At one point in the MPBN piece Cutler paraphrased what a developer might say:
'My goodness, we can put our money to work in West Virginia or Montana or Chile or somewhere else.'
Of course it could just as easily be:
'My goodness, we can put our inappropriate and environmentally damaging development in West Virginia or Montana or Chile or somewhere else.'
Cutler continues to bemoan the time and expense involved in the Plum Creek development proposal overseen by the Land Use Regulatory Commission (LURC). This appears to be very dismissive of the thousands of Maine citizens who weighed in on the project in oral and written testimony on all sides of this largest development proposal in Maine history in an ecologically significant area that resulted in many changes to the initial development application proposal.
Regarding the expense, Plum Creek paid Sappi $180 million dollars in 1998 for just over 900,000 acres in Maine. Some key facts about the plan's development are contained in this article posted on the Natural Resources Council of Maine website and some key process observations were made by Brownie Carson of the Council in the Bangor Daily News. Eliot Cutler seems to think that Plum Creek's $25 million investment in tremendously increasing the value of 20,000 acres or less than 3% of the original land purchased several fold from $200 an acre for a total $4 million to perhaps more than the $180 million price of the entire parcel they bought in 1998 is insensitive to Plum Creek. Yet Plum Creek got almost everything they wanted for minimal investment, gave conversation easements that may well be paid for largely with public money, and still retains a half of million acres to sell or propose for future development. Seems like an excellent and favorable deal in today's tough real estate market.
Paul LePage also has two cents on DEP and LURC as noted on his website:
Specifically, I propose to eliminate statewide fees on start-up businesses, eliminate bizarre and unreasonable studies resulting in needless delays (i.e. buffalo and black fly census studies in Maine), and eliminate regulations that are incompatible with other regulations, whereby when one regulation is followed, another is violated. In that same vein, I propose that all duplicate and replicated regulations from DEP and LURC be repealed.
It seems abundantly clear that Cutler and LePage are essentially saying the same thing on citizen involvement and having a good deliberative environmental regulatory process to protect the interests of all Maine people; one just dresses it up better.
The five candidates for Governor spoke about agriculture on Tuesday and Paul LePage had an opportunity to address dairy farmers in attendance on how he would make life better for them according to this WABI report:
Candidates told the crowd, that included many dairy farmers, how they would make things a little easier for them. Paul LePage, the Republican nominee for Governor, says the State is taking too much money from local farmers. "I read the report from the Department of Agriculture to the Governor and every page had at least 3 fees. License fees, registration fees every page. It's a 20 page report. No wonder they're going broke, we're feeing them and licensing, and permitting them to death," says LePage.
A detailed search for this fee laden report did not turn up any sort of overall Department of Agriculture report to the Governor and I believe it is very safe to assume that Paul LePage is referring to this 20 page report: Governor's Task Force on the Sustainability of the Dairy Industry in Maine (PDF) based on the fact that he was speaking specifically to dairy farmers.
However, the report does not contain "...at least 3 fees. License fees, registration fees every page", and therefore a minimum total of 60 fees in the 20 page report. The word license does not appear at all within the covers of this document. The word registration comes up once in relation to farm vehicle registration in the context of a recommendation to exempt these vehicles from municipal property and excise taxes which would be the opposite of "permitting them to death". And the word fee comes up 3 times in reference to the "handling fee schedule" and even then it appears once in the Executive Summary, once in the Findings, and once in the Recommendations. So that is 3 appearances of the word fee in the entire 20 pages, not 3 per page and most importantly these 3 mere words are all in reference to the same fee not 3 separate ones! So instead of 60 fees in the 20 page document, we really have mention of 1. Now, just to be fair the word feed appears 5 times but even that possible comprehension problem is far below any reasonable counting error!
The report may not be a perfect solution to the difficulties facing Maine dairy farming. But a simple read of it demonstrates that it is from people who care about the industry, are concerned with its survival, are seeking to support it, and grappling with getting the right solutions in place for dairy farmers in a rapidly changing market. It is precisely the kind of report that one hopes to see government undertaking in an effort to support Maine farming.
There is little doubt that this is the report Paul LePage is referencing but please do challenge him to produce the 20 page report he referenced with the 60 fees highlighted. If he cannot, we need to know before voting if Paul LePage lied to us on camera and lied to dairy farmers or simply cannot read. In either case, he is therefore not fit to be Governor and should go back to his imaginary world of counting fees and buffalo.
As long as we and our President glorify the culture of war and warrior and the projection of force as central to how we engage the world, we seem not to be turning the page:
At every turn, America's men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am proud of their service. Like all Americans, I am awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.
We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization.
Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.
Emphasis on martial pride is a weakness in the long run. The enormous sacrifices made are ones we unfairly demanded. The vast resources expended were undertaken on a deferred basis. Any mention of "shared beliefs" with the Iraqi people harkens back to the sad story of saber rattling propaganda we were fed. And confidence in the future based on military power is a haunting reminder of inability to learn from error.
Glorification of the "troops" also ignores that these fellow citizens are fragile human beings and that they are a reflection of our society. Their sacrifices of time served should not allow us to lessen in our minds the sacrifice of the teacher struggling to engage students in a poor town. Their battlefield heroics are a mirror of exhausted volunteers on our own Gulf coast. Their patriotism is no more or no less than the person speaking out against war and conflict. Their health, marred by war from wound to physiological trauma, is as tragic as that endured by the homeless on our streets. And regrettably, their failings as in the realm of torture, from the person committing the act to the commander not acting responsible, is a mirror of crimes in our society and the willingness of many to distance themselves from responsibility.
