Between the Governor and a hyperactive Legislature, it seems likely that Maine voters will be inundated with bond opportunities to vote for come the next election.
If history is any indicator, just about any harebrained scheme has a good chance of coming to fruition if its originator can manage to get it formulated as a bond issue and presented to the voting public festooned with ribbons and bows such as, "We owe it to our children", "the environment", "our health-care future", etc., etc.
I am flummoxed as to why the voters will continue to authorize borrowing more and more money when State revenues consistently fall short of being able to make required payments on our current indebtedness despite massive infusions of Federal tax money in addition to our own crushing tax burden. The very first step in escaping the deep hole that we are engineering is to STOP DIGGING!
Augusta's rejoinder is always that this is a perfect time to borrow money because the interest rates are so low and future savings will pay for the loan many times over.
Bull!
Borrowing more and more money and then trying to repay it, plus interest, has never saved the taxpayers of Maine a penny. All it does is raise taxes and fees and to sink us deeper into debt and with the reluctance of the ruling lords of Augusta to rein in spending to at least balance with revenues coming in, the projected "savings" have never materialized.
Democrats, of course are Democrats and the majority of them have no concept of fiscal responsibility. Washington, in their view, can simply print more money to cover its (our) indebtedness. Maine does not have that luxury, although our state ruling political class is doing its best to emulate the indefensible spending splurge engineered by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid under the guise of "stimulus" and a new "budget" that effectively doubles the national deficit.
And it really ticks me off when some Republicans, both in Washington and Augusta, sign off on this foolish, irresponsible path to destruction.
Government does nothing to create wealth; it is simply in the business of its redistribution while enhancing the lifestyle of elected officials and selected acolytes
At least Augusta is not whining about how they inherited all of the economic woes plaguing Maine, unlike the new national administration (who conveniently ignores the fact that Democrats have effectively controlled Congress for over two years and that the Democratic leadership, including the new President, voted for all of the same policies that they now castigate).
Can anyone say with a straight face that profligate spending and continuing to recklessly borrow money that you know that you will not be able to pay back would not result in utter disaster if you applied this concept to your personal finances?
Maine cannot print money; Augusta can only raise taxes and fees in order to meet the financial obligations that they assume in our name. Augusta has a long history of promoting bond issues for "vital" projects to replace money siphoned off to pay for social agendas advanced by special interest groups who depend upon taxpayer funding for their existence.
Washington is discovering that the bonds and other promissory instruments that they are attempting to peddle are beginning to be viewed with some suspicion and buyer's reluctance by other nations. Maine's bond rating has recently been subject to skepticism on the part of prospective purchasers.
The next time that you are in a voting booth deciding upon a bond issue, one might apply the same standards that you would utilize in making a personal purchase. Is this something that you really need? Should money for this particular item be instead supplied through the money that you already pay in taxes and fees? An additional bond means that the money to pay for it is going to be coming out of your pocket for years to come. Do you really want to reduce your income for this particular expenditure?
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical" - Thomas Jefferson
Then again, if you are not a taxpayer, my argument has little meaning for you, does it?
Prior to the purchase of Verizon's Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont landlines and internet connections, FairPoint Communications was a little bit like a franchise; it did have 300,00 customers but those customers were spread across the country in 17 states, mostly in small urban and rural areas.
Then on April 1 2008, FairPoint had 1.6 million more customers in Northern New England, and, in my humble opinion, FairPoint didn't have then and does not have now the management or the technical ability to handle the conversion.
In April 2008 I wrote to the Maine PUC to complain that the new FairPoint Maine website did not have the costs of phone or internet plans, even though all other FairPoint websites did have this information. I argued that prior to the April 1 2008 takeover, FairPoint had months to create a website with this information. The lack of this information caused a very sharp spike in calls to the FairPoint customer service lines.
Kathy Adams of the Maine PUC responded to me by email, agreeing that the lack of cost information was a problem, but wrote "The information is on the website as required by Commission rules (www.tariffs.net/faripoint/tier.asp?cid=1647) but it is not in a user-friendly format, nor is it easy to find."
1) No customer trying to find out if FairPoint was cheaper than, say, digital phone, could find this web site, even by Google search, and
2) The link Ms Adams provided did not work.
A key assumption by FairPoint Communications in talking over the Verizon customers was that 2,500 to 3,000 Verizon employees would prefer to stay in Northern New England and work for FairPoint. I argued then that there was an error in this part of their business plan, and my argument turned out to be correct. A sizeable number of Verizon employees choose to stay with Verizon.
In 2008 FairPoint lost more than 150,000 customers in Northern New England, and company-wide, FairPoint lost 12% of its landline customers. The average of lineline customer loss by telecommunication companies nationwide in 2008 was 7%.
On February 9 of this year, FairPoint had a backlog of 24,000 service orders. In this backlog were people without any service, businesses starting up or relocating and needing service, etc. Ms Adams of the Maine PUC told me twice in 2008 that the PUC was carefully monitoring FairPoint's customer service.
If so, how did the PUC and FairPoint allow the service order backlog to grow to this size?
