviewed tomorrow morning on WGAN, AM-560, during their morning show. For those of us in its signal area, it should be worth tuning in to.

St. Louis-City of Danger

The city of St. Louis, fresh on the heels of a World Series victory in baseball, apparently has a serious issue with violent crime, earning the dubious title, as America’s “most dangerous city,” as selected by Morgan Quitno Press, which publishes an annual report of America’s most dangerous, as well as, safest cities.

For me, an outsider, St. Louis would seem to be an idyllic city. Located on the banks of the mighty Mississippi, the place rhapsodized by the likes of Mark Twain and others and settled neatly in the center of America’s heartland, the city has been overrun by violent crime, recently. Since 2004, the violent crime rate has risen 20 percent.

While watching the Series with my son, Mark, who had passed through St. Louis over the summer on a nationwide hitchhiking odyssey, he mentioned that St. Louis was a “pit.” When queried, he just said the city was a “dump, with nothing going on.” Granted, his take is anecdotal, but the statistics from the report seem to bear out that there’s not much going on in St. Louis, but murder and mayhem. I never would have guessed it? The Midwest is in fact, where danger lies. Boston (31st) fared better, but New York (at 139) was a real surprise to me, a much safer place than say, Tampa, Florida (at 24).

Nearing decision-making time

I’m not ready to endorse a candidate just yet. That is rare for me, as I tend not to be one of those damn “undecideds” that have so much attention foisted upon them each election cycle. This year’s gubernatorial race, up here in Maine, has been different, however. Unlike most years, when you have two sorry choices between twiddle dum and twiddle dee, the inclusion of two strong independent women candidates, very focused on the issues, has forced the two front runners to talk about issues, as difficult as that can be at times, particularly for consummate politicians.

Actually, I mean no offense to the colorful Phillip Morris NaPier, who speaks from the heart and has garnered some press with his insistence that his name be listed on the ballot as, “Phillip Morris Napier, Thu People’s Hero,” a case which was ultimately struck down by a federal judge. In reality, however, NaPier has no real chance at winning and most of his votes will be those that fall in the “none of the above” category.

I’ve been unenrolled as a voter, an independent, for two years now. The 2004 presidential election convinced me that no substantive chance can ever come from the two major parties. The only hope we have as a state and a nation, is to alter our current voting system in order to give third party candidates a real chance at victory. Instant runoff voting might be one way we could do that.

Maine has attempted to level the playing field with its Clean Election Act, as an attempt at removing the influence of money on our state races. While a step in the right direction, it has shown some serious flaws. Realistically, it was intended specifically to allow the two women, Independent Barbara Merrill and Green Party candidate, Pat LaMarche, a chance to compete with and legitimately contend for the Blaine House.

Merrill has gone as far as to write a book, following in the footsteps of Maine’s last successful Independent, Angus King. Merrill lays out in detail her positions on the issues that are germane to a state like Maine. Addressing not just the hot button issues that pertain to Portland, or Augusta, Merrill, who hails from Appleton and has represented a rural area of the state, understands the issues that the rural communities of the state face. Subsequently, her positions reflect that understanding.

Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of attending a candidates breakfast, hosted by the Androscoggin Chamber of Commerce, where I got to see the candidates up close and hear them speak to some of the issues. At that point, I was leaning towards Merrill as my candidate of choice, to occupy the Blaine House. Unfortunately, Merrill revealed a very “catty” public persona, going to great lengths to attempt to pin down and even embarrass some of the other candidates, particularly the incumbent, John Baldacci. Of the four candidates, Merrill comes across as the least likeable for me, on a personal level. Call it shallow if you want, but being able to exhibit some personal charm and humanness goes a long way towards building consensus, something Barbara should be aware of, considering her legislative experience.

The one candidate who surprised me, and in all honesty, I shouldn’t have been, is Pat LaMarche. No stranger to politics, having run for both governor and as the Vice President on the Green Party ticket during the 2004 presidential race, LaMarche is personable, well-versed on the issues and the most genuine of the four. A single mother, who raised two children, selling her house to put them through college, LaMarche, of the four, understands the economic realities of most Mainers on a very personal level. As a result, her ideas for economic development, taxes, education and health care reflect the thoughts of many who reside east and west of I-95, in our state.

Unfortunately for LaMarche, being elected governor is probably remote at best, if not impossible. The race has really been a two person affair, up until Chandler Woodcock’s tax problems. That even may have opened the door, just slightly for one of the two women candidates to sneak into the number two slot, which would be an accomplishment. It appears to me, handicapping the race, that Governor Baldacci, despite the many legitimate issues dogging his candidacy, will be reelected governor of the state of Maine.

