In a recent Press Herald Op-Ed piece William Strauss, a member of the Maine Pellet Fuels Association, made a sensible argument for utilizing one of Maine's most obvious renewable resources by advocating the use of pellet - burning wood stoves.

There is no question that Maine's forest industries have declined drastically over the past decade and that jobs would be created if efforts were made to increase the use of wood-powered heating systems for homeowners and perhaps even some commercial buyers.

After facing heating oil costs of over four dollars a gallon during the heating season of 2007-2008, I bit the bullet and made the decision to install a wood stove.

Apparently, I was not alone in this approach since nearly all of the wood-heating systems dealers that I contacted were "too busy" to come to my home and conduct an onsite audit to help determine the best product for my needs.

I did finally manage to find a dealer who sent a helpful, professional, sales rep to my home. During the audit process, I learned that the newer models of wood stoves have been designed to burn more efficiently, thereby eliminating much of the smoke and odor that could annoy the neighbors. There is also less wood ash produced and with the addition of a blower to the unit a larger space can be warmed.

Pellet burning units were not a part of my plan, since I have sufficient tree growth on my property to ensure fuel for the foreseeable future. Actually, the removable of dead and diseased trees alone should produce enough firewood to meet my needs for the first few heating seasons and I estimated that the cost of purchase and installation should be recovered over the next four years.

For those of you who have ever embarked on renovation efforts involving an older home you know full well that, "The devil is in the details".

My initial speed bump resulted from the demise of a trusted, but elderly chainsaw. The new one is better engineered and more efficient, I will admit.

Then the problem surfaced of how to move felled trees from the woodlot to a position near the house where I could work up the logs and stack the split lengths to await transport to the cellar. Fortunately, a neighbor was available with a tractor to hire out - until his three-year old machine developed an undiagnosable malady. Back to the drawing board for a plan that eventually relied on an overworked ATV and small trailer.

The process of splitting five cords of firewood with a splitting maul and wedges convinced me that my aging back would benefit from the purchase and employment of a log splitter.

And hauling logs over my old woods road has necessitated ongoing repair work.

Indeed, the past winter has bolstered the old adage, "Wood heats you several times; when you cut it, when you split it, when you haul it in and when you burn it".

Still, I reduced my use of heating oil approximately sixty per cent. Since my hot water baseboard system is linked to my oil furnace I am not completely independent of fossil fuel for heating purposes.

I am fortunate in that I have the time to harvest all of my own firewood and at this point I have no plans to change to a wood pellet system. That would be a viable option, however, for anyone without the resources to support a traditional wood stove or boiler.

Over the course of my many years of employment I have found few times when I could duplicate the satisfaction gained from reviewing my pile of well-seasoned firewood. It is a tangible reminder of challenging physical work performed out-of"doors in an environment that I love.

I also find that I now have an inordinate interest in shows about logging on the Discovery Channel, logging clothes and equipment, more powerful ATV's/Utility Vehicles (and even small tractors) and such esoteric items as log skids. "Boys and their toys", to quote my wife.

I cannot help but wonder, as I watch our new President careening around the globe making endless apologies for America's actions while expressing relief that no one is blaming him personally, passively accepting insults from tinhorn dictators, committing social gaffes with both visiting heads of state and while abroad, and ignoring nuclear challenges from the likes of Iran and North Korea, if anyone who voted for this man is perhaps having second thoughts.

Employing an "apocalyptic style", he has bombarded us with crisis after crisis (which his Chief of Staff has reminded us are opportunities that "should never be wasted"), tripled the National Debt, broken a campaign pledge to deny the appointment of lobbyists to his administration (to the tune of over two dozen "waivers"), appointed a notorious tax cheat as Secretary of the Treasury (and titular head of the IRS), apparently has problems finding any capable nominees for top government positions who are free from tax evasion issues, and has begun an unprecedented attempt to install government dominance over the free market.

Despite his eagerness to castigate his predecessor at every opportunity, he has maintained many of the prior administration's policies on issues including the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security and the economy.

Obama is still immersed in peripatetic campaigning while his lack of sagacity and experience becomes more apparent on a daily basis.

These are troubling times for America, requiring calm, ethical, intelligent leadership and the ability to perceive and implement policies designed to stabilize our economy, maintain our position as a world leader and meet the challenges of those who would hasten our decline.

Instead, we have an ideologue whose utopian visions were influenced by the radical left throughout his privileged youth and buttressed by his lack of connection with the "real economy", since he has received paychecks from either government or nonprofit entities throughout his working life.

An FDR-style statist with grand ambitions to alter the American political landscape, Obama appears more in tune with his personal agenda than with meeting the current urgent needs of this country.

It has not taken long for him to unveil his vision of an American socialism that "will mirror Europe's ennui - a landscape of bored, trapped worker bees beholden to the machinations of the almighty state, their daily concerns epitomized by the fear that someone else may unjustly and capriciously become the recipient of some tiny, incremental benefit denied themselves" (Victor Davis Hanson).

Obama is clearly enthralled with centralized executive authority, intent on providing government with the opportunity to play a major role in the direction of the economy both through the leverage created by government funding of the automotive and financial sectors and, more indirectly, through increased centralized planning of the economy in general.

He is fawningly aided and abetted by an adoring media, who is so deeply committed to his success that they have become willing foot-soldiers in the "Ministry of Truth".

Is this the information that convinced enough voters to elect Obama to the Presidency?

As both Aristophanes and Alexis deTocqueville both warned, a poorly informed, "half-educated, or not infrequently illiterate electorate at the polls, voting for instantaneous entitlement" can be a dangerous thing indeed.

We shall see.

April 15th has come and gone. Like many others, I have ground the bullet between my teeth and sent off payments to both Federal and state governments. I suppose that I should feel a sense of civic pride, since, as Pat Moening so clearly pointed out in his most recent post, if I was to ignore my tax obligations I would be adding to the burden of my fellow taxpayers.

But I suspect that the majority of my fellow taxpayers do not enjoy paying taxes and that many, like me, feel that our current tax burden is onerous and the result of out-of-control, free-spending politicians and bureaucrats. Certainly the attendance at "tea parties" over the past couple of days might indicate a growing dissatisfaction with our burdensome system of "tax and spend" at both national and local levels.

The reckless expansion of the national budget deficit should be sufficient cause to refute the administration's rush toward a socialist utopia. President Obama's plans to frantically borrow and spend have caused the Congressional Budget Office to project a $1.85 trillion deficit for 2009, tripling the 2008 deficit of $500 billion and indicating deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next decade resulting in a tripling of the national debt.

And we are unhappy with our current tax burden?

The campaign promises of "tax relief" for 95% of the American public were nothing more than a campaign tactic and President Obama has already increased taxes (65 cents a pack for cigarettes, more than the sum total of the cumulative six previous increases, with the effect being felt the most by lower-income purchasers) and is incubating myriad plans for additional tax revenues that will mean increases in taxes for all of the public.

These plans will result in more government, still more debt and a dependent citizenry. I have previously made the projection that if we want a preview of the future and see what life under Obama and the Leftist polices espoused by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be like, we have only to look at the current miseries bedeviling the state of Maine. Talk about a double whammy!

Can there be any question that our nation is in dire straits and that the main cause is a blatant grab for power that has escalated from the time of Franklin Roosevelt and resulted in governmental intrusion far in excess of constitutional limitations?

The framers of the Constitution never intended central government to be allocated overriding power over the States or their inhabitants. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" - Amendment X, Constitution of the United States.

Government is responsible for providing a decent measure of social and national security and a legal and regulatory framework that allows a civil society and the free market to flourish. Necessary restrictions in the form of the division of powers among the Executive Branch, Congress and the Judiciary were designed to prevent the tyranny currently prevalent and particularly noticeable in the Executive Branch and the Judiciary. Congress, the true representatives of the will of the people, has become derelict in their responsibilities and given over to preserving their own privileged status.

As a conservative, I believe in and support the politics of individual, social and fiscal responsibility. I also believe in America and the special place that it has become in the world.

Yes, I will continue to pay my taxes and grit my teeth on April 15th but I will also work to correct what I consider to be policies and practices that I feel are damaging to our citizens and to our country.

Congress may be shirking its duties, but the people of the United States (and Maine) hold the power to make our lives better - if we are willing to coalesce and exercise that power.

We, the people, can control our destiny but only if we throw off the yoke of Party politics and deny the political class their visions of self-importance, unrestrained power and privilege.

They are, after all, our servants, granted status only through being selected to represent our wishes and hopes.

A couple of weeks ago my wife and I traveled to Boston to see the Boston Bruins take on the New Jersey Devils at the TD Banknorth Garden. We had great seats and watched a thoroughly enjoyable game as the "B's" trounced their Eastern Division rivals.

On infrequent previous trips to Boston we had been faced with a 2-3 hour drive and the time-consuming and expensive prospect of finding a parking space for our car. This time we decided to try the train.

The train experience was enjoyable. Buying tickets was a simple process (I do advise buying seats well in advance, particularly if one desires to travel "business class", which offers more seat space in return for a few more dollars). The train left and arrived on time, with the exception of the return trip which was delayed for approximately ten minutes to avoid conflict with another train. The ride was comfortable and the train personnel were polite and efficient. Route stops took only a few minutes each. Light meals and refreshments were conveniently available and reasonably priced.

The Downeaster arrives at North Station, which is perfect for attending Garden events and we had plenty of time and energy to take advantage of the proximity of the Aquarium and other nearby attractions before the game started. The total round-trip costs were slightly more than if we had traveled by automobile but I consider the comfort and convenience to be an acceptable tradeoff and likely will choose the train for future trips.

I can recall train trips that I took as a teenager that allowed me to depart from and arrive at the Brunswick train station and connect with nearly any other destination. In those days (the 1950's) trains were an important part of Maine's transportation system.

Part of the President's stimulus bill includes funding for Amtrak and hopefully will result in improvement in the rail system here in our state. There are those who are not in favor of "subsidizing" Amtrak, claiming that a system that cannot pay for itself should not be propped up by taxpayer funding (a somewhat specious argument, considering the "bailout funds" that are currently flowing like water through the economy).

I have lived and traveled in Europe, where a heavily-subsidized rail transportation system is utilized extensively for the movement of passengers and goods. Massive gasoline taxes encourage this form of transport. Automobiles are effectively a luxury and Europeans in general do not tend to spend a lot of time driving.

In America, thanks to an interstate highway system developed during the fifties and sixties and greatly expanded over the decades, automotive transport is most commonly used. And yet, we have great concerns these days with "carbon footprints" and other evidence of environmental damage, gasoline-powered vehicles being a major culprit.

Would it not make more sense to refurbish and renew rail transport facilities, thereby reducing wear and tear on our highway systems and employing a more efficient system to move people, goods and materials? For that matter, how about moving more goods and materials up and down the coast by barge?

I suspect that there would be objections voiced that such methods would be, "too time consuming" or not "cost-efficient".

To be sure, such a quantum shift would be met with resistance by the trucking lobby and various unions. But restoring a rail transport system would certainly provide a significant infusion of new jobs and make an impact on environmental protection standards (not to mention more recruiting opportunities for unions).

Seems to me that there are more pros than cons; for instance, for all practical purposes the Downeaster appears to be a success.

Why not build on a concept that works?

Some of the recent Legislative news from Augusta convinces me that a dearth of common sense is not limited to Washington.

First, we have the current promotion for "tax relief" trumpeted by the State's Democratic leadership, a "revenue neutral" proposal that promises a boon for Maine's income tax payees.