None of this is meant to diminish the soldier but to express our shared citizenship in a country that ought not to be so wantonly martial in its outlook. For in the end it is a fellow citizen that we ask to do things in our name and we should be mindful of an observation of Robert F. Kennedy's:
"...whatever the costs to us, let us think of the young men we have sent there: not just the killed, but those who have to kill; not just the maimed, but also those who must look upon the results of what they do." Kansas State University, March 18, 1968
I believe President Obama had a very difficult task in making this speech to a country still caught up in war fever. I further trust that his thinking extends beyond the imperial war culture so pervasive in our institutions. However, from the initial appalling "shock and awe" televised light show to the moment of learning the individual tragedy of the death in Iraq of a friend of my daughter in 2004 to the present calamity of over 4,400 American deaths, many more wounded, so many more Iraqi casualties, and 50,000 United States soldiers and many contractors still in Iraq, I am left still apprehensive that we, as a nation, have not really turned the page.
...he would lengthen the school year, allow charter schools, tie teacher pay to student performance and merge the university and community college systems to improve education in Maine.
Eliot Cutler's proposal of a longer school year may be a very worthy goal. But the idea of lengthening the school year for example to 200 student days would require at least 205 teacher days versus perhaps a current statewide average of 180 days, an increase of 25 days or 14%. In the same breath, Cutler proposes to take away some funding from schools and transfer it to charter schools. This naive belief in the magic bullet of charter schools is one of the biggest problems at the heart of his approach to education.
One essential question is how would Eliot Cutler pay for a longer school year while shifting economic resources away from public education? His stock answer has been a simplistic combination of changing the teacher/student ratio and instituting pay for performance (see note below). Both are actually complex challenges with lots of conflicting statistical analyses.
A real concern is that a candidate for Governor is proposing a significant change in the school calendar and pairing it with a fiscal starvation diet of outsourcing to charter schools. It just does not pass the straight face test. No matter how one slices it from fiscal to student outcomes, there is no compelling evidence that charter schools are an answer to making education for all students better. Private institutions, despite mission statements, profit or non-profit status, and outreach marketing ultimately answer and serve interests outside the public sphere.
In an in-depth wide ranging current report on charter schools by a Stanford study (PDF), a key observation is:
...this study reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well as their TPS [traditional public schools] counterparts. Further, tremendous variation in academic quality among charters is the norm, not the exception. The problem of quality is the most pressing issue that charter schools and their supporters face.
We also need to look at "deferred costs". When we diminish funding to public schools, where the vast majority of students will be left, what will be the costs we did not account for down the road? In Eliot Cutler's world it seems to be a public school system, stripped of the best students, leaving more challenging students in high teacher/student classrooms, managed with great difficulty by lower paid-for-performance teachers because the performance odds have been stacked up against them. That is a long term model for a less competitive state, a less egalitarian society, and increasing the likelihood of crippling social costs.
LePage said he supports charter schools and voucher systems.
"A lot of people in the public education system say, 'Oh, charter schools are just going to leave us the worst students.'
That might be true. But at the same token, you know what you are dealing with, so fix it."
It seems abundantly clear that Cutler and LePage are essentially saying the same thing on charter schools and the funding for public schools disconnect; one just dresses it up better.
Note: Connecting class size to pay teachers more is a for-profit business model misapplied to a necessary government service. It is the lay off model used by companies to get increased productivity. Cut staff (by increasing class size), force higher productivity perhaps at lower quality (teach more students with the same resources), give everyone a bit of a bonus (higher teacher wages for those left standing), and take the lion's share of profits (savings) and pay out dividends to shareholders (taxpayers) that only serves to rearrange the financing but not improve the product or even lower the quality of the product. Shareholders (taxpayers) seem to win with higher dividends in the next quarter (the short term) but lose in the long run when the bubble bursts and the insiders jump with their golden parachutes and dump all the costs of their damage back on the public.
Paul LePage has made it very strikingly clear that one of Maine's finest assets, our environment, is not a priority for him by telling us that on his first day in office, "day one, I come down to Kittery and take down the sign, Maine, the way life should be and put up one that says, Maine, open for business". In fact LePage's website does not even bother to address as an issue, environment, conservation, or any significant concern for Maine's vital outdoors except for a rant under "Government Regulation" that includes now debunked LePage folksy fabricated studies:
...eliminate bizarre and unreasonable studies resulting in needless delays (i.e. buffalo and black fly census studies in Maine), and eliminate regulations that are incompatible with other regulations, whereby when one regulation is followed, another is violated. In that same vein, I propose that all duplicate and replicated regulations from DEP and LURC be repealed.
From way back in the primary campaign, LePage has expressed concern that the Department of Environmental Protection, charged on behalf of the people of Maine to protect the environment is...well, pro-environment:
He said "day two" of his administration, he tackles those DEP regulations, that he said often "serve no purpose except to cost businesses money. The regulatory system has been very adversarial to business and very pro-environment.
"Look at Land for Maine's Future. You can't harvest timber, you can't do any cutting. No one is going to have the benefit of creating wealth and prosperity from it," he said.