If CMP or Bangor Hydro had a backlog of 24,000 service orders, CMP and Bangor Hydro would have brought in 500 or more extra workers from other states.
In my humble opinion, there have been simply too many snafus related to the transfer of the linelines, the email accounts, the billing transfer and the service order backlog to accept the argument that FairPoint is capable of handling the 1.6 million customers it received from Verizon.
(I am completely ignoring here the 911 problems because FairPoint claims those problems were Verizon related and Verizon argues otherwise.)
Regarding the errors in the transfer of email accounts and billing from Verizon: in my prior life, I supervised the transfer of data from large computer systems to newer systems. In the run up to the transfers, employees tested, retested and then tested again each and every detail of the planned process, first with small batches of accounts and then with batches with accounts in the hundreds of thousands. With this pretesting, every actual transfer worked without a flaw.
By Tuesday evening FairPoint had to deliver to the Maine PUC a plan outlining how the company will address customer service and billing problems.
My concern is not with the details of FairPoint's response, but with the Maine PUC and its apparent inability to adequately anticipate this "goldfish attempts to swallow whale" failure.
It is true that the ME, VT and NH PUCs hired an outside contractor, Liberty Consulting Group of Pennsylvania, to oversee the transition, but these problems occurred nevertheless.
And if there was active oversight of FairPoint as the PUC's Ms Adams stated, how did the service backlog get to be so huge without the PUC knowing about it or demanding that action be taken.
I argue today, as I did a year ago, that it is my humble opinion, that neither "the PUC nor FairPoint has the management, the technical abilities or the horsepower to oversee or to make this transition from Verizon to FairPoint successful. Northern New England is already behind MA, CT and RI technologically, and we don't need FairPoint's failures to cause us to fall even further behind
How can we, the citizens of Maine, expect FairPoint's delivery on Tuesday's plan or any subsequent plan to be successful given FairPoint failures over the last year and the history of the PUC's lack of anticipating these problems?
Certainly, it is in the American psyche to want the underdog to succeed in spite of the odds against him.
However, it is time for the PUCs of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, the State legislatures and Governors to realize this "goldfish attempts to swallow whale" experiment might never work.
To be notified immediately of new tweets from those you follow, you can use a PC program such as Mad Twitter, a Mac program such as Twitterrific, or for the iPhone/iTouch, many apps like Twitterific or a web based client such as Hahlo.
There is a legal requirement that cats and dogs have updated rabies shots on a periodic basis. A visit to the local veterinary clinic generally results in the rabies vaccination, Lyme disease inoculation, heartworm protection, general health check, etc. - procedures recommended as preventative health care.
Put the cost all of these treatments together and one can understand why the modern veterinary clinic tends to resemble any other health facility, complete with X-ray, laboratory and in-patient facilities. For those who have a close relationship with animal companions this can be a reassuring, if expensive, safety net.
The annual "preventative visit" for our dog turned into a lengthy ordeal when she developed what at first appeared to be a vaccine reaction, suddenly coupled with an apparent urinary tact infection. The bright, happy, playful animal that I took in for her appointment turned, in a few short hours into a miserable, lethargic, incontinent creature who could barely move her hind quarters, refused all food and appeared to be in constant pain.
After two more visits, a number of hours hooked to an intravenous hydration system, X-rays, lab tests, steroid and antibiotic injections and several days of intensive home nursing I finally have my friend back.
The experience was emotionally exhausting and financially trying and has convinced me that one should take as much care in choosing a treatment provider for their animals as we do for our other family members. Something went very wrong somehow and I have not been able to determine exactly what or why.
The attending vet informed me that sometimes animals have a reaction to vaccines and that this reaction will occasionally trigger an incipient illness that may normally take longer to manifest overt symptoms. Plausible, but it got me to thinking.
My sister-in-law, who is employed in a hospital, commiserated with us over this incident and related that her medical facility treats vaccination and inoculation reactions on a frequent basis. Flu shots, in particular, she said have resulted in some very severe symptoms that required inpatient treatment.
I personally have avoided flu shots for years because in the past they have always made me feel worse than any occasional bout with the flu (this is not a practice that I am advocating; everyone should consult their healthcare provider regarding immunizations).
Still, there is a nagging question that surfaced for me. Who is to say that something has not been added to vaccines and immunization serums to prolong their "shelf life" so that new batches need not be manufactured so frequently? And what effect might such additions have on some recipients?
Let me be clear. Preventative medicine has made an enormous difference in reducing the danger of such diseases as polio, smallpox, diphtheria and other childhood menaces. When I was very young, immunizations were given as a routine part of grade school. Again, a health provider is the best source of advice regarding the need for and number of immunizations required for children and adults.
And yet ……… I hear of young children receiving as many as six shots during one visit. I see advertisements trumpeting products that will provide a "germ-free" environment for our family. I read of great increases in the number of asthmatics and once uncommon allergies. Scientists debate a potential link between certain immunizations and autism.
In general, our life expectancy has increased significantly over the last hundred years. But our diet (and medicines?) now contains many additives that might have an effect on our immune systems and general health, not to mention other potential detriments from many different environmental factors. Are we giving our natural immune systems the opportunity to develop by confronting and overcoming the hazards that abound in our surroundings?