Let me state without reservation that I do not believe anything that this group says, particularly when they insist that the public will benefit. I base this antagonistic viewpoint upon the multitude of broken past promises that for decades have been the hallmark of the Democrat-controlled Legislature.

Their plan is to make eligible for Maine's sales tax a multitude of heretofore exempt service activities such as food, lodging, ski lifts, movies, concerts, auto repairs, hair dressers, attorneys, accountants and on and on. The emphasis is placed on new taxes for the "entertainment" sector where supposedly the burden will mostly fall upon tourists. Considering that the tourist season is active for only a part of the year and the majority of people subject to the new taxes all year long will be Maine residents, presentation is specious from its inception. An additional inherent danger is that such taxes will encourage out-of-state visitors to take their business to more tourist-friendly environments such as New Hampshire.

Supposedly the revenues from all of these new taxes will make up the difference from reducing the State Income Tax from 8.5% to 6.5%; thereby the "revenue neutral" claim. The Legislature envisions basking in the accolades generated by their implementation of "tax reform".

Can anyone really swallow this malarkey? Since when has any Legislative meddling in the tax structure ever resulted in a true "revenue neutral" result, let alone a real benefit for the tax payers?

All of the projected savings and revenues are purely speculative at this point, subject to the variances of a declining economy. The numbers can be cooked in the usual Augusta fashion to provide any results that the government needs to bolster its actions. My suspicion is that careful examination of this proposal, particular attention being paid to the large increase in the number of goods and services subject to the sales tax, will reveal that Maine residents who can least afford increases in their cost of living will be affected the most. Keep in mind that one out of every four people in our state is collecting welfare and will not benefit from any decrease in the income tax obligation.

This proposal is a poster child for the law of unintended consequences, the most harmful of which is an increase in the overall tax obligations of our citizens. "Revenue neutral" is the same old cloak that the Legislature has employed for years to cover their insatiable thirst for spending to cover their social engineering agenda. It is even more disturbing to see Legislators who should know better, such as R-Peter Mills, supporting this travesty.

Second, we have a truly mind-boggling proposal by Rep. Alfond (D-Portland) to allow non-citizens to vote in our elections under the guise of "community participation". I find the motivation behind this concept truly difficult to understand. The constitutionality of such a law is highly questionable, but the utter disregard of the value of citizenship is for me the most disturbing aspect of this asinine idea.

How can someone be part of a community if they have shown flagrant disregard for the laws of the nation that they have selected to live in? Admittedly there are those who have followed the rules and immigrated legally, but for the majority of them their goal is eventual citizenship and they work hard to obtain that benefit. Without the status of citizenship an immigrant has made no true commitment to their new country and their status is therefore temporary.

I submit that such an individual has no right to be part of the decision-making process that will affect the lives of legal residents of any community, local or national. What is to prevent any individual or group, immigrants legal or illegal, potentially or actively subversive, from undermining the rights of our American citizens?

Rep. Alfond, unfortunately, is an active participant in the movement engineered by members of the radical Left to denigrate the laws, values, mores and social structure that have built and supported America.

I doubt that his actions reflect the feelings of the majority of his constituents. They would do well to remember this intransigence come time for re-election.

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?

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.

Gee, "Life 101".

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.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" --- Ben Franklin, 1775

If one paid close attention to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 25th of this year it should be abundantly clear that to him government is the answer to all social woes.

In a recent article for Real Clear Politics Robert Tracinski makes a number of points outlining Obama's plans for America as stated in his Address to Congress:

1. Taxes and regulations will increase.
2. The government will take over lending directly for many of the loans currently provided by the banking industry and indirectly by increasing federal regulations targeting banks and other lenders.
3. The government will continue to vilify and punish bankers.
4. No one will know when all of this intervention is going to end or how much bigger it is going to get.
5. Obama will subsidize inefficient and unprofitable "renewable energy" projects whose production levels are more limited than coal-fired or nuclear sources.
6. Obama will artificially increase the costs of all other forms of energy through a market-based cap on carbon pollutions that will not make wind and solar less expensive, but the other forms more expensive.
7. He will seek to impose socialized medicine that will include government restrictions (rationing) on what kinds care of medical practitioners are allowed to provide.
8. He will "soak the rich" (resulting in effective punishment for the more productive, considering that the top 1% of taxpayers currently provides nearly 40% of all federal income taxes).

All of this appears to mirror FDR's disastrous economic policies resulting in ten years of "economic collapse", but whose rhetoric enthralled the American public.

Considering that Obama's history contains lots of campaigning for high offices but remarkably little tenure in the same, it is not surprising that his plans for governing depend mostly on leftist Democratic boilerplate and provide little or nothing in the way of new approaches or "change".

His "stimulus bill" - actually created by House and Senate Democrats - is no more than a vehicle for his stated purpose (during his campaign) of imposing the "redistribution of wealth" - in this case transfers that favor those who owe rather than those who have saved. And the question still looms large; where are these trillions of dollars in deficit spending going to come from?

After all, money shoveled from Washington into the coffers of state capitals to help retain government positions (an undisclosed percentage of the "millions of jobs saved and created") is different from money actually entering the private economy and creating jobs.

The rush to socialism - or perhaps the "social democracy" practiced by many European governments and much admired by the American Left - has indeed begun.

This is a President who ignores history or revises it to serve his own purposes ("America invented the automobile", from his speech before Congress on 2/25)

For many of his post-collegiate years Obama embraced the adversarial mentality of "us versus them", relying upon "the man" or some other vague authoritarian figure to provide a target upon which to direct the blame for society's ills. Now he is the titular head of "them".

All of this bodes ill for those of us who prefer a diminished role for government in our daily lives, who value self-reliance, enjoying the challenge of a free market economy rather than relying upon the largess of a restrictive and intrusive government.

I would argue that the price for the "safety net" that this new President is gathering to cast over America will prove to be a dear one to pay for those who value the unique freedom that our country has flourished under.

I would really like to see the new "stimulus bill" result in new jobs and growth in our economy, even though a Cato Institute report estimates that each new job will cost the taxpayers of America $225,000 over the course of this borrowing and spending splurge.

But I do find it disturbing when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel exhibits a wide streak of cynicism by insisting, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste".

And it makes me uneasy when a President who campaigned on "openness in government" shills for the biggest spending bill ever and it was passed behind closed doors. Plus, Mr. Obama has eagerly violated his pledge to have at least five days lapse between passage of a law and his signing of it to allow for public comment.

Lobbyists had copies of this bill before it reached Legislative desks. Does that suggest anything?

Perhaps there will be new jobs here in Maine if some of the nearly one trillion dollars being parceled out by Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts winds up in our state, but I suspect that the "16,000" jobs being touted in our local media will consist of positions currently filled and bolstered by stimulus funding plus the return of some workers who have been recently laid off from various local government positions.

Another problem is that the jobs that might be generated by this bill don't match the jobs that have been lost.

Think about it. The majority of new jobs are created in the private sector, as are the layoffs. Does such an economic base exist here in Maine to provide that many truly new jobs?

This bill provides $30 billion or so for infrastructure, but there are just not that many "shovel-ready" projects available. Do you believe that spending on "neighborhood stabilization activities" (read, ACORN), livestock insurance, polar bear exhibits (Philadelphia Zoo), STD Prevention, etc. is really going to get the economy moving?

I am familiar with the argument that if, say, a new Special Education Teacher is hired with some of this taxpayer money, then this person will spend on groceries, dry cleaning, etc. and strengthen the economy by creating new jobs in the service sector. Is this a different form of "trickle-down economics"?

One has to look no further than our own state to discover the problem with this theory. Maine's biggest employment base is Federal, State and Municipal positions. We have lost much of our manufacturing, agricultural, fishing and woodland products industries and basing our economy on the service sector has failed to provide sufficient revenue to run our local government (Augusta is already salivating over the prospect of "new" money to rescue the administration from its failure to impose fiscal responsibility).

More and more jobs propped up by taxpayer funding (or worse, more spendthrift government borrowing) is not the answer to economic distress. Taking more money out of the taxpayers' pockets to pay the salaries of government-sponsored employees - and how else would you classify jobs created through "stimulus" funding - is not going to put more money in our pockets. Instead, it is a prime example of the old "shell game", hoping that we cannot keep track of where our money is going.

A state-run economy will guarantee crushing debt. This most recent piece of legislation adds a huge amount to our National Debt (didn't that used to be a major complaint of the Democratic leadership against the Bush administration?) and I would confidently wager that another "stimulus" package will appear on the horizon before the year is out.

We are in dire need of leadership to reverse our economic downward spiral. I doubt that we are going to get it from this President, nor from the Democratic Left who exults in being in the position to force their wildest dreams of social restructuring upon an American public who has yet to awaken to the potential dangers resulting from their decision to follow a new and destructive Pied Piper.

When I was growing up in Topsham we lived well outside the village (only 3500 or so population, back then) and I can vividly recall waiting for a ride to school in very cold temperatures. Of course, being much younger then I am now, I enjoyed better blood circulation and withstood the cold with more equanimity, if not enthusiasm.

This past month of January brought back memories of winters more harsh than we have faced for several years. As a youth, I enjoyed ice skating on the millpond that bordered our front yard and driveway and could usually count on being able to begin that past time around Thanksgiving when the ice had thickened sufficiently to hold my weight. If I was feeling adventurous I might even skate a mile or so up the river until I reached "The Rips" (a brief stretch of rocks and rapids that interrupts the normally placid flow of the upper Cathance River.

As winter deepened and snowfall built up, the journey upriver required snowshoes and I had the time to review the multitude of wildlife tracks that decorated what was then a secluded area.

I never developed a liking for skiing, but there were hills available for tobogganing with friends.

As the years went by, I found that my enthusiasm for outdoor winter fun waned. Currently, my outside activities are governed more by necessity than by recreational opportunity, particularly when the snow is deep and the day time temperatures struggle to get out of the single numbers.

This past January has been a particularly trying one, in my view. Cold temperatures have been well below the norm and snowfall accumulation is well above average. The bird feeders have been exceptionally busy (we have had "winter" robins in evidence for the past several weeks and I am stymied by their presence) and I no longer see the tracks of foraging deer traversing the deep snow in my front field.

This past fall I bit the bullet and installed a wood stove and that has made a significant difference in the oil bill. It is surely a good thing that programs have been set up and funded through volunteer contributions to help those who are struggling to pay for oil heat even though the price of heating oil has dropped significantly from the record highs of last year.

January and the first week of February have surely reminded me of the trials of winters long past.

Still, daylight has increased by an hour and the sun is providing increasing warmth. Weather forecasts are calling for a warming trend over the next few days and we actually had a melting day or two this past weekend. Once January is past, hope begins to faintly glimmer and the prospect of bare ground instead of snow and ice becomes more and more a hope.

Spring is the sign of renewal. The deep, dark days of winter always seem to pass as hope grows.

And so it is with darkness imposed upon our souls by events that we struggle against. Change is the only constant in life. How we deal with the issues causing change is what reveals our character.

In many of his stories, Jack London signified the impartial brutality of the elements to highlight the struggle between mankind and his environment. Despite sometimes seemingly overwhelming circumstances, many of us, through strength of character, planning, cooperation and implementation still manage to prevail.

Sen. Olympia Snowe was recently observed on a local television news program bemoaning the cancellation of a second scallop season for Maine fishermen. According to Sen. Snowe, this was a purely arbitrary decision that would be very hurtful to Maine fishermen. No kidding!