The preceding is also a prime example of LePage's willingness to either stoop to outright falsehoods or just make up stuff to fit his own off-the-cuff flawed and false assumptions. That may work in his mind and as a bit of red meat for his followers but for the rest of us in the real world what Land for Maine's Future actual guidelines say will suffice:
Many LMF projects involve easements that permit continued sustainable forestry alongside recreational uses of the land. In these areas, you may encounter active logging operations.
Finally and less known is that Paul LePage's desire to symbolically take down "Maine, the way life should be" is his personal sign off with a group called Americans for Prosperity using his tired anti-tax language to "oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue." It is one more example of the LePage ignore reality and forget any long-term true costs to society attitude.
But despite the pleasant sounding name, what is this group, Americans for Prosperity that Paul LePage has pledged to support and govern us by if elected with his present non-gubernatorial signature? Well it turns out to be, as well documented and exposed in the New Yorker, basically one of many pretend grassroots organizations and tea party operations heavily bankrolled by two billion brothers, Charles and David Koch who own Koch Industries that in turn owns several forest product industries such as Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, and Georgia-Pacific lumber.
The Kochs are also longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry-especially environmental regulation.
It is a long and twisted Maine logging road one has to travel to find where Paul LePage's loyalties lie. And at the end of that road is a fork.
On one, the sign, Maine, the way life should be still stands. That path is protected for sustainable use and travels through many places protected for our children that include good productive timber harvesting in Land for Maine's Future, green energy jobs, and great outdoor recreational resources along with development sensitive to Maine's quality of life that attracts tourists and new residents. Libby Mitchell is hiking far ahead on that trail already.
The other direction will have Paul LePage's sign, Maine, open for business, on it. That road will be clear-cut of our livelihood aspirations, eroded by long term environmental damage, foolishly unregulated - damaging outdoor regulation and traditional Maine forestland pursuits, primarily set aside for out-of-state interests who will export our children's future for unsustainable immediate corporate income without regard to climate damage or consequences. That is what Paul LePage is symbolically signing us up for with Americans for Prosperity and for what his imaginary sign in Kittery represents.
Paul LePage gave us a snapshot of how he would govern and what Maine could look like under his watch at the Waterville Rotary yesterday afternoon.
According to a Morning Sentinel report LePage told his fellow Rotarians that Maine taxpayer has been "ignored and vilified" for years. Check off the "angry and divisive" box.
On welfare he touted his own experience to press for a tiered program with one happy ending being: "At the end of five years, if you still need welfare, I will personally buy a ticket to Massachusetts so they can start over." There were no shreds of understanding of the circumstances of who uses the system, what exceptions are compassionately appropriate, nor where the tier of jobs needed on the other end of his plan will come from in this extremely challenging economy. Check off the "ignore and vilify the welfare bums" box.
Regarding education LePage reiterated his support of charter schools and vouchers while recognizing that, "A lot of people in the public education system say, 'Oh, charter schools are just going to leave us the worst students.' That might be true. But at the same token, you know what you are dealing with, so fix it." Check off the "starve and kick public schools" box.
Perhaps the most eye opening real fact to come from LePage involved his own company's employee health care insurance participation rates:
"In 1996, 71 percent of Marden's employees took health insurance. Today, we're down to 29 percent. Why? Because the other 25 percent that the employee is responsible for is unaffordable."
This is revealing because Paul LePage became general manager of Marden's precisely in 1996. Under his leadership, company health care insurance coverage of employees fell by a whooping 42%! This smacks of a total failure to address a significant problem and at the very worst a possible purposeful plan to cut business costs on the back of employees. Marden's obviously benefited tremendously by not needing to pay the 75% to cover the hundreds of employees that could not afford the plan according to LePage. If anything this prompts more questions about Paul LePage's style of fiscal management. Why didn't he create a tiered system like his welfare plan to address the problem of the 25% burden? Does Marden's pay a living wage to begin with that allows individuals to afford health insurance? Did Paul LePage engage in the same type of games as Wal-Mart when it came to employees and health care?
Paul LePage would be the worst possible kind of governor. He believes that his own mythical story can be simply replicated by anyone regardless of circumstances and economic realities. He offers no real solutions to systemic problems or addressing long term economic concerns. He seems to view Maine as primarily a few salvage boxcars of welfare fraud and education waste that he can mark down and shove out the door to save a few bucks without consequences. For Paul LePage, it will be business as usual.
Paul LePage spoke to the Waterville Rotary Club today continuing his press avoidance and staying on the grip and grin circuit that shuns substantive debate and exposure on issues. This appearance, on home turf (he is a member of this particular club, 1979 to present) gave him another non-threatening setting to play candidate within.
However, another LePage shoot from the hip remark should once again cause Maine citizens to be concerned about whether he is a serious Republican Party nominated candidate that can lead our state or just a tea party mascot for an anti-tax, toss-the-bums out, get rid of the welfare cheats, angry referendum that cannot control himself.
According to the Morning Sentinel, at one point Mr. LePage quipped:
"You want a governor that's not always politically correct and puts his foot in it, you've got me," he said.
Is this what Maine voters really want? Do we really want to trust someone who dismissively makes light of his own lack of sensitivity and forethought? Is this the type of leadership that will help him work with the legislature, state employees, and citizens to meet Maine's challenges? Does this attitude show a genuine appreciation and appropriate degree of respect for everyone in Maine for whom he wishes to serve as Governor?