In a life that has spanned nearly seven decades and afforded me a close-up view of medicine, law, accounting, business and politics I have developed the suspicion that individual practitioners (including "experts") are not infallibly right and their services should be sought with a degree of respectful skepticism and caution.
"The act would grant union certification if a majority of employees signaled their desire to form a union by signing cards that would be submitted to the National Labor Relations Board. These cards are not secret ballots. Instead, a union organizer can be present when they're filled out … Taking away the right of workers to vote in secret on whether to have a union is fundamentally unfair. In advocating for this approach, unions have ceded the high ground and lost an opportunity to build support for its concerns about employer intimidation and resistance to first contracts."
"PORTLAND, Maine - L.L. Bean Inc., the Maine-based clothing and outdoor-goods retailer, anticipates layoffs this year after annual revenue dropped for only the third time since 1960, the company's CEO told employees in a memo Monday … Revenue for the company's fiscal year that ended late last month was $1.5 billion, down 7.8 percent from the previous year, and sales are expected to be down in 2009, as well, said Chris McCormick, president and CEO. Privately held Bean doesn't release earnings."
Welcome to Maine tuppence. You will find government here just as unjust here as where you are from. Remember these words, " Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!" I have been one who has questioned the bookkeeping of my town and I cannot make heads or tails out of it. That is the way they want it and the way that the Maine Municipal Association wants it to be. They want the overtaxed citizens of a town to be like mushrooms, fed horse manure and kept in the dark.
end quote
I realize that many Portland Press Herald readers will be horrified to see a link to the As Maine Goes forum on this website, but this is the most enlightening/entertaining discussion of New England town government that I've ever come across. Go here to view the complete thread …
Matthew Continetti holds forth at length on this subject in an article featured in the March 2d edition of "The Weekly Standard". He cites Bill Clinton and Paris Hilton as sterling examples, but offers no slack to George Bush, Jack Abramoff, Martha Stewart, Enron executives, CIA Director George Tenet, Gen. George Casey, Donald Rumsfeld - the list is inexhaustible.
Our cultural elites fare no better. Paris Hilton is arguably the poster child for the inequality, promiscuity and moral bankruptcy of much of the "celebrity" contingent. The child abuse scandals of the Catholic bishops and priests, the steroid scandals and infantile behavior of many of our sports icons and the pervasive rot affecting our economic system have heavily contributed to the enormous decline in institutional credibility.
The problem is not inherited from the Bush administration; it is systemic. One needs look no further than current political corruption for verification. The Chairman of the House committee that writes the tax code (Rep. Charles Rangel) is under investigation for cheating on his taxes. A leading House appropriator, Rep. John Murtha, is under investigation for accepting illegal campaign contributions. The chairman of the Senate banking and housing committee (Sen. Chris Dodd) is under fire for a sweet mortgage deal that he received.
Obama cabinet nominee Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew because of an investigation into his handling of the awarding of state contracts and Tom Daschle and at least one other Obama appointee have withdrawn due to tax problems. Timothy Geithner, Obama's new Treasury Secretary, was confirmed despite overwhelming evidence that he cheated on his tax returns (and he now oversees the IRS?).
Political corruption certainly has not disappeared, but has simply changed its partisan affiliation.
Is it any wonder that populism, the sentiment that American elites are not acting responsibly, is on the rise?
Unfortunately, populism, while inculcating a vague suspicion of elites that reinforces notions of equality and majority rule, can also spawn political utopias, contempt, resentment, suspicion, paranoia and, in extremity, the designation of "enemies of the people".
In a recent speech President Obama stated, quoting the disciple Paul, "It is time to put away childish things".
The values associated with adulthood, such as independence, self-sufficiency, modesty, decorum, fidelity and civility should be admired and emulated. It is disappointing that so few of these virtues are recognizable in so many of the people who run our country and/or impact our society.
President Obama has the opportunity - and the duty - to make good on his promises of "hope and change". It is disturbing that he does not seem to understand that by transferring the burden of responsibility from the individual to the government he is not strengthening the pillars of respectability and virtue that support a healthy middle-class existence, but instead is encouraging dependence upon the state and discouraging personal responsibility.
Despotism can take many forms.
Alexis de Tocqueville, in volume Two of "Democracy in America", describes "an immense tutelary power" that willingly works for the citizens, "provides for their security, forsees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry (and) divides their inheritances" all the while providing society "with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules".
And what is the result?
"The most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one's acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than an herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepard." --- Alexis de Tocquerville, from "Democracy in America", volume two, part four, Chapter Six
I have borrowed liberally from the thoughts of de Tocquerville and Mr. Continetti. Any associations and conclusions reflect my beliefs as a conservative. The warnings should be self-evident.
Southern Maine hospitals will collect about $90 million in back payments for services to MaineCare patients from the state and federal governments in the next two years … The payments, for care that dates back to 2005, will be taken from the $300 million that Maine expects to receive for Medicaid reimbursements under the federal economic stimulus.
Subscribe