There are whole villages in Nova Scotia who now subsist on welfare because of over-regulation of the fishing industry by the Canadian government. It now appears that our Maine fishermen are facing the same fate as more and more of them are unable to make payments on their vessels, let alone feed their families because of ever-increasing limitations on the number of days that they can spend at sea.

I wonder where Sen. Snowe has been for the last decade as our government has slowly, but surely been ursuping the freedom to earn a living here in the United States? She appears happy to engage in bi-partisanship with her Democratic pals in government as they and the unions and the bureaucrats continue to mount an assault on free enterprise in America with a barrage of legal and regulatory activity that has affected and will continue to contribute to the decline of our economy.

The government is now heavily engaged in overseeing the banking and automotive industries, overlooking the fact that it has been many of their meddling policies that have caused deterioration in those businesses. The so-called "stimulus bills" will provide the government with more opportunity to cause chaos in the construction and materials industries while moving to "help" cash-strapped state governments by providing pork-laden projects that supposedly will put the unemployed back to work.

America's economy is getting a much better boost from the precipitous drop in oil prices, which also is providing the added benefit of curtailing the activities of some of our more hostile adversaries such as Hugo Chavez, Valadimir Putin and the President of Iran

Can anyone seriously accept the premise that providing funding for infrastructure projects to be completed by a few favored government contractors somewhere far in the future (there really is no such thing as "shovel-ready projects") and benefiting mainly politicians and their cronies rather than improving the economic picture for the average citizen?

Or, how about House Speaker Pelosi insisting upon millions of dollars for "increased access to contraceptives" being included in the latest "stimulus" fiasco?

These boondoggles typify the concept of "central planning" (the ruinous belief that only the government can guide and manage economic activity). This philosophy, that the state must own the central role in controlling the economy, has proven a failure time and again if one evaluates the economic standing of the nations who have chosen this path.

Such policies require the transfer of funds from and denial of freedom to productive members of society, insisting that responsible individuals sacrifice so that the needs of the less responsible will be met.

"An economic recovery plan should help the private sector grow and create jobs, rather than expanding government at the expense of working families and small businesses" (from a recent letter sent by House Republican leaders to President Obama)

The explosion of trillions of dollars in deficit spending is only one of the byproducts of the uncontrolled expansion of government power.

Life under socialism also breeds poverty and oppression.

And it certainly won't do much for the livelihood and independence of Maine fishermen and their families. Just ask our northern neighbors in Nova Scotia.

Our public tends to shower adulation on sports figures, actors and other celebrities and - mercifully - a very few politicians.

It is a true and refreshing wonder to witness something like, "The Miracle on the Hudson" and the emergence of a hero who exemplifies courage, competence and modesty.

Airline Captain Chelsey Sullenberg III is a true professional. He spent his life becoming as knowledgeable as he could about his profession, no doubt hoping that all of this accumulating expertise would never have to be utilized. When the time came, his actions raised the bar for those who would exhibit "grace under pressure" in the future.

Certainly, honorable mention goes to the remainder of his crew, the many "first responders" of New York City who continually train for such a potential disaster and whose quick reaction saved many lives and the crews and passengers of ferries who reacted so quickly and lent their assistance.

How can such selfless actions be adequately thanked?

Perhaps by remembering and recognizing that there are many admirable people among us and by extolling their accomplishments, rather than devoting slavish attention to those whose self-aggrandizing lifestyles are aided and abetted by an adoring media.

I don't offer admiration and respect that frequently, but Captain Sullenberger is very high up on my list.

In Search of Leadership

2009 brings to us a newly-elected (or reelected) Maine Legislature and also a new President of the United States.

This New Year also provides a multitude of challenges that demand the attention, careful examination and productive decision-making required to maintain and hopefully improve our Nation.

Locally, Maine is faced with declining operating revenues and the attendant hard choices necessary to continue to provide benefits and assistance to its residents. Considering the current economic woes, the question is no longer whether or not to reduce spending at the State and municipal levels but where to make the cuts.

Naturally, special interest groups are currently squeaking as loudly as possible, hoping for enough "grease" to keep their own wheels turning smoothly.

To Governor Baldacci's credit, he has publicly recognized the severity of the financial difficulties and has advanced a number of proposals designed to deal with revenue shortfalls. He is indeed providing leadership, no matter if one agrees with any or all of his plans. I personally would like to see a reduction in the number of highly-paid "administrative assistants" on the Governor's staff emerge as one of the plans to help balance the state budget. Leaders should share in times of hardship.

It is the responsibility of the Legislature to help construct, evaluate, fine-tune, approve and implement cost-reduction measures needed to comply with restrictions now imperative due to the decline in available funds. Unfortunately, leaders of this body have historically shown great reluctance to recognize financial limitations. They were elected to make the hard decisions required for the greater good, but frequently have preferred to pander rather than lead.

On a National level pandering has risen to an exalted art form, resulting in an absolute frenzy of squandering the taxpayers' money by rewarding incompetence and unethical behavior with numerous "bailouts" that have failed to improve America's economy. Indeed, we are treated to the spectacle of gigantic transfers of the public's money to lending institutions who have then refused to lend any portion of these funds to the people who supplied the money.

The incoming administration is pushing for even greater expenditures, designed to provide money to federal and local governments to spend on pork barrel projects that will drastically increase the national debt while doing little to improve the economy (exemplifying a growing tendency toward economic "central planning", which provides limited management capability but more government control).

Our President-elect provides little in the way of encouragement and hope in his speeches, instead insistently dwelling on the ruinous and dire consequences that are certain to occur unless we cede control of our lives to an all-encompassing government. Meanwhile, his nomination for Treasury Secretary is someone who failed to pay required income taxes in a timely fashion, for Attorney General an individual who oversaw some of the most infamous Clinton pardons and for CIA director a political hack who has no knowledge of intelligence operations or requirements.

President-elect Obama's imminent Washington festivities will reportedly cost $150 million dollars, more than three times the bill for the last presidential inauguration (which was roundly criticized for extravagance when the money could have been better applied to a host of National and world problems).

Leadership?

There may be glimmerings in Augusta, but on the National front there is not only a conspicuous absence of that particular commodity, but also a continuing dearth of common sense, ethics and service for the public good.

Why indeed, when so many politicians (the Clintons, the entire Illinois "political machine", numerous Senators and Congressmen from both parties - who actually construct the laws that they often ignore), celebrities, executives and citizens in general seem oblivious to the concept?

A government of law is distinguished from the "rule of man" (where a single person or a select group of persons can set or alter the rules of conduct at their discretion, i.e. monarchies, tyrannies or theocracies). All are equal in the eyes of the law, which is supreme over the acts of the government and the people.

"Adherence to the rule of law is what guides us in our everyday social and legal interactions, prevents anarchy, and holds us together as a people" (Frens).

One has only to review the long list of troubled nations in the world to understand that concept. The rule of law is one of the underpinnings of Western civilization and has provided historic stabilization in those countries that adhere to the principle.

A moral code is a must for any society to remain stabilized and participatory government is the means for determining the guidelines under which its citizens will live. This moral code is a product of discussion and agreement amongst its citizens (solidified by our political leaders in this representative republic). Once shaped into law, it needs to be followed. For those who disagree with stated principles, the process offers the opportunity to change the rules if the majority agrees to the need.

Consider the multitude of illegal offenses committed by these previously-mentioned politicians, executives and celebrities where no form of punishment has been administered. Does such avoidance encourage additional illicit behavior?

I have heard considerable outrage professed by members of the public against these transgressions. And yet, politicians are re-elected or appointed to positions of greater authority, celebrities (and some politicians) are adored and executives are rewarded for lack of competence and/or ethics.

Personally, I like the term, "Wrong". It will not stand by itself without explanation and justification and there will always be those who revile the user for imposing his or her "moral values" upon others. There is no imposition, however, simply a stating of personal opinion.

Now, if enough individuals combine to decide that something is "wrong" and convince their representatives to codify their interpretations into law, then indeed there is imposition involved.

I believe that there are many who subvert the rule of law by refusing to support the legal, ethical and moral principles that have been codified into the laws of America and that there are some who further damage our society through their antipathy toward selected ethical and philosophical traditions that bind us as a nation and as a people. Again, if someone feels that change is imperative, the system allows changes to be made if one works within its boundaries. The will of the majority provides the mortar binding together the building blocks of our nation.

Support the rule of law and demand that it be practiced and enforced. If you disagree with the rules, work within the system in a moral and ethical manner to effect changes, or risk further degeneration and potential destruction of our country

My family is well aware of my fondness for books and each Christmas indulges me with a stack of eclectic reading material that always provides me with food for thought through the long winter months.

An early discovery from the current selections is a gem of a gentle, sweet, short novel by Ray Bradbury titled, "Farewell Summer". Bradbury, ever the master of the metaphor, builds a haunting tale of the eternal friction between the eagerness and exuberance of youth and the resentful decline of their aging elders culminating in a wondering acceptance by all involved of the changes that time imposes.

One might be inclined to view Spring as the most appropriate agent of change rather than the early days of a dark, cold Winter, but our culture celebrates the birth of a New Year, ceremoniously ushering out ancient Father Time and embracing his infant replacement.

Rather than spending time on constructing New Year's Resolutions that almost certainly will be forthrightly ignored, I instead have invested in hopes for this imminent, if somewhat unrealistic, new beginning.

I sincerely hope that:

Our leadership, Federal, State and local, will develop economic prudence and restrain their inherent urge to further control our lives through random fiat.

Rewards and accolades will be bestowed upon those who prove successful , honest and ethical and those who practice dishonesty, greed and deceit will receive their just reward of failure and distrust.

America will persevere and grow stronger in our battle against those who have shown their intent to destroy us in their quest for world domination.

Our country will restore its economic strength through hard work, diligence and creativity and will reject the false security proffered by the advocates of socialism.

Our country will regain its national identity and pride, continuing to offer a haven for those who want to enjoy our freedom and prosperity, but standing firm against the demands for "diversity" that preclude a cohesive common front.

We, as a people, can become more civil in our manner, more accepting of our differences, willing to debate other points of view rather than launch personal attacks and follow more closely the virtues outlined for us through religion and philosophy.

Whatever the coming "change" in America produces, it will be for the betterment of our people.

Or perhaps I should carefully store this "Wish List" and save it for next Christmas?

Through our personal choices, not through government intervention and decree, we shape the world around us. We are indeed the keepers of our own destiny.

Abundant guidance is available to us if we choose to seek it through the printed word, customs and traditions. Successful "renewal" is dependent upon what has worked previously, as well as innovation for the future.

As I write this on Sunday afternoon, I am looking out the window at swirling snow and thinking we are going to enjoy a traditional White Christmas this year, despite global warming.

November and December are strong contenders for the month containing the most traditions, featuring Thanksgiving and Christmas. These two holidays incorporate so many of the traditions that have helped define our nation.

Family gatherings, for instance: I am delighted that this year both of my sons will be home for Christmas. They will have a real, fragrant Christmas tree to enjoy, plus home cooking and the companionship of their parents and friends.

When I was in the military I spent many holiday seasons away from home and that made the few occasions when I could return to Maine a true delight. Having a permanent place to call home, no matter how far away and in what dire situations you may find yourself, is a true blessing. I remember well what it is like to be in distant, difficult and sometimes hostile surroundings on a day which otherwise can so often can be filled with love and companionship.

To all of the young men and women of the armed services - and their loved ones - I send my most heartfelt thanks for your courage and devotion and your willingness to sacrifice for the welfare of us all. God bless you.