One of the things heard from time to time is how refreshing Paul LePage's everyman, no frills, says-what's-on-his-mind, plain spoken approach is to some individuals. There is absolutely nothing wrong with direct, unadorned communication if it carries a message of substance. But now, after many blurted out remarks, it is clear that Paul LePage is just hammering away on a limited number of tea party anger points to hold on to a whipped up angry base while crossing his fingers that the three independents take enough votes away from Libby Mitchell to allow him to sneak through the back door of the Blaine House.
It is time for Republican voters with genuine concerns about Maine's future who care about civic responsibility to openly distance themselves from Paul LePage. Their party has been hijacked and it is their party that he has put his foot in.
The Sentinel piece is a PM website news update and hopefully a more substantial report will follow in tomorrow's paper.
Regulatory efficiency, restructuring rules, and cutting regulations are part of the basic political buzz-phrase porridge that when sprinkled with in vogue descriptors such as unnecessary government, job-creating, and small business friendly, serve up a helping of campaign fodder that may seem to taste good but may not nourish Maine's economy.
There is an emerging message making use the preceding rhetoric in the Elliot Cutler campaign that state government under his leadership will tilt profoundly toward business and away from everyday Maine citizens being able to trust state government as a fair referee as well as an advocate for them in economic matters that affect long term worker circumstances and vital environmental concerns. The mantra of opening up Maine for business can be very misleading. Cutler is forcefully stepping up this beguiling refrain.
Cutler said that he would create an Office of Regulatory Review and Repeal within the Governor's Office.
"We're going look at every rule and regulation that's on the books, and we're going to ask Maine businesses to tell us about the unnecessary, unfair, unintelligible rules that are keeping them from growing and investing," Cutler told members of the Brunswick Rotary Club. "Then we are going to change or repeal them.
From the Morning Sentinel regarding the Board of Environmental Protection:
On Monday, Cutler released a plan to restructure government that included the elimination of the board. He argues that investors can spend "million of dollars and several years" trying to get approval from the Department of Environmental Protection and then must defend the proposal in front of the Board of Environmental Protection.
"The way it is set up now is something that sends up a red flag to anyone who wants to make a major investment in Maine," said Cutler Campaign Manager Ted O'Meara.
Instead, Cutler would create a three-judge appellate court to review decisions made by the department and other state rule makers.
Cutler said he would take the permitting and licensing functions away from the Land Use Regulation Commission and turn them over to the DEP. He would then create a Court of Appellate Review to oversee decisions made by the DEP.
Cutler referred to the Plum Creek development in Piscataquis County as an example of development being hamstrung by bureaucratic processes.
"It may have ended up with the right result," he said of Plum Creek. "But it was a train wreck that didn't need to happen."
Lost within Eliot Cutler's dramatic tilt toward business interests are two key considerations.
First, ordinary citizen voices are going to be suppressed and substantially drowned out by business interests that may in the long run not be good for Maine. Cutler's "Office of Regulatory Review and Repeal" is designed, according to his own in house press release to listen to and act on behalf of businesses. Eliminating the Board of Environmental Protection eliminates a ten member citizen panel and replaces it with a three judge court. In his press release Cutler actually terms our citizen board as redundant! Cutler bemoans the time and expense involved in the Plum Creek development proposal overseen by the Land Use Regulatory Commission (LURC). This appears to be very dismissive of the thousands of Maine citizens who weighed in on the project in oral and written testimony on all sides of this largest development proposal in Maine history in an ecologically significant area that resulted in many changes to the initial development application proposal. The pattern of Cutler's proposals is one of clearly moving away from citizen input.
Secondly, regulations are not initially designed with some nefarious intention of being thoughtless bureaucratic hoops to jump through. While over time, it is appropriate and sensible to review and evenhandedly modify rules, bear in mind that every single one came into existence for a real concern that Maine citizens had about the environment, fair employment practices, appropriate development, and long term considerations. Those original intents need to be considered very carefully on not simply sloughed off in haste to appease immediate business interests in a down economy. Even the fact that some of these processes result in the slow down of particular projects is intentional to allow thorough review and hear citizen voices before decisions get implemented that might result in regrets later.
Streamlining and process efficiency is not necessarily a bad thing but the eventual control of a process, what voices are heard in the process, and what is compromised in a replacement process are all vital considerations. Maine citizens want jobs but they want good long term jobs. Maine citizens want a positive business atmosphere but they do not want negative environmental results that harm us in the long term. And Maine citizens always want a voice in their long term future. Maine voters need to be extremely wary as Eliot Cutler continues to lobby us solely on behalf of business interests.
Paul LePage has chosen this event with its potential for business connections, campaign bankrolling, balloons, and a catered meal over joining Libby Mitchell and the three independent candidates in a serious discussion of issues at the only likely debate that will be held in Washington County, which has many pressing economic challenges, unemployment at 10.5%, and both chronic and seasonal under-employment.
Grip and grin retail politics have a place but when it boils down to addressing issues at an important public function, the choice should be clear to candidates who are listening to Maine citizens. Paul LePage is doing voters a disservice by not attending this forum and this is just another example of where his priorities lie.
Yesterday the Kennebec Journal carried a report about Eliot Cutler being named in a lawsuit along with other executives and directors of Thornburg Mortgage Inc. Among other things the article stated:
The New Mexico-based firm specialized in "jumbo loans" -- generally more than $400,000 -- to "super-prime" borrowers with strong credit. It was caught in the credit crunch and its business model collapsed. The firm went bankrupt last year and it is liquidating its assets.
