Not to worry, Auburn parents. After all, who needs proficiency in basic skills like math and reading, when your children can have IPads and laptops at their disposal!
[/sarcasm]
You're also paying for her college education, and probably housing, food stamps, and every other benefit going, including vehicle and childcare expenses.
Fine - as long as everybody has to pay at least something in return for the program. Otherwise, the situation described in the article is precisely what we all end up subsidizing.
Messier said she does have concerns about whether eligibility requirements will change in Maine, as the health care has been a top benefit of her having moved to the state.
"New Hampshire should follow Maine, because the services are great," she said.
*************
Sorry, Ms. Messier, but if Maine fiscal conservatives have their way, those benefits are going to decrease. They have to decrease, because our state is broke. Largely because we are supporting far too many people who do move here precisely because of the benefits.
New Hampshire is better off financially BECAUSE they don't have Cadillac benefit plans for anyone and everyone.
Thank you - precisely what I thought when I read the article. Anyone saying that it "doesn't happen" is either kidding themselves, or willfully ignoring the truth.
As head of the Maine Democratic party, Ben Grant is also "free to do as he pleases." That's because neither party is an official government entity, which is how it should be. Nobody should be electing party officials but the members of that party.
Regardless, I believe that both Summers and Webster are acting properly in disclosing the investigation information now. It's nice of you to say that you wouldn't accuse them of a cover-up, had they failed to disclose, but there are many others who would do exactly that.
I disagree, and here's why -- if it turns out the fraud allegations are valid, resulting in prosecutions, the AG and SOS would have been accused of a "cover up" for NOT disclosing the investigations upfront.
They are acting properly, because "the people's business shall be done publicly."
There were indeed "facts" presented. Both Webster and Summers stated very clearly what their allegations contain - voter fraud, and improper voting.
Think about police records or criminal investigations -- all you get is the basics, until the investigation is complete.
In this case, the refusal to name the people who might be involved is prudent, and proper. Those people haven't yet been charged with any crime, so it's appropriate to leave those details until they are charged. In particular, that applies to state employees.
I have no issue with what either Summers or Webster have done in regard to allegations of voter fraud in Maine.
After all, if the Democrats can base an entire political campaign on doom-and-gloom fears of "mittens in classrooms" and "old people starving and freezing to death with no rescue" -- think TABOR I and II -- then why can't the Maine Secretary of State hold a press conference to announce that his office has received credible evidence of voter fraud at a state department?
It seems to me the allegations of "stagecraft" and "empty beakers" would have been better employed during the TABOR campaigns. I never in all my life saw such a fetid collection of trumped-up alarmisms. The whole campaigns belonged in a wax museum.
In comparison, a couple of press conferences is like the flea riding on a woolly mammoth.
Yes, I do understand that concept, Gerald. That's why I don't see the van reservations being a legal issue.
What's clear, however, is that you don't understand the difference between encouraging voter rights, and improper, possibly fraudulent use of public money to advance a certain political agenda.
That's why you don't answer the question as to whether it's wrong if the D's "instruct" the voters as to how they should cast their ballot.
No, Gerald - the Republicans do NOT "want to prohibit