Our military has its own traditions and many of them are based upon past incidences of bravery, devotion and strength both physical and mental. Lt. Col. Oliver North's marvelous book, "American Heroes (In the Fight Against Radical Islam)", paints an enlightening portrait of just how special our troops are and what a magnificent job they have done in the Middle East.

I am so very thankful for my blessings of home and family, for the opportunity to live in America and enjoy the many rights and privileges that our country provides and to be free to take advantage of chances to make a good living. I have lived in other places in the world where creature comforts such as electricity on demand, clean water supplies, safe and comfortable housing are sparse and for many not available at all. And for many, there is no work available at all, let alone any opportunity for a better job .

And I have seen places where freedom as we Americans know it is only a dream and one that is strongly suppressed.

Many of our traditions have roots in other cultures, the United States being the "melting pot" that it is. And yet, for such a comparatively young country, we have developed our own unique traditions that have contributed to forming our strengths as a nation.

During this holiday season I hope that we take time to honor those traditions that remind us to help others less fortunate, to remember and cherish old friendships and to nurture new ones, to honor the beliefs that espouse faith, hope and charity and to regard the passing of each year as an new opportunity to make the choices that will improve our lives.

I hope that all of you will have joyous family gatherings that will provide a strengthening of the bonds of love and commitment.

And may I indulge in an appropriate tradition for this time of year: Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year to all.

The "handout line" in Washington continues to grow. In addition to "bailing out" financial institutions, Congress and the Administration now seem to be in favor of coming to the rescue of the automotive industry. And although there is still no definitive relief for mortgage-holders there are a several plans under discussion.

All of this "vital aid" will of course be financed by the taxpayers (one way or another) and will come complete with newly-appointed "czars" and a massive increase in the bureaucracy to draft, apply and oversee the myriad new regulations that will be crafted to protect the public interest.

I find itiInteresting that the Democrats and their leadership, who have historically insisted that they are on the side of the "little guy", are now falling all over themselves in their eagerness to provide endless funds for those "evil corporations" that they have been so quick to vilify.

This government assault does not bode well for the free market system. Indeed, many of the same people responsible for our current financial woes appear to be on the verge of being tapped to supply the solutions to the problems that they took part in creating. Hello? And I cannot fathom why auto executives are so eager to hand over control of their businesses to a government that is unable to responsibility manage our country's financial affairs, let alone bring order and profitability to a massive, world-wide industry.

Is America on the verge of abandoning our history of capitalism and free enterprise and resorting to the socialism engineered through government economic and social intervention that has constricted the growth of European nations for decades?

There has finally been an admission that we are firmly in the grip of a recession. But is the solution to follow the inclinations of a fiscally irresponsible government and increase our national and personal debt to "spend our way out" of this financial mess? Please keep in mind that those advocating this path are the same people who coerced lending institutions into providing mortgage loans to home owners and buyers who had little means to repay the borrowed money, the same members of our government who saddled auto makers with ever-increasing environmental protection requirements that added thousands of dollars to the price of every vehicle produced.

Despite a recession that is now touted as being the worst in decades, our government (and government-to-be) is suggesting new "economic stimulus plans" to inspire us to purchase more goods than ever - but since many of these items are no longer produced in America, little of that money will find its way into our national economy.

Instead, what if the public - and government, State and Federal - cut borrowing and spending, paid down debt, began living within our means and determined and initiated some necessary sacrifices?

For decades, local and Federal governments have funded their expansion through ceaseless bond issues which allowed other nations, such as China, to amass much of our debt. This is no time for massive new spending programs that will have to be funded through additional borrowing (bonds), onerous new taxes (further hampering economic recovery) or simply printing more money (resulting in the further weakening of the dollar and accompanying inflation).

"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance" ---Cicero, 55 BC

Do we have the willpower, as a people, to force ourselves and our government to make the decisions, despite the discomfort, that will allow America to regain its financial strength?

"Spending our way out" is not the answer.

A recent PPH story provided the news that Maine is fifth in the nation in "numbers of people short on food". The story used statistics from a U.S. Department of Agriculture study of "food insecurity" covering the period 2005-207, proclaiming that 13.3 percent of Maine families had "hunger issues".

Worse still, if the term "very low food security" was employed, Maine ranks second in the nation, trailing only Mississippi.

During the previous three-year study, 2002-2004, 9.8 percent of Maine families met such criteria. Information from those involved in social agencies in Portland that offer food assistance serves to bolster the indications of increasing problems for our state.

There is much speculation over why a significant number of Mainers are having problems feeding their families. Studies indicate that for many families even having two working members is not enough to meet the rising costs of food, fuel and other costs of living facing Maine residents.

Once again, during the past election, an opportunity to increase good paying jobs was rejected by Maine voters - by a narrow margin - when a familiar pattern of distortions and untruths was engineered by a small portion of the business community against casino employment in any form.

In the near future, the closing of Brunswick Naval Air Station will result in the loss of more good jobs and an economic ripple effect in the surrounding communities with the concurrent reduction of revenues from such sources as rental fees, professional services and the retail sector. Plus, a few more years of reduced fishing days mandated by State and Federal agencies will leave the Maine coast in the same pitiful condition as the once-thriving fishing villages of the Canadian Maritimes that now are filled with welfare recipients. A few new call centers are not going to make up the difference, nor will the meager number of jobs provided by expanded "research and development" facilities.

We are all kept informed (ad nauseam) of the current budget woes the state suffers and the heroic efforts of the Augusta overlords to protect the needy citizens of Maine by scrupulously paring away unneeded expense - buried in one recent story was the important fact that this "bare-bones" effort includes the projected increases in the cost of heat, electricity, construction materials and (surprise!) additional personnel.

Much is made of the Governor's demands on the state government to reduce operating expenses. Little or nothing is reported about the fact that many of the "cuts" apply only to already projected budget departmental increases.

It is a truly scandalous turn of events when so many people are "short on food" in a state that spends upwards of $3.5 billion yearly (not counting matching Federal funds). What makes it even worse is that under Democratic control for the past decade, Maine has lost and failed to replace so many jobs that once enabled its citizens to at least make a living.

When I was growing up in Maine, much fun was poked at "Taxachucetts" and the endemic corruption that our southern neighbors endured. Guess What! Thanks to a one-party system that is joined at the hip to a "good-old-boy" controlling clique in Augusta, Maine is now on the receiving end of such ridicule.

Then again, we get what we pay for (or elect).

I always look forward to November.

Every year an old and dear friend makes a long trip from the farmland country of Pennsylvania and the two of us head for northern Maine to spend a week in the woods hunting for deer. These trips have been ongoing since 1971, with a few gaps here and there for both of us due to 20-year military careers.

Our destinations have varied, particularly over the last few years after my cousin lost his family hunting camp following Roxanne Quimby's purchase of the land his father had leased from a timber company in the 1950's.

This year found us in The Forks, a few miles up the Kennebec River from Bingham. It was new territory for us, although we had previously spent time in the Jackman area. We were favorably impressed with the lodge at which we had made reservations and the services that they provided. Hunting, fishing, snowmobiling and whitewater rafting make this location a year-round magnet for outdoor activities and provide jobs for people in an area now depending mostly upon forest products and tourism for local employment.

I have always been puzzled by those who rail against the timber companies who own so much land here in Maine. Were it not for the stewardship and generosity of these companies, "working forests" would not be available for the public to enjoy.

There are only tiny areas of "old-stand" woodlands left here in Maine following the harvesting of timber that spread across the country to the West Coast, resulting in New England-style architecture confronting perplexed visitors in Ft. Bragg, California that were erected by itinerant loggers who could travel no further. Timber harvesting, coupled with careful replanting, results in new growth that is beneficial to wildlife of all species, compared with the "mature forests" that are devoid of underbrush and harbor far fewer animals, birds and insects. Centuries ago, wildfires caused by lightning strikes resulted in the same regenerative results.

Wildlife in the area that we spent a week in had been severely affected by the heavy snows of last winter. Our guide informed us that at one point there was at least eleven feet of snow on the ground during that period. During our five days in the forest, we saw a few tracks, but the deer residing there seemed to travel mostly at night and we experienced no live sightings.

We enjoyed ourselves immensely, however, moving about in a square mile or so of territory which provided many hours of clean air, physically challenging terrain and new things to see on a constant basis. We slept well and looked forward with anticipation to each new day.

My friend and I agreed that it was a week well spent and that we would not hesitate to return.

Some may view late fall and early winter as time of ending and anxiously await the coming of spring and a new beginning. For me, November is a time to get away from the familiar confines of southern Maine, to spend time by myself in the woods and observe its beauty and residents, to test myself physically and mentally, to enjoy the company of an old friend and to return (if only for a brief period) to a more basic way of life.

For me, a yearly opportunity for rebirth.

On every ballot there was an option for "None of the Above" and if that option received the most votes, then new primaries would be required?

Public Financing was required for all campaigns for elective office? Candidates would be required to provide a predetermined number of verified voter signatures (by circulating petitions) in order to qualify. Private financing would be allowed only to help enable the collection of qualifying signatures.

Candidates would be selected by popular vote, not by the machinations of National party conventions?

A vote of "No Confidence" was used more frequently and could be initiated by the public?

Impeachment and/or recall could be initiated by members of the public?

Third party candidates were provided a level playing field through required media coverage?

Term limits were mandatory for all elected positions?

The Electoral College was disbanded and the President was elected on the basis of popular vote?

Offered as "food for thought".

For an indication of what the United States might look like under the control of a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, consider reviewing the issues currently confronting Maine. After all, our state has been under the control of a Democratic Legislature for well over a decade, coupled with a Democratic Governor halfway through his second term.

In Maine, we have some negatives. The State has not been able to pay its Medicare debts to Maine health care providers and is falling further and further behind in those obligations. The Governor's claims of a balanced budget refused to recognize this issue, along with failures to address overdue pay for public defenders and to return overpayments to taxpayers in a timely manner. More bond requests to repair infrastructure (more borrowing) have been required because of refusal to prioritize allotment of declining revenues. Despite continuing promises of tax relief, new drains on the taxpayers are constantly legislated. Employment is stagnant.

An entitlement mentality seems predominant. A recent newscast on a local television station featured an interview with a representative of the Department of Health and Human Services who blithely dismissed an over-budget estimate of $500 million, cheerfully insisting, "Oh, it probably won't be that much". This was followed by a representative of the Maine Alliance who opined that it was "not the best time to raise taxes", but that taxes certainly should not be cut, "because of all of the good that we are doing".

The Democratic Presidential candidate has a long history of promoting "redistribution of wealth" (read, increased taxes to fund entitlement programs) as the appropriate structuring of American society and made his intentions clear in his filmed answer to a question posed by the now-famous (or infamous) "Joe the Plumber".

Democratic leadership, personified by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, also advocates the redistribution of money - earned by those who strive for a good education and then apply their work ethic and abilities toward improving their lives - to those who, for lack of ability (or, in some cases, inclination), have a lower standard of living.

Not many economists favor raising taxes in a time of economic decline, nor do they support the concept of punishing the successful to help fund entitlement spending. A massive increase in the national deficit is regarded with equal disapproval.

Our system of a representative republic was deliberately structured to include a system of checks and balances to prevent the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches from becoming the fiefdom of a single political party. History indicates that, on the whole, our government works best when political parties share the decision-making process rather than having one group completely in charge.

Of course, if you are totally satisfied with the way Maine has been run over the past decade or so, then November 4th offers you the opportunity to vote for a mirror-image Federal government and to also maintain our State policies of unrestrained spending accompanied by over-taxation, government inefficiency and oppression.

Those who disagree still have the right to vote otherwise - for now.