Thornburg was a well-run company that specialized in jumbo, super-prime mortgages to extremely credit-worthy borrowers. It was victim of the greed and corruption on Wall Street that caused the credit crisis that brought down many good companies, large and small, from Maine to California.
We are fortunate that this lawsuit exists, not for any legal exposure of Eliot Cutler, but to allow us to ask: What was Thornburg Mortgage and what did it do, was Thornburg Mortgage a victim or a part of the problem? Just trusting that Thornburg Mortgage was an innocent bystander seems unacceptable.
The Motley Fool, a highly trusted and pragmatic source of investor advice, had this to say about Thornburg Mortgage in February of 2008 in an article well worth reading for a true picture of firm:
Thornburg Mortgage (NYSE: TMA) was one of many mortgage originators dealing with so-called alt-A loans. It loaned money to borrowers with decent credit ratings, but allowed them to avoid fully documenting income and assets when applying for a mortgage.
In other words it was another mortgage company peddling shortcuts to get mortgages in and out the door to make fast money regardless of long term consequences. The "alt-A" loans were used widely in California. Instead of the often told mortgage crisis story of placing people of insufficient means in homes that would get them in over their heads, Thornburg Mortgage loaned to those with the appearance of wealth because of their credit rating but took a huge shortcut around ensuring that the applicants had enough income or assets to handle jumbo $400,000 plus loans. In essence Thornburg Mortgage seems to have concluded that if someone's paper credit rating was good, income and assets could be ignored because in this ever climbing market, these applicants were "too big to fail"
It seems apparent that Thornburg Mortgage was not the innocent bystander they purported to be. They did not simply make sober and safe traditional highly documented loans; they made risky alternative jumbo loans; they also made jumbo ARM loans. Essentially this quote attributed to Eliot Cutler in the aforementioned press release leads one to the wrong conclusion:
"Being caught in the liquidity and credit crisis of 2008-2009 was like being caught in a hurricane. It didn't matter how strong and well-built the ship - and TMI was one of the best and strongest mortgage lenders in America. You couldn't escape the storm."
The "strong and well built ship" of Thornburg Mortgage was having problems of its own in mid-2007 and earlier long before the Wall Street meltdown according to more from the Motley Fool piece:
Thornburg isn't a stranger to liquidity woes. Last summer, it had to dump $21.9 billion in assets to keep its balance sheet healthy enough to fend off bankers. That raised chatter of possible bankruptcy, sending shares into a precipitous plunge, and presenting one of the first tangible news stories that would end up scaring the pants off the entire mortgage market.
Indeed Thornburg Mortgage, formerly the second-largest independent mortgage company after Nationwide, was actually at the forefront of the storm to come; one could even say it was one of the many causes of the storm with its use of alt-A loans which are sometimes referred to as "liar loans" due to the lack of need for income and asset verification and deserved the margin calls (votes of no confidence) that helped bring it down. What we have in the end is another big financial company's executives and directors operating without forethought given to the wider financial implications of their actions and contributing to devastating the American economy due to a short termed mindset of "too big to fail".
Eliot Cutler's explanations of the market technicalities of Thornburg Mortgage's failures during the 2003 to 2009 period he served as a company director are not a core concern of voters in the race for the Blaine house. In Maine the many ramifications of the real estate mortgage bubble, that largely came from elsewhere, have helped destroy our economy and financially devastate many families in our state. We just want to trust that our economic futures will be in the hands of someone who makes very careful, prudent, and perceptive long range decisions that will shape our fiscal wellbeing in the years to come.
Amplification:In researching this matter, Eliot Cutler's continuing relationship with Thornburg Mortgage's founder Garrett Thornburg is unclear. It appears that Eliot Cutler still serves on the board of TMST, Inc. that is Thornburg Mortgage's post bankruptcy successor organization liquidating assets. He also appears to be currently on the board of Thornburg Investment Trust that despite a statement of financial disassociation between the mutual fund company and the mortgage operations, some individuals appear to be or have been associated with both. In terms of financial contributions to Eliot Cutler's campaign for governor, it appears that seven individuals with connections to the Thornburg mutual fund company have given $5,100 to date to his campaign.
Comment by David JP 3 hours ago
Pete, thank you so much for hosting the "BBQ" event. It was a pleasure meeting you and the others that attended. Paul LePage was very IMPRESSIVE. That he remained at the BBQ for approx. 3 and 1/2 hours says a lot about how he values grass roots support. I thoroughly enjoyed the one-on-one talk as people created a circle of lawn chairs to have a Q&A with Paul and to discuss issues facing Maine.
Maine voters do not object to one-on-one opportunities to meet candidates. But it cannot be all one-on-one and one-on-none. Being available to Maine voters requires a healthy mixture of in person campaigning, connecting with voters through a variety of forums and debates, and being available to the press rather than hiding. Concentrating 3½ hours of time in a lawn chair circle chatting with those who echo your views while elsewhere denying a few hours to be engaged with the citizens you expect to serve as Governor is not a good example of the leadership needed and respect deserved by all Maine citizens.
Maybe at the next forum, Libby Mitchell, Shawn Moody, Eliot Cutler, and Kevin Scott who all seem quite able to make time for Maine voters should bring along a grill, some juicy ribs, a delicious salad, and a few cold beverages to entice Paul LePage to speak to the people of Maine. Unless it is the company...