As of yesterday, I’m leaning strongly towards voting my conscience, rather than once again, throwing up my hands and voting for the lesser of two evils, as I often do. If I had to choose today, then Pat LaMarche would be my choice for governor. In all honesty, I don’t think I’d be too disappointed to wake up on November 8th, knowing we had both a woman and a third party candidate occupying our state’s highest seat.While Pat’s positions on the issues are very much in line with my values and with where I’d like to see our state go, it is Pat’s humanness that has ultimately won me over. I heard her speaking on John McDonald’s Saturday morning radio call-in show. On numerous occasions, McDonald gave her a clear opportunity to plunge the dagger into Woodcock’s candidacy, over his tax snafus. Time after time, LaMarche exhibited a diplomacy that is rare in politics today. Rather than skating around the issue because of political expediency, she refused to take the bait because she legitimately had empathy for Woodcock’s predicament, particularly for his family and how they must feel. While being a nice person doesn’t necessarily mean one will make a great leader, in LaMarche’s case, it dovetails nicely with this woman’s clear positions that have the interests of Mainers and not some party, or rich benefactors, at their core.

We still have over a week to go and something might come up to make me shift my orientation, but stopping short of an endorsement, Pat LaMarche is the only one of the four legitimate choices that I feel good voting for on a personal level.

FMI information about the upcoming elections, check out Maine Impact, a new twice weekly podcast hosted by Lance Dutson and Jason Clarke.

Are Maine's taxes too high--Chandler Woodcock thinks so

As they say, “all politics is local.” As such, our local politics just got a bit more interesting when it comes to our four-way gubernatorial race. Readers of this blog have some context of the nature of our race, at least in terms of the Republican candidate, the bow tied tax crusader, creationist and now we find out, tax dodger.

One of our three major local television stations (and yes, we do have flush toilets and even TV), the ABC affiliate, WMTW-TV Channel 8 reported on their 6 pm newscast that Woodcock has 10 liens placed on his Farmington home over the past nine years. Since 1997, through last year, 2005, Woodcock has experienced tax difficulties. In 2005, the Maine Revenue Service placed a lien on his home for unpaid income taxes from 2003. Additionally, Woodcock has also had difficulty paying his municipal sewer charges. A total of $2,686 was owed to the town of Farmington, with the largest outstanding bill being for $900 and the smallest for $49. Maybe that’s why Woodcock has been so adamant about cutting taxes? We all thought his was a philosophical argument—the typical supply-side conservative at work. Instead, maybe he figured that if he was elected governor, he could find a way out from under his tax difficulties?

Like all good Republicans, when caught with their hand in the scandal cookie jar, Woodcock’s campaign manager, Chris Jackson, trotted out the “timing question,” as in “the timing is more than ironic.”

Jackson claimed that this release of tax information on his candidate was likely a dirty trick by an opponent. Oh yeah! Well, try this on for size.

The story actually broke, not as a result of any investigative work being done by Maine’s crack reporters at one of our supposed award-winning dailies, but as a result of comments that were posted on the Kennebec Journal website. On both October 14th and 25th, readers posted specific information in the comments section about the liens on Woodcock’s home. The first one was posted in response to a letter to the editor in support of the folksy candidate for governor. Both included information about the liens and directed readers to the Franklin County Registry of Deeds website. This is public information and it shows how poorly most journalists (dare I call them that—maybe scribes might be a better term!) do their job. It would seem that public records in a public registry would be a good place to start in investigating a candidate’s background, particularly when running for governor of the state, at a crucial juncture in our state’s history.

Stoic, rather than jocular at this development, Woodcock had this to offer. “I take it for what it is,” in speaking with the Lewiston Sun Journal. “It’s politics. It’s not the politics that I like or practice, but its politics.”

The politics that Woodcock and his fellow conservatives practice is the kind that guts services at the beckon call of their rich benefactors, all in the name of lower taxes. His party and stripe also dictate morality via legislative fiat, maybe because they live so close to the reality of man’s inclination to do wrong.

The Woodcock revelation is just one more case of Republicans saying one thing and doing another, ala Mark Foley. Better yet, Maine's own history of anti-tax support has come from some fairly dubious corners. Does anyone remember convicted felon, Carol Palesky, and the last anti-tax referendum?

I’m sorry that Chandler Woodcock can’t pay his taxes. Maybe in his case, they are too high. However, many more of us who struggle to make a living in a state that needs a more creative solution than mere tax cuts, gallantly suck it up and send off our checks from our meager funds and are offended when others don’t particularly, someone running for governor.