Currently we have a Congress, controlled by the Democrats for the past two years, with an approval rating hovering around the 10% mark and a soon-to-be-departing Republican President with an approval rating under 30%.

Also of interest is the reportedly 60% of Mainers who participated in a poll conducted by the Pan Atlantic Group in July, 2008 and stated that they felt that Maine was going in the wrong direction. This opinion may be reflected in the number of citizen-initiated referendums on the November ballot.

Such information may seem to bolster the idea that the electorate across the nation supports the need for "change" in government, both state and Federal. To paraphrase the late Tip O'Neill, "All politics is local".

Voters might be wise to consider the last Federal election where the mantra of "change" played such a major role.

The year was 1976 and the Democratic candidate was new to national politics and although possessing a thin resume was nearly deified by most of the media. The Republican could have been best classified as a moderate who was not trusted by conservatives and who had distanced himself from the then-current President.

Media idolatry helped Jimmy Carter win the Presidency despite his lack of experience on the national level, his waffling on the issues, voter's lack of knowledge about "who he really is as a person" and his arrogance and uncontrolled ambition.

Carter also managed to cloak his liberal, well to the left of center political agenda and project the image of "a new kind of politician who is against the corrupt Washington system" and whose sympathies lay with "the common man and his problems".

The Carter Presidency then proceeded to bring America double-digit inflation and unemployment, a gasoline shortage crisis, double-digit mortgage rates and a new "misery index" (created expressly to measure the dismal effects of the economy on the population). Carter also provided a weak and ineffective foreign policy that featured the drawn-out Iranian hostage fiasco and strongly contributed to the diminishment of America's reputation throughout the world.

History provides valuable information for those who care to search it out.

The two major-party Presidential candidates for this election present a clear difference in political philosophies.

Sen. Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine, a devotee of the far Left who openly espouses the Marxist mantra of "wealth distribution" and who plans massive government expansion and intervention, paid for by huge tax increases that will exacerbate America's economic woes. His ultimate goal may well be to replace our free market representative republic with a socialist state. He has served less than a full term in the U.S. Senate.

Sen. McCain promises a "maverick" approach to Washington, installing reform where needed and relying more on free market polices to help resolve economic and social inequities. He emphasizes his long record of public service and experience in government and foreign policy as major qualifications for the Presidency.

We have, of course, several other choices when it comes to Presidential candidates, Libertarian Bob Barr and Ralph Nader included. Unfortunately, until the obstacles of media prejudice and special interest money are removed or negated the opportunities for election of a third-party candidate will remain severely limited.

I surely do tire of trying to identify the candidate who will do the least amount of damage if elected.

Saturday the eleventh of October was a marvelous example of the best that Maine fall weather can offer. The afternoon featured brilliant sunshine, highlighting the glowing colors of changing leaves, and temperatures well into the sixties.

In the early evening coatless wanderers still roamed the Old Port enjoying the mild air, but inside the Civic Center over 5,000 people had paid to watch an indoor activity more associated with the often bitter climate of Maine's winters.

The Portland Pirates were back in town.

At the end of the 2008 hockey season the Pirates were in the chase for the Calder Cup, winning the Atlantic Division title, but then failing by a whisker to win one last game against the Hershey Bears to advance to the American Hockey League finals. And then the Pirates ended a three-year association with the recent Stanley Cup champions the Anaheim Ducks, leaving the Portland team with no National Hockey League affiliate.

No immediate decision regarding a new alliance was announced and for much of the summer the future of professional hockey in Portland was open to speculation.

Hockey at its best is a game of speed, power and grace, a true team sport that enjoys a widespread fan base here in Maine. Many high school teams take the ice each year, along with high-profile teams such as the University of Maine Black Bears and the Junior League Lewiston Maineiacs.

To the great credit of the Portland Pirates' organization, no hasty decisions were made. But as the months wore on professional hockey fans became increasingly apprehensive. Would there be a team in Portland this year and if so, who would be the NHL affiliate?

The story finally broke that the Buffalo Sabres and the Portland Pirates had reached an agreement and that players from the Rochester Americans would form the nucleus of the 2008-2009 Pirates' team. This appeared to be a mixed blessing, since the Rochester Americans had recently been the product of a dual affiliation agreement with both Buffalo and the Florida Panthers, a union that had resulted in a poor performance record for the Americans over the past several years and left few available players to move from Rochester to Portland.

There was some good news late in the summer when it was announced that Coach Kevin Dineen would be returning as the Pirates' Head Coach and that he would have Eric Weinrich as his Assistant Coach.

But the weeks slid away and very little information became available regarding players comprising the Pirates' roster, except that only one player from last year's team would be returning and only a few former Rochester players under contract with Buffalo would be relocating to Portland.

What might this new season bring, after a return to winning ways over the past few years?

Saturday's season opener was against the Manchester Monarchs, a rugged and reliable team that historically has given the Portland Pirates strong competition. No more than a week before opening night the Pirates had difficulty in putting enough players on the ice for their only preseason game.

Still, 5,000 curious fans filed into the Cumberland County Civic Center - and roared raucous approval as the new Portland Pirates defeated Manchester 6-3 in an action-filled, high-tempo performance that featured a hat trick by Mark Mancari, two goals by former Pirate Tyler Bouck and an intense effort by twenty-two players who have yet to benefit from a full week of practicing as a complete team.

But this is indeed a different group of Pirates; faster, better skaters, oriented more toward scoring than plodding defense and as a group unwilling to be pushed around. They can excite a crowd.

Kudos to Brian Petrovic and the other members of the Pirates' management team. And welcome and thank you to the Buffalo Sabres.

Enjoy the new season, Pirates' fans. The boys are still in town.

So far there has been one failed attempt to provide some sort of temporary solution to the mortgage problem. To their credit, enough members of the House (both Democrat and Republican) refused to be stampeded into approving a hasty mishmash of a bailout bill that included irrelevancies such as a huge grant for ACORN (known for its creative and sometimes illegal crusade to register voters, alive or dead or even fictitious) added to the bill by the Democratic leadership.

To be sure, is now anxious over the huge numbers of calls that their constituents have made over the last few days. Popular sentiment is reported to be overwhelmingly against any immediate bailout of those financial institutions viewed as contributing to the mortgage mess through greed and/or mismanagement.

Since over ninety percent of consumers are making mortgage payments regularly and on time, it is understandable that so many of them are questioning why their tax dollars should be spent shoring up those organizations that have glaringly shown their inability to handle financial matters in a responsible manner.

There are many in the media, in the current Administration and in Congress eager to pass some sort of legislation; after all, it is an election year and a thorough examination of the problem will reveal that issues have been building - and ignored or blocked - since the Carter Presidency. There have been numerous career politicians involved in preventing attempts to impose regulatory restraints upon the mortgage industry over the past four years and further publicity will only expose campaign contributions, "sweetheart deals" and other embarrassments for the Washington elite.

The public has been deluged with frantic warnings of returning to the Depression era, financial meltdown, destruction of America's credit base and other catastrophes that will ensue unless immediate action is taken. There is indeed a looming problem, for unless credit is stabilized many businesses will face bankruptcy without a line of credit to guarantee payroll and operating expenses. Unavailable credit will also create pressure for many households. But severe problems require carefully constructed solutions and most of all leadership.

Tonight the Senate is scheduled to vote on a revised plan that is reportedly more friendly to the consumer and less focused on aiding Wall Street, hedge funds and investment banking. Massive problems require carefully constructed solutions and, just as important, leadership. This will not be found from those heading Senate and House Banking and Finance Committees, who have for the last several years insisted that there were no problems with Fannie and Freddie and who have blocked numerous attempts to impose regulatory restraint on the practices of those two organization.

And this is not the time for partisan politics.

It is time for our elected representatives to do their duty for the people, not for those entities who buy their attention through large campaign contributions and lobbying efforts.

Recently, I worked in the mortgage industry for a couple of years. During that period I watched soaring growth in the "Sub-prime" section of the industry, although the company that I worked for did not offer such products.

Today I watch leaders of the Treasury and Federal Reserve urge a "bailout" for those companies who succumbed to the siren song of the "Sub-prime" market, who accepted "bundles" of these high-risk loans and then used these loans as a basis to create "securities", assets that diminished at breakneck speed as the housing market tumbled.

There is plenty of blame to pass around.

Yes, there were undoubtedly predatory lending practices by unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders who did not thoroughly advise buyers of the dangers involved in products that produced unattainable monthly payments in a relatively short time after low initial costs.

And indeed there were borrowers with limited assets that they knew would never enable them to meet the escalating costs of future payments and are now simply walking away from their debts.

Of course there were eager politicians eager to pressure lending and financial institutions to provide mortgages for risky applicants under the doctrine of "fairness" and "everyone is entitled to have their own home" and to threaten penalties for businesses who did not agree to subsidize their pandering to some voting groups.

If one does some research, political cause and effect can be traced back for more than a decade and through several administrations. Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank, respective leaders of the Senate and House Banking Committees, have done little to head off this collapse, refusing time and again to pursue efforts brought before them to increase regulatory oversight. Other members of the House and Senate have received major campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other financial institutions on a regular basis for many years.

Does this indicate widespread corruption? I believe so. And a notable tendency by all parties in Washington to avoid making the necessary changes to financial policies that continued on the path toward disaster.

Over 90% of mortgage holders make their payments on time. Should these responsible taxpayers be the ones to pay for the greedy mistakes made by politicians, some financial institutions, lenders and irresponsible buyers?

Personally, I view with deep suspicion and distrust the current proposed solution backed by those same politicians and bureaucrats whose actions have mired us in this mess. Corrective legislation should not be rushed through, but instead reviewed carefully with close attention paid to ensure that businesses and individuals who have greatly profited from this gross mismanagement will not receive additional largess.

I am definitely not in favor of this kneejerk buyout plan. To give upwards of $700 billion to a system that created this abomination is the height of folly. To correct the problem will require thought and planning # and probably some form of Federal (our tax dollars) support. Remember this in November.

I plan to check the Congressional voting record of those running for Federal office this election to determine their involvement, if any, in this charade.

We need leadership and fiscal responsibility in Washington, not pandering and uncontrolled spending in an attempt to cover up greed and corruption on a mass scale.

September and October are my two favorite months.

When I was in the military and spent years away from Maine, I would always try to schedule many of my vacations here during the early fall.

The hustle and bustle of summer are past, the rigors of late fall and winter are yet distant and we still have good weather and a wonderful added menu of activities to enjoy.

It is time for country fairs where we can examine exhibitions of local agriculture, animal husbandry and creative skills ranging from baking to needlework to photography. There is also harness racing, midway attractions and many special events at each fair that most likely can please nearly every taste in entertainment.

Fall sports are in full swing at every level with participation available from grade school to college-level, providing weekend recreation and entertainment for sports-lovers and proud parents.

At the same time, the ocean is still bright blue and the beaches are less crowded, as are hiking trails, state and local parks and highways. And in just a short time we will be treated to the spectacle of the brilliant display of fall foliage.

Hunting season begins next month and will bring out-of-state folks here to participate while utilizing local stores (Hello, Cabela's!), hotels and restaurants.

Many of my delivery customers have mentioned to me that they enjoy this time of year since visitors tend to be older and more sedate, appearing to pursue what Maine has to offer more sedately than the summer crowd, who seem to be in a hurry to enjoy as much as they can as quickly as they can..

The tourist season, by the way, shows no evidence of being a disaster because of the slowing economy. Not the best season ever, but hardly the worst. Augusta, of course, is bemoaning the loss of revenue in areas such as the gasoline tax (people seem to be conserving by driving less, can you imagine….?).