LePage is also not scheduled to attend a debate at the University of Maine at Machias this Thursday, or a forum hosted by the Coastal Journal on Aug. 26 in Bath.
LePage cannot make a third forum now on August 26 in Bath. Instead of participating so that a large group of mainstream Maine voters can hear about his positions and plans on how to lead our state, Paul Lepage due to a "scheduling conflict", will once again be raising a few bucks with members of the Refounders and extreme tea party group. Turns out he will be less than 30 miles away:
Details:
Time: August 26, 2010 from 5:30pm to 9:30pm
Location: Lost Valley Ski Area
City/Town: Auburn, Maine
Event Type: fundraiser
Spend and evening with Paul and Ann LePage-Maine's Next Governor at Lost Valley Ski Area. Hor's d'oevre Buffet with cash bar. Tickets $20 in advance or $30 at the door.
A press release from the Maine Republican Victory Campaign made the rounds over the weekend, excerpts follow:
MAINE REPUBLICANS STAND WITH ARIZONA
AUGUSTA - A resolution in support of Arizona's right to enforce existing federal immigration laws was passed last week at the Republican National Committee meeting in Kansas City. The resolution was introduced by Maine GOP Committeewoman Jan Staples, and received unanimous support.
"Maine Republicans stand with the people of Arizona," said Staples. "As a border state, we understand the gravity of this issue. The safety of our citizens is of paramount importance, and Arizonans have the right to protect themselves in light of lax federal enforcement."
The resolution cites specific support of S.B. 1070, a bill passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.
and
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll showed a majority of Mainers support the passage of an Arizona-like law in Maine, with only 39% supporting the Obama Administration's decision to sue the state of Arizona.
"We are proud that Maine is leading the way in support of Arizona," said Maine GOP Chair Charlie Webster.
I am struck by the reference to "passage of an Arizona-like law in Maine". Is this part of what the Maine Republican Victory Campaign hopes to achieve in the future?
After all the concern and exceptions extended to businesses and families who enjoyed decades of cross border relaxed exchanges between Maine and our Canadian neighbors during the move to new passport requirements, do Republicans now want to have local law enforcement officials during stops to attempt to determine a person's immigration status given some sort of suspicion that the person is an "illegal alien"?
At the heart of the Arizona debacle is that profiling of Hispanics will necessarily take place in actual police practice despite how the law is written. What type of profiling in Maine would take place? Perhaps a French accent would prompt a demand for papers. Can we expect Paul LePage to reject this resolution and to speak out forcefully in opposition to such a law and the malpractice of it in Maine on behalf of border communities and Franco-American Maine citizens? Of course this would occur only if he is a truly common sense thinker he purports to be and not just another rigid right-wing politician.
The Republican Party resolution offered by Jan Martens Staples, National Committeewoman of Maine, follows the jump.
Now Mr. Billings and I are likely on the opposite side of issues over 90% of the time. However when it comes to election analysis for the upcoming race for the Blaine House, I think his commentary in today's Kennebec Journal has it just about right: Independent candidates muddy waters, but it's a 2-person race.
Here is his key closing observation:
Though Maine has elected two Independent governors, it's not going to happen this year. Both parties have nominated strong candidates, and none of this year's Independents has the personal appeal of Angus King or Jim Longley.
More importantly, three Independent candidates in the race makes it impossible for one to gain momentum. While the Independents complicate the campaign, voters should not be distracted. It is a two-person race between LePage and Mitchell.
That seems just about right to me; I believe Cutler cannot poll above 20% because of both party candidates having a virtual lock on a healthy majority of their potential party line voters and a reasonable portion of independent voters for various reasons. They both are at least set to pull in a base of 35% of the vote prior to a heating up fall campaign that I believe an independent will not be able to break through.
Of course the disclaimer that anything can happen has to be said. But I think that if anything happens it will most likely happen to Paul LePage's detriment and be self inflicted. And the hard-line LePage voters really have no where to go if any abandon him. A sit out of these voters is his most likely apprehensive complication. If party loyal more moderate Republicans abandon him, they will more likely scatter rather than move to a single candidate; they could possibly sit it out too.
An yes, in closing, it was indeed hard to pen a sentence with 'Dan Billings' and 'right' in it without the word 'wing'.
In the midst of all the xenophobia abounding in our country today is claim that terrorists are infiltrating this country through loose borders and that is one reason to build walls. Despite there not being any evidence of such border crossings, it is a myth that the right continues to perpetuate.
Xenophobia fears fit real well in conspiracy theories, even the most outlandish. We now have another shot being fired in this mad campaign to put not only this country behind walls but also citizenship itself in the idea now being floated to deny birth citizenship. Terrorists are coming to this country and having babies so they can reenter decades later and attack America!
If not so serious, racist, and so obviously a straw man diversion tossed into the immigration debate, this would be laughable. But many now drunk on right wing tea will think it must be true because a crazy Texas Congressman says it is:
Sometimes when I hear that crazy secessionist talk down there in the Lone Star state, I just want to say, "Let Texas go". But I realize it would not be fair to either Mexico or the United States to put a belligerent nation on our borders.