There are times, during our daily trials and tribulations, when it is easy to overlook the wonders of our special place called Maine.

And then there are times to slow our pace, look around and enjoy the blessings that are here for us if we take the time to notice them

I generally don't pay much attention to political conventions. I view them as preaching to the choir, an opportunity for the faithful to gather and stroke each other and, to paraphrase, "an orgy of sound and fury signifying little".

But I must admit that, to me, developments over the past ten days have lent an importance to the Presidential race far outdistancing the usual impact of most past Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

I refer, of course, to the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee.

Before the conventions I was reasonably certain as to whom my Presidential vote would go, but certainly this new wrinkle has made a great difference in the way that I perceive the election contests.

Initially, I was surprised at the instant, vicious, unfounded attacks launched at Gov. Palin. Many of the accusations, although immediately and eagerly reported by liberal portions of the media, were quickly refuted and reluctant retractions issued. However, as the days passed even more extreme attempts to discredit her have flooded the internet and other news outlets.

If choosing this particular individual was a planned move to inject more life into the political process, then I believe that the planners have succeeded beyond their most ambitious expectations.

Not since Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were nominated to the Supreme Court can I remember such a frantic character assassination campaign by the left. Again, somewhat surprising considering the efforts made to portray the woman as a "nobody" or an inexperienced "hick" from a backwoods state (remind anyone of the charges leveled against a certain Arkansas Governor?)

Then again, this particular nominee was recently described as a "polished politician" by Vice-Presidential aspirant Sen. Joe Biden and she does not appear reticent about claiming center stage and returning fire against those who attack and attempt to demean her. The content of her speeches seems to have struck a resounding chord with a significant portion of the electorate.

Gov. Palin is no helpless, ill-prepared shrinking violet and it seems obvious that the left is frantic over what to do about this very visible perceived threat to their plans to rule America. I would suggest that their hasty and ill-conceived smear campaign will win them little, if any ground.

Ideally, political campaigns would feature the presentation of ideas and potential solutions to the problems confronting our country. Pointing out differences in the theory and application of these concepts and the ability of the candidates to lead in their implementation is not only acceptable but necessary to help voters make their decisions.

"The politics of personal destruction" seems to me to be an unnecessary distraction. Unfortunately, this particular tactic is extremely subjective in description and is often regarded by members of both parties as easily justifiable.

There is now a significant and visible difference between the political philosophies of the two sets of candidates vying for the leadership of the nation.

All of this might just be enough to convince me to watch the upcoming debates between Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

I recently had the pleasure of catching up with a young friend.

She had moved to Massachusetts nearly a year ago to pursue hopes and obtain opportunities that she believed were not available here in Maine. Unfortunately there are times when plans, due to any number of unforeseen circumstances arising, fail to progress as one had anticipated.

For those of us who are older and have a lengthy resume of life's trials and tribulations to draw on, unfulfilled dreams are a fairly common fact of life. For someone young and taking their first sprint toward independence dashed hopes can be a traumatic experience.

My young friend has encountered some speed bumps in her road and after careful consideration was even considering returning to Maine to take up where she had left off. But her reflections have led her to alter some of her goals so that they conform more to her current analysis of where she wants to go with her life.

Therefore, she explained to me, she has decided to "give Massachusetts more of a chance" and to make some adjustments in her life.

"Or", I thought to myself, "to give the intelligent and talented young woman that I know the opportunity to grow and achieve".

I may not ever be able to tell her how much admiration and respect I feel for her. She is dealing with an unsettling stew of disappointment, anxiety and self-assessment, but has made mature decisions and retained her optimism and ambition. What I can do is offer praise for her resolve and ongoing support as she works her way toward reaching her goals.

There are several young people whom I know who have followed a similar path, moving from one geographical environment to another where they feel that their chances to achieve their goals are more likely. In some instances, they have overcome significant odds just to be able to take that first step. But indeed they are taking that step and they are prepared to study, learn, work hard and sacrifice. They are beginning to place great value on their independence.

Perhaps they may accept the offered support and advice, from time to time, from an old goat who has made his share of mistakes and cares enough to want to share knowledge painfully gained with these young adventurers. I most sincerely hope that at least they will continue to share their developing lives with me. They provide me with hope for the future.

May God bless them as they face the many paths and choices that constitute the individual journey that each of us must complete. Hopefully they will come to accept and understand that they can always choose to never have to make that trip alone.

I have observed a number of candidates for both State and Federal offices promising to work to achieve "affordable health care for all". Very enticing, but these aspirants provide few details of how the worthy goal would be accomplished.

To be fair, such an undertaking would be far from simple and implementation would require enormous changes in our current health care system not to mention overcoming significant resistance from industry and individuals.

There is certainly an ideological split inherent in the issue. One side supports the concept that it is government's responsibility to provide the same level of health care for all of its citizens; the other side argues with equal fervor that government intervention would result in loss of freedom of choice and the rise of a massive bureaucracy with the aaccompanying huge rise in taxation to support the new government function.

The concept of government-sponsored health insurance has encountered difficulties at the state level, primarily because of the cost involved. Maine is having problems funding Dirigo (in addition to owing millions to hospitals for treatment provided under MaineCare). Massachusetts is currently faced with a growing funding deficit for its mandatory health insurance program and Tennessee was financially unable to continue some of its free health care programs because of larger than anticipated utilization. The case might be made that state governments do not have the financial resources to support such an ambitious undertaking.

Then where to turn?

The Federal government currently funds health care programs for the elderly, low income individuals and families, military personnel and their dependents and veterans, among others, resulting in coverage for approximately 25% of the U.S. population. To increase the coverage to "universal health care" levels would necessitate an enormous increase in tax revenues.

Most of the nations who supply government-sponsored health care have income tax levels near or exceeding the 50% level. Also, nearly all of these programs require some of the health care costs to be borne by every participant, usually through some form of copayment. Notably, in nearly all of these countries there is still some sort of private health insurance available for those willing to pay additional premiums.

Proponents for universal health care argue that even with greatly increased taxes, the overall price of health care for the individual would decline since the profit margin for the health care and health insurance industries would no longer be a factor.

Opponents counter that government programs are not known for saving money and speculate that any savings would be more than overcome by the new and burgeoning government agency that would be required to oversee such a massive program.

There is ample room for discussion regarding the promises of politicians running for office. Despite glowing promises, there is no "free" involved in the concept of universal health care.

For many voters, the choice may hinge on whether one prefers a government that can be viewed as providing the solutions for life's problems, or a more limited government that allows the individual freedom to make choices on how to manage life's opportunities, problems and yes, hardships.

As discussed in a previous column, health insurance mainly falls into three categories: Job-based Coverage, Individual Policies and Government-funded Programs. In addition, Maine hospitals are required by law to provide free care for those who fit low-income parameters.

With Job-based Coverage, the cost of premiums is shared by the employer and the employee. Businesses consider their share of these costs to be part of the employee's compensation package. Such plans provide a variety of benefits and costs vary according to the level of coverage an employee chooses. The size of a company may also influence the type and extent of benefits made available.

State and Federal employees have programs that may require some contribution by the employee, but the majority (or in some cases all) of the premium expense is borne by the taxpayer. Generally these plans provide extensive non-elective coverage and therefore are more costly per enrollee.

Premiums for individual policies are paid in total by the policy holder. These plans offer a wide range of benefits and their cost will depend upon what options are selected by the policy holder. Individual policies are usually the most expensive choice and are one of the few opportunities available for the self-employed and those not covered by government programs.

All government entitlement programs are mostly paid for by taxpayers, although in many cases a "co-pay" is required for selected medical services and in addition the enrollee frequently is required to pay a percentage of total costs.

Dirigo Choice was originally intended to be funded by "savings" created by implementation of new regulations governing health care providers and insurance companies, extracted from consumers and private health insurers and then used to subsidize coverage for selected enrollees. This program was passed into law in June 2003 and touted by Gov. Baldacci, who promised that Dirigo would never require an increase in taxes. Currently, Dirigo is not available for new enrollment. On April 15, 2008, a slim majority of the Maine Legislature passed a tax increase estimated at $57-72 million to fund the ballooning costs of the Dirigo Health program.

Until the 1930's, the cost of health care was relative low. Prior to 1920, most patients were treated in their homes. The state of medical technology at that time imposed severe limitations on what could be done for many patients and even surgery was often performed in private homes until the 1920's. Hospitals had not assumed their modern form until the turn of the century, when antiseptic methods were well established.

Enormous strides in medical technology since the 1930's have resulted in longer, healthier life spans for the public in general along with huge increases in medical costs and the birth of health insurance to help pay for these benefits.
Since each state independently regulates health insurance programs, and there are so many options available to the general public, it is difficult to define the average cost of health insurance on a state by state basis. One study, conducted in 2005 by the Association of Health Insurance Plans, pegged the average yearly cost of health insurance in Maine at approximately $3,700 for an individual and $10,700 for a family of three. The results of this study placed Maine costs in the top ten of the states considered.

So, can we deduce that, in general, Maine citizens all have some level of health care available?

The question might then become, what could be the best most inclusive health care plan for Maine citizens and how much would we be willing to pay for it? And one more question: how can we get the best deal?

On our next election day at least one of the issues on the ballot will likely be associated with the subject of health insurance. I recently began to wonder just how many people in Maine are eligible to receive health care through currently available programs.

There are, of course, those who share monthly premiums in partnership with their employer for individual and family health insurance. Such plans provide varying coverage and options for workers and their families, dependent upon how much enrollees are willing to pay.

There are self-employed individuals who have access to similar plans if they decide that they can afford the premiums and there are those who are independently wealthy for who cost is not an issue.

Individuals who have reached age 65 are eligible for no-cost Federal Medicare once they are enrolled, but normally have out-of-pocket costs if they elect to select Medicare Plan B supplementation and the new medication plan. Certain other individuals can qualify for Medicare because of disabilities.

Medicaid, with a combination of Federal funding and supplemental state contributions, provides care for those who fall within specific income parameters based on the Federal Poverty Level.

Veterans and retired military personnel are eligible for health care benefits through the Veterans Administration health care centers and certain other military-related health care programs.

Finally, Maine hospitals are required by law to provide free care for patients earning up to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level and in some cases certain hospitals have been known to extend that limit up to 250%.

In addition, hospitals frequently write off the costs of health care in certain cases that are identified as "bad debt".

These commitments by Maine hospitals prevent scenarios experienced by other states that involve ill or injured people being shuttled from hospital to hospital in search of one willing to accept charitable cases. Indeed, Maine has been rated by some studies as high as third-best in overall health care in the nation

After reviewing this list, I am not sure if there is anyone residing in Maine who might not be able to receive emergency and life-sustaining health care. Please let me know if any of you reading this post are aware of any verifiable exceptions.

It would appear that indeed Maine has a good health care climate. There are, however, looming questions about health care insurance issues. That subject will be the topic of an upcoming column.

Not long ago my wife and I enjoyed a wonderful meal at a restaurant located on Lisbon Street in Lewiston.

Following dinner we walked leisurely back to our car and I was struck by the pleasant surroundings of that section of Lisbon Street where it joins Main Street. A lot of work has been done to renovate the area.

This observation started me thinking about how the Lewiston/Auburn area has changed over the last few years. The Bates Mill complex is also the result of extensive planning and renovation and there is the major addition of the huge Wal Mart distribution center that has provided new jobs for citizens and tax revenue for the municipality.

There is new construction in the area of the Auburn Mall and a variety eating places and shopping opportunities are available. I am slightly surprised at the popularity of the Margaritas' addition, since spicy food has taken some time to gain a foothold here in Maine. Auburn residents have also benefited from the hard work done by Mayor John Jenkins and the City Council who were determined to avoid any tax increases for the current year and have met that goal (any chance of moving that whole crew up to Augusta?). An interesting side note; John Jenkins has previously successfully served as Mayor of Lewiston. He would appear to be a guy who knows how to get things done.

There is currently construction going on in the heart of Freeport that will result in a large new parking garage and additional businesses in the same complex.

Scarborough now has an enormous draw for sportsmen with the opening of the big Cabelas' retail complex. The wildlife exhibits alone are a good reason for a trip to that store.

Bangor has the new casino that is reportedly bringing significant revenue and jobs to the area.

All of these things got me thinking about a recent article in the Portland Press Herald online highlighting a Critical Insights survey claiming that 91% of Mainers feel that the economy has become worse than this time last year and that only 15% look forward to any improvement during the next year.

The examples that I have listed have brought new significant jobs in construction and then other opportunities after the construction/renovations have been completed. And yet, after telephone interviews with "602 Mainers" and having a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points, we are presented with a dismal view of the economy?

I was told once that polls and surveys should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism since their purpose was not to inform, but to influence.

Companies and pollsters who are paid to conduct surveys will insist that their findings are based on the latest scientific methods, but I personally find it difficult to have confidence in conclusions drawn after interviewing 602 people out of our population of approximately 1.3 million residents.

Also, I can't help but wonder who paid for this survey. After all, this is an election year. According to Mark Brewer, an associate professor of political science at the University of Maine, "the average American voter sees the President as overwhelmingly responsible for the economy, for good or ill".

Perhaps, but I would be more inclined to look at the Governor and the Legislature as having more significant responsibility for our local economy.

I have just received though the mail (at taxpayer expense, of course) a "report" from my local Maine Senator, a Democrat, lauding the accomplishments of the most recent Legislative session.

The apparent centerpiece of this ode to Legislative prowess and largesse was a statement to the effect that the Legislature had borne down and through dint of excessive hard work and making very difficult choices had created a balanced budget for the upcoming two years.

The details may indicate an entirely different picture, depending upon how much of this glowing rhetoric one is willing to accept at face value.

For instance, the good Senator proudly explains that roads and bridges will receive special attention through approved bonds totaling over fifty million dollars over the next three years. She appears to be overjoyed at the prospect of burdening the already stressed Maine taxpayer with this large sum, plus accumulating interest. No mention of why borrowing more money was the only option, ignoring the fact that all of the money from the gas taxes, turnpike fares, registrations, etc. never seems to make it to the projects for which they are specifically designated but instead vanishes into the gaping maw of the General Fund.

Bonds are nothing more than borrowing money that the state government does not have, incurring more debt at a time when from the Governor on down our leaders deluge the public with tales of impending doom unless vital needs are addressed. Why has no effort been made to prioritize funding requirements such as maintenance for transportation infrastructure?

And no mention of the already infamous new beverage tax, passed very late in the Legislative session without any public input whatsoever with the resulting funds being targeted to prop up Dirigo Health which continues to be unable to support itself and has become a drain on the State Treasury.

As has happened so often in the past, the leaders of the Maine Legislature have "balanced the budget" by increasing the oppressive tax burden shouldered by the working people of Maine while the Department of Health and Human Services cannot account for over one hundred million missing dollars and expensive new computer programs eat up more millions and still do not work correctly.

And they expect the public to be grateful for this blatant mismanagement of funds taken from the citizen's pockets.

Can we afford this kind of runaway spending or is it time to install in Augusta politicians who are willing to exercise fiscal restraint and work within available revenues?

I am curious as to how many others have received this kind of "good news" from their legislators.

My job provides constant interaction with restaurants, hotels, and other tourist-oriented businesses that form a significant section of Maine's economy.

Given the cost of travel and transportation these days, it should come as no surprise that many of my clients are unhappy and anxious over a drop in customers. They tell me that their revenues are not currently at the same levels produced by past summer seasons and they blame this decrease not only on fewer tourists, but also fewer Maine people patronizing their establishments.

No doubt some of these businesses will no longer be solvent by next tourist season. The better-managed, more popular establishments will stand the best chance of survival.

The ever-rising cost of petroleum products is causing more and more ripples in the pool of our national and local economies. On a recent news broadcast I heard one economic "expert" speculate that something other than "market variations" might be influencing these huge increases in the cost of gasoline and heating oil, since there is no evident decline in prices despite an increasing drop in their consumption. Gee, you suppose …….?

A growing and vibrant economy is vital to our national and local interests and, yes, our stabilizing contributions to a world economy.

Locally we should be planning right now to make sure that those who legitimately will not be able to afford to heat their homes this coming winter will not be freezing. Nationally, we should be taking immediate steps to decrease our dependence upon foreign oil and that means opening drilling in new areas and doing whatever it takes to finance and encourage the exploration of alternative energy sources.

We can no longer afford national or local politicians who refuse to prioritize spending in order to address our most pressing needs, whose proposed solutions are focused on "tax the rich" (or the general population, in the case of Augusta), or who still block the expansion of our national resources of coal and oil, or who still pander to special interests whose livelihoods depend upon the status quo.

We, as individuals, can make conservation efforts that will help our personal finances. But we surely need to elect local and national politicians with the vision, determination, ethics and moral strength to consider the welfare of the public as a whole; to reject those who will assure us that they have our best interests at heart and then ignore campaign pledges and promises so that they can conduct "politics as usual".

As important as the tourist industry is to Maine, our state government needs to adjust their prevailing attitude that recreational visitors (cash cows) will sustain their ever-increasing "tax and spend" policies.

Then again, we can allow the current power structures in Augusta and Washington to continue unchecked until we are all "equal" - equally penniless, that is.

November and opportunity inches closer. Are you ready for a change in Augusta?

Over the past several years, I have experienced the passing of several family members. That is to be expected, I suppose, as one grows older.

All of the elderly people involved were "Old-Time Mainers" and like so many of the breed they were stubborn, independent and used to making do with a combination of hard work and resourcefulness.

In each instance, advanced age and illness both played a prominent role. Inpatient and outpatient treatment was required as well as nursing care either in a facility or by home visitation services. Fortunately Medicare, Basic and Supplemental, covered nearly all expenses since no one involved had much in the way of financial resources.

But there are riches and wealth far from the material plane.

What was also provided was extensive loving care by family members and friends. There was never a question of someone facing these trials on their own. These elderly folks had provided for others for most of their lives and leave a legacy of capable, independent children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews who will carry on a tradition of family strength and unity.

I wish that I could say that every passing is marked by grace and dignity. Unfortunately, a failing body so often traps the spirit until it is freed to soar as it is meant to do from the very beginning.

I am filled with admiration and respect for those who have given so much to make the transition of these loved ones an easier time.

To paraphrase a thought that I have heard in many variations, "It is not what you take with you when you leave this life that are the most important things; it is what you leave behind".

During my military service and employment with security firms, firearms have played a significant role. I am also a hunter and target shooter. Guns are not a mystery to me, nor do they disturb me, unless they are pointed at me in a threatening fashion and I find that highly irritating.

Subsequently, I followed the recent Supreme Court deliberations over the challenge to the D.C. gun-ban law with great interest. My reaction to the decision was relief that the right of Americans to personal protection had finally been upheld at the highest level.

It appears to me that this decision was the result of a "strict constructionist" approach and that made the results even more interesting since the split vote placed "Swing Voter" Justice Kennedy with the majority.

I just finished reading an editorial that attempted to use the Second Amendment decision to bolster the concept that the Constitution is a "living document" that must be modified to reflect the "changing moral landscape of today". That, by the way, was one of the terms used in the majority opinion (written by Justice Souter) to justify another Supreme Court decision to overturn a death penalty imposed upon a convicted child rapist by a Louisiana Court ( again, the majority decision was supported by Justice Kennedy). Somehow allying "strict constructionist" and "progressive" interpretations of the Constitution just don’t add up for me.

But what does work for me is the concept that law abiding citizens must be allowed to defend themselves and their families. Unfortunately, our law enforcement systems are designed for the investigation of a crime and the apprehension of a supposed perpetrator. Unless a victim is lucky enough to have a law enforcement professional available at the onset, the police offer little or no protection from a determined criminal.

Is society in general now in danger because of this decision ? No. If you are a convicted felon, are under the scope of a protection from abuse decree, are mentally unstable or are disqualified under numerous other limitations, then current law prevents you from possessing a gun. Both common sense and state law require a background investigation and waiting period before a purchase of a firearm can be completed. I have held a Permit to Carry Concealed Firearms for years and that is not an easy document to obtain, either.

I firmly believe that anyone who owns a firearm should be thoroughly schooled not only in safety requirements but also in the laws and regulations surrounding its use (hunting regulations, for example). Of course this does not always happen. The National Rifle Association and many other national and local organizations (Boy Scouts, gun clubs, professional trainers, etc.) are sources for this needed training.

It is a good thing that this Supreme Court decision finally addresses a specific right contained in the Constitution in a manner that defines individual rights without denying individual states their regulatory role.

A few decades ago Maine had no oil shortage. America produced most of its needed supply by drilling and refining within its own geographical boundaries . Maine also had hydroelectric sites and as the years passed a nuclear power plant was added along with biomass power producers such as MERC and the plant at the Sappi Westbrook mill. Many homes were heated by wood or coal. In the 1950’s my family lived three miles from town and I and others walked, rode a bicycle or sought rides from friends or parents to attend work, school or recreational activities.

All of these things together helped make the cost of energy affordable for Maine and the Nation.

But today, Augusta is desperately seeking additional Federal funding to help supply heating oil to people whose incomes fall short of enabling them to heat their homes and at the same time meet a multitude of increasing costs of living, all of which are affected by the skyrocketing price of crude oil.

There has not been a new oil refinery built in this country for over thirty years. Existing wells have been capped and exploration is severely limited by regulations imposed at the insistence of environmental lobbyists. The vast majority of our oil is imported from countries who, charitably can be described as not having our best interests in mind.

How to improve this dire situation?

With our energy profile currently overly-dependent upon petroleum, it would seem to make sense to pursue with haste alternative energy sources while increasing our domestic oil producing and refining capacity. I don’t see this happening without strong and creative actions from our political leaders at all levels.

Unfortunately, the immediate reaction from Gov. Baldacci and our entire Congressional delegation was to repudiate the concept of initiating offshore drilling because that could possibly damage Maine’s fishing industry, overlooking the fact that Maine’s fishermen are already severely hampered by Federal regulations and further frustrated by overfishing near our territorial limits by foreign ships and crews.

I use this example to help identify the problems we face in utilizing our bountiful natural resources to ease our energy problems.

In addition, wind power projects are blocked here in Maine by conservation groups (Friends of the Appalachian Trail, for one) who object to windmills on grounds varying from ruining the “esthetic value” of our mountains to speculation on the devastation of migrating birds encountering the towers. Sen. Ted Kennedy has repeatedly blocked windmills being located offshore and visible from the Kennedy compound on the Massachusetts coastline. And nuclear power is an unacceptable option for some, although there are foreign countries (France, for one) who have safely and economically embraced that source of power. Hydroelectric plants, once plentiful here in Maine, now are few in number and are still decreasing, the dams creating that source of power now termed “destructive” for impeding the “natural flow” of rivers.