In a Press Herald "Maine Voices" piece today, Maine Citizens for Clean Elections Co-chairs Alison Smith and Ann Luther point out that Maine is targeted in the national effort to overturn campaign public finance laws: Suit against Clean Election law an effort to halt political speech
But James Bopp and his allies are in court to ensure that campaign finance laws - or the lack thereof - give Maine people the best government that money can buy. Their complaint asks the court to halt the payment of matching funds in all races this year - races that are already under way! The candidates who have already qualified for Clean Elections are bound by its modest spending limits with no ability to raise additional funds or spend their own money.
The lawsuit also seeks to lift the $750 contribution limit to privately funded candidates in the gubernatorial election. Why? Because one plaintiff wants to give more than the current limit of $750 to his favorite gubernatorial candidate, Republican Paul LePage.
At first glance, this lawsuit might look like an overt attempt to advantage a privately funded Republican over a publicly funded Democrat in the race for governor. But its impact is much bigger than that.
Hundreds of legislative candidates, including Republicans, Democrats, Greens and independents, are participating in Clean Elections this year. Changing the rules in the middle of the game would deny these candidates the dollar-for-dollar matching funds to which they are entitled if they are outspent by a privately funded opponent or by independent expenditures.
Reducing moneyed interests, corporate influence, or private funded campaign machine advantages to give wide opportunity for non-wealthy voices and office seekers to address issues that affect our lives is not a luxury. Clean election funding is an essential service to protect our democracy from unspoken quid pro quo expectations and providing equal access to the electoral processes. It is as key to leveling the playing field as any other civil rights protection.
There are two in a row public forums or debates that Paul LePage will not attend due to "scheduling conflicts". But of course, candidates for Governor ultimately decide what is important in their schedules. Apparently, speaking to Maine citizens in a substantive and in an informative way on issue positions is not a priority of Paul LePage. So he will blow off (as of this writing, we rather hope to shame him into appearing) the August 13 gubernatorial forum sponsored by The Island Institute in Rockland and the August 19 candidate debate at the University of Maine at Machias.
These "schedule conflicts" are unknown and we hope to find out eventually what events are more vital than these important public forums. It does not seem as if Paul LePage will be completely away. On August 12th, he will be at the Skowhegan Fair from 5:00 to 7:00 PM, on August 14th he will attend the Pal Hop Reunion at the Androscoggin Bank Colisee in Lewiston at 9:00 PM, and on August 15th he will be at a BBQ with Pete the Carpenter to raise money from the right wing tea party group the Refounders.
It is unknown if it is the press or the professors asking questions that are the concern of Paul LePage. To his defense, Dan Billings has posted at As Maine Goes:
In Paul's case, he is not taxpayer funded and is not self-funded. He has a busy schedule of fundraisers all summer. He needs to raise money to win. If he has a fundraising event on the books, I would expect that would be a priority.
Chasing cash over connecting with voters is a poor choice and with Paul LePage's much bragged about win with little cash in the primary because of his supposed ability to connect with grassroots voters, it would seem that priorities would be just the opposite of Mr. Billings musings.
There do not seem to be any pressing events of a ceremonial nature for the ceremonial Mayor of Waterville according to the city's website. Perhaps it is pressing private sector business interfering? LePage did announce that he would be taking a leave of absence from Marden's and according to the Bangor Daily News on June 24 already is on leave. At any rate, he seems to be able to make a great deal of other events, again it all boils down to priorities.
Perhaps Paul LePage is getting the makeover after his gaffe, gripe, and groan start to the campaign. That may not be unusual. A number of extreme tea party candidates from Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada needed to get an overexposure break from their radical messages in order to emerge later with a hopefully little more Republican constraint and toned down rhetoric.
Yet Paul LePage is hiding and we are left seeking. He is ducking substantive issue forums but seems out and about doing backslapping retail politicking and tax bashing at fairs, dances, and picnics. It almost seems like LePage wants to dine, sing and dance rather than debate, speak, and discuss.
Paul! Paul LePage! Game's over! Ally, ally, in free!
In a piece entitled Governor's Race: Governor's Race: Independent Scott moves and shakes in the Maine Sunday Telegram we get a profile of Kevin Scott that provides some background on the candidate which portrays him as a quirky outsider that would make one pause before considering seriously in any way, shape or form. In the middle of many interesting tidbits was this interesting note:
Scott said he's never enrolled in a political party.
He describes himself as a fiscal conservative and social liberal. He has reached out to a Maine tea party group, the Maine Refounders, by responding to its questions online.
Here's a screenshot of the top of the page in which Scott answered questions put to him by Refounders:
Here are a few of Kevin Scott's positions in response to Refounders' inquiries. These have been gathered from cached pages now that Refounders have ducked under the radar by requiring registrations and password access to their site.
1. Unions - no, no formal negotiation with unions. However, I have negotiated with and succeeded in building a coalition in my town to require our town employees to pay a portion of their own health care. Prior to my involvement and initiating an article at town meeting our 7 employees all worked 20 hours and received 100% medical! A few of those 7 opted for a "cash in lieu option" as well. Just crazy. We changed that in a town where seven employees are related to almost everyone. By secret ballot we overturned this insult to the taxpayer. If you think that was easy you try getting a small town to move away from the "good old boy network" We did it. And I will say no person does this work alone, no one person manages to make that kind of technical change alone.