One last issue: we should not overlook the possibility that a concentrated effort to weaken the economy of the United States through oil price manipulation might be an additional tactic utilized by radical elements of Islam in the ongoing war against the West. After all, one of the most effective tactics resulting in the fall of the USSR was pressure on many fronts that undermined the already shaky Soviet economic structure.

These examples indicate that our politicians and administrations, at all levels, Federal and State, have studiously avoided the mounting energy problem for decades, unwilling to alienate blocks of voters whose support helps them maintain their myriad and bountiful privileges.

An individual can save money on a personal basis by restricting his or her use of energy, but I doubt if conservation alone is going to influence the rising costs of gasoline, heating oil and electricity that produce negative effects on our economy . The growing energy needs of nations such as China and India will more than make up for any reductions achieved by America’s citizens.

For many of us on fixed incomes the price of implementing alternative energy systems such as solar, wind power or geo-thermal systems, with any cost savings a decade or more in the future, is sufficient reason to swallow hard and bear the increasing costs of heating and transportation.

It appears to me that increasing our stores of domestic petroleum, coal and natural gas is a necessary stopgap measure because without such actions our national economy and accompanying welfare is in continuing danger from outside influences – some of whom would be delighted to see us fall from our position of global influence and power. We need time to study, choose and develop alternative energy sources.

Only if we can unite in applying pressure to our political class, will they begin to seriously address our future. But we must agree to act en masse, insisting that our needs be recognized and acted upon by our “leaders” at all levels and voting out those who seek only the privileges of their political status rather than focusing on the welfare of the nation and its citizens as a whole.

When putting together two of my recent blog entries I was hopeful that they might result in opening a dialog with people reading them.

I admit that the pieces were written with the idea in mind of encouraging participation. They contained opinions that evidently were disturbing to at least two respondents, judging from the vituperative nature of some of the postings I received from them.

My intent was to encourage a meaningful, civil exchange of ideas and/or opinions from my readers and in that effort I appear to have failed miserably, judging from the overwhelming pejoratives and invective that characterized some responses.

I will always welcome a contribution that features reasons for one’s position on issues and facts to bolster it, as well as remarks from someone who disagrees with me and will take the time to explain to me (without personal accusations, vilification or fanciful distortion of what I have written) the basis for their disagreement.

Name-calling, labeling, belittlement and attempts to twist my words to fit another’s personal beliefs bore me and I will simply erase the posting from the “Comments” section of the blog.

One contributor complained that the subject material I was writing about would not appeal to anyone and demanded that his personal issues be addressed. That is not going to happen. I request that responders keep their comments germane to the subject of the particular piece, although something that piques my interest could be the subject of a following blog.

I am new at this blog business and it seems that my intent to use my writing to entertain and stimulate thought and conversation has so far not yielded the results that I desired. It is my challenge to do a effective job and I will work toward that goal in future articles.

However, I am who I am. Perceive me as you will, but do not expect space on my blog unless you are willing to offer civil and intelligent comments.

Yesterday I was the unwilling recipient of an automated telephone call urging me to decline if offered the opportunity to sign a petition urging the recall of a new tax (imposed by the Democratic majority and one lone so-called Republican in the wee hours of the morning on the last day of the most recent Legislative gathering) requiring additional fees from the sale of soda, beer, wine, flavored water and other items – plus a cut of any health insurance settlements.

The consequences of repeal of this tax would be dire indeed, the message stated. I was warned that the neediest people would lose their health insurance, adults and children would flood emergency rooms and that repercussions might topple our entire health care system.

The described villain is the new tax instigated to prop up the massive failure of the government-created Dirigo health insurance initiative. The estimated $70 million raised would effective double the subsidy provided to 13,000 Dirigo members, plus another 5,000 MaineCare recipients, to over $120 million dollars. Do the math on this one, folks. It is a pretty expensive now, let alone with the increase.

And this is a program that was initially sold to the public as a self-supporting undertaking.

I am one of the people who firmly believe that Maine government receives more than enough money to fulfill its obligation to take care of the most pressing needs of its citizens if it would only learn to prioritize spending and practice some fiscal responsibility.

It sits ill with me that the movement against the citizen initiative to repeal this tax is spearheaded by unions and other special interest groups and is in great part funded by out-of-state donations from advocates of “universal health care”.

Even more unsettling are the scare tactics of misinformation, distortion and downright untruths that were also employed by the socialist brigades who managed to narrowly defeat the last TABOR initiative.

These attempts to repress the right of citizens to take part in government are the result of the inroads socialists have made here in what used to be a bastion of independence, free-thinking and self-reliance.

The simple fact is that socialism is the most easily corruptible of political philosophies, since a ruling class is required to dispense the “benefits” that an all-powerful government leaches from its productive citizens. Once in power and maintained by a carefully constructed electoral base comprised of special interest groups whose fortunes depend upon keeping their benefactors in office, these parasites are very difficult to dislodge.

Those who benefit most from Maine’s unfair tax burden are those who always fight hardest against any effort to bring tax relief.
Take the time to learn about the organizations opposing the efforts initiated by taxpayers and small business operators to rein in runaway spending. Don’t be fooled by the class-warfare tactics perfected and employed by those who stand to lose if taxes are repealed.

By the way, even without this new money no current participants in Dirigo (which, being a closed-enrollment program is something most of us cannot benefit from) or their families will lose their health insurance.

I don’t need anyone directing me on whether or not to exercise my right to sign a petition. How about you?

I recently had the privilege of being invited to a college graduation party/barbeque held in honor of one of my youngest son’s oldest friends. They had completed grammar school and high school together and also were members of the local Boy Scout Troop, both attaining the rank of Eagle Scout.

They both attended college, my son graduating with a degree in Graphic Design and his friend graduating from Maine Maritime Academy with a third-class license in Engineering.

The future seems bright for these two young men; one has secured a position with a company providing tug service for coastal transport barges and the other has worked for a Boston-area software company for well over a year.

Significantly, neither of them made the decision to stay in Maine. Both reviewed the job opportunities available in our state and found that none came even close to matching salaries and benefits available elsewhere.

There are many proud parents who have watched their sons and daughters graduate from college during the past few weeks and I can’t help but wonder how many of these bright, talented young people will leave Maine for better opportunities.

When I graduated from high school many years ago, there were limited chances for advancement. One could continue one’s education (and many of my classmates did so, most leaving for out-of-state schools), go to work in a mill and at least make a salary that one could live on, or join the military (again, leaving Maine) which was my choice.

How unfortunate that despite the passage of so many years, so little has changed. Most opportunities for smart, hard-working young people from Maine still require leaving the state. Until those in state government are willing to change the business climate here in the Pine Tree State, we will continue to lose our most valuable resource – the productive good citizens we have so carefully raised.

I firmly believe that Maine is a special place, both in its physical beauty and in the character of its native inhabitants (known to some as “ornery, crusty Yankees”). No doubt members of the 20th Maine who engaged opposing forces at Little Round Top earned that description.

I recall that when growing up here in Maine I learned that the concept of an individual’s given word, along with a firm handshake, would be accepted as readily as a written contract. Today, such an agreement would be considered by many as naïve, at best, in addition to causing fits amidst the legal community.

For years I have used a local mechanic to service my vehicles. Like many Mainers, he had a fulltime job in a local mill and utilized his mechanical knowledge and expertise to help “get by”. Only recently, after his former employer closed its doors, has he turned to mechanical work as his main source of income.

A few weeks ago did some work on one of our family cars and within a short time it became apparent that something was still wrong and that a second visit to his shop would be necessary. The situation was soon corrected to our satisfaction and we were informed that he always stood by his work and that no additional cost would be incurred.

No signed work orders required. No written warrantees. Just the word of someone who stood by his work.

Once upon a time, our mechanic had run for his District’s seat in the Maine House of Representatives. He lost the election by a narrow margin.

Seems to me that Maine government was by far the greater loser.

They say April is the cruelest month, yet May is the meanest month. Maine in May brings the promise of Spring with the desire for Summer. It holds the torrent of an Autumn rain and the frosty kiss of Winter. May is the time of Life and Death, of Do or Don’t Do. It is predictable in its’ unpredictable ways.
In May we run gingerly across the bright green grass and gather armloads of Daffodils before the rain beats the soft buttery petals into slug food. We plant Peas and gather Dandelion greens while the new Garlic leaves wave Hello. The next day can bring death to tiny nurtured seedlings by forgetting to cover or water or open or close a door. Other green children surprise me with their strength or mere presence. How did that the Lungwort get so huge? (Thanks Leslie - I always think of you in Spring.)
In May I don’t hurry to put away that Winter vest or those heavy wooly socks. We keep the wood box full and watch for 100 year Spring floods. I do dig out my summer sleeveless shirts and shorts and soak up the first warm days in the garden. One must feel the sun and breathe deeply of the scents of birth and Life. So enjoy and savor the easy joy of it all, for soon…usually the first week in May…it happens. The joy is sucked away. Along with pints of unauthorized blood donations, for the Black Flies have arrived.
And they are more than cruel - they are mean.
Now the garden chores take on an intensity as we pull weeds and swat our ears. No more strolling serenely and gazing about. Now we stumble and weave and wave our arms. Some call it the Black Fly Shuffle, though I think it may only attract the little buggers.
How do we deal with these annoying, insipid creatures? I avoid the Deet, despite the dire warnings that nothing else will work. I could explain it all in technical terms of the nasty chemical composition that neither you or I can fully comprehend or simply tell the bottom line truth - it gives me severe headaches. There are various natural products out there made with citronella that work well for me when I must use something. I also employ the ancient concept of a layer of oil. Avon used this concept when someone noticed the additional benefit of one of their skin so softeners. (Smirk)
Others don the baffling bug nets and this is my first line of defense if I must be outside in a swarm. (Especially if I’m standing at the potting table for an hour or so.) Just remember to tuck in those loose ends people!
I sometimes use the Bug Whisperer approach. This does work and I’ve heard this theory from others as well. I simply and quietly state that I must be outside for a while and I would appreciate it if the Blackfly herd could respect that and not chew me to bits. I will allow a few small bites as a Thank You for their respect. Too many bites and I will grab one by the wings, shake it sternly, remind it of our agreement, then let it go. She’ll usually tell her sisters to leave the crazy lady alone.
Here’s a favorite old time recipe from Midcoast Maine - It' good!

Blackfly Stew

1 onion
1 celery stalk
1 handful of green beans
1 carrot
1 handful of mushrooms
1 or 2 garlic cloves
Slice all and sauté in a heavy saucepan with a little butter or olive oil, adding each in order and stirring gently before adding the next ingredient.
Stir in a lb of thawed frozen Maine shrimp and pour in a quart of chicken broth with left over chicken. Cover and simmer an hour or so. Add more water if necessary.
Next - here’s the Blackfly part - go out in the garden and gather a handful or two of snips of fresh chives, garlic leaves, mustard and dandelion greens. Then chop them and add along with a spoonful of fresh minced Ginger to the simmering soup and any clinging Blackflies you may have accumulated. These are highly nutritious and delicious! In the old days, fisherman’s wives would knit small nets to wave over their heads in the garden to collect the juiciest bugs. Our modern day palettes are unable to appreciate the tenderness of the flavor now though; so many people (including me) omit this step. Stir in a couple of cups of cooked brown rice, add salt and pepper to taste and a few spoonfuls of soy sauce. Serve steaming hot with a salad of greens sprinkled with chives and heartsease (Johnny Jump Ups) flowers. Bake up some Biscuits too.
(Please note - the author assumes you know dandelion greens from poison hemlock and accepts no responsibility for any and all adverse reactions to ingestion of any wild plants or insects.)
Enjoy!