2. I am Pro life. I have compassion for those who feel choice is the only answer - it is not. We need to move in a direction where our families have time, dignity, and the ability to make the right choice. Private charity can show a lot of progress on these issues. We need to lift up and reward young women, higher than we do the crime that is pro sports and celebrities! Lets cherish life with compassion and understanding for those who feel otherwise.
3. 10th Amendment - I will do more to advance the cause of States rights than any other candidate. Good luck having a national party republican take that one on. I am in the best position to do so as I have no debts to those who will elect me other than voters - they way it should be. The complexity of this issue is immense and my strategy is a bit more advanced than you will know until we meet and discuss off line.
4. 2nd amendment - I will always hold the second amendment to mean individual right to bear arms.
5. Only to provide for as it say in our Constitution Article I section 8. What is missing in today's world is the context of the words "general welfare" at the time when this article was written. General welfare was not about "welfare" as we define it today. The founders were worried about the open end of this term and I am happy to discuss more if you like.
6. No, I do not support gay marriage. But, again, I respect all people, individual, and privacy for all. If citizens vote in referendum to legalize gay marriage as Governor I would have to uphold that law, just as I must uphold the "no" to gay marriage referendum. I would not promote, propose, or otherwise advance a gay marriage bill on my own initiative.
7. Simply determine what laws & regulations (EPA, DEP, etc...) promote free enterprise in Maine and go in that direction. If Federal legislation stands in the way it will be dealt with in a strategic way designed to ensure the best outcome for Maine. I will build a coalition among States as a part of my leadership role.
8. 13 billion reduction - by putting in place a process, law, etc that moves in a sustainable (actual definition of sustainable, not some UN context) direction for our government. I am not anti-government. We must create law and government that will be feasible over the long run. By moving in a direction that can support itself the existing problem will then be isolated in order to be dealt with accordingly. The number one priority is a new direction that will not create unfunded liability. Basically, reduce the size and scope of State government. I can do this and I will do this with the help of the voters. Voters are the key so you all need to be ready to step up as I am. I will work to promote "average" voters who want to run for the legislature in two years time from my winning the governors office. This alone will move Maine in the direction we want.
9. & 10 combined. I will promote existing Maine business regardless of size. I will respect all business regardless of size. Unions must be respectfully put into a position to stop hurting Maine citizens. I have details and strategy I can discuss off line.
The entire discussion is similar with Kevin Scott replying to questions in a way to reach out to the tea party movement. The Telegram piece defines Scott as a small town controversial bully with quirky political ideas making a play for tea party votes in a quixotic pursuit of the Governorship. One cannot help but deduce that this will be a low single number percentage candidacy when votes are finally counted.
One cannot help but also wonder about why Kevin Scott's fringe candidate dabbling with the tea party is any different that Paul LePage's even deeper involvement of actually registering with Refounders, jumping into voluntary discussions with Refounders, and even fundraising with the Refounders as noted a week ago on a Dirigo Blue post titled Paul LePage Paranoia Pandering.
The fact is that Paul LePage, like Kevin Scott, is just a small town controversial bully with quirky political ideas making a play for tea party votes in a quixotic pursuit of the Governorship. But because he blustered his way to the Republican nomination, he seems to be getting a pass at his out-of-step with reality politics and tack to the far right of the tea party in an appeal for angry, backlash, and extreme issues votes. One cannot help but feel that Paul LePage, like Kevin Scott, really ought to only tally up a low single number percentage result when votes are finally counted if we are truly paying attention.
While the Grand Old Tea Party nominee tries to figure out how to make the Governor's race an angry referendum on taxes, social issues, throwing bums out, states rights, federal overreach, or anything else that might fire up his right wing base, Libby Mitchell has been quietly and competently building consensus toward solutions to Maine's challenges.
Libby is working hard and demonstrating the one trait that Paul LePage lacks completely, the ability to govern. Today's Kennebec Journal reported on each of her primary opponents joining her team in a substantive role:
The three rivals who lost to Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell in the Democratic Party primary will lead policy subcommittees in support of her gubernatorial campaign.
Former Attorney General Steven Rowe, Stanford Management Chief Executive Officer Rosa Scarcelli and former Department of Conservation Commissioner Patrick McGowan have agreed to solicit input from people across the state on topics such as jobs, energy, and education, the Mitchell campaign announced Wednesday.
Each of these individuals brought unique perspectives and diverse backgrounds and supporters to the quest for the Democratic nomination. Each one had a positive vision and proposed solutions to Maine challenges worthy of further consideration.
Libby Mitchell's tapping into this talent base demonstrates a commitment to bringing people together to tackle tough issues. It demonstrates a commitment to consensus building over gridlock. And it offers a glimpse into how she will lead Maine.
At the end of this campaign we are not looking for an obstructionist to obstruct nor an administrator to administrate but a Governor to govern. Libby Mitchell is not thrashing around like Paul LePage nor craftily tuning a message like Elliot Cutler; she is engaging her energies in working on jobs and business development with Rosa Scarcelli, energy and the environment with Jim McGowan, and education with Steve Rowe. And many other people with all kinds of experiences and backgrounds are working with her too.
The Governor's office is for governing and serving the aspirations of Maine's citizens. It requires consensus building and input from all facets of Maine's society. Without doubt, Libby, as Governor, will include leaders from across the political spectrum beyond the Democratic Party, just as she did as Senate President. This is a no-nonsense, get the job done for Maine, set egos aside approach typical of her that Maine citizens expect. Libby is ready to govern. She gets things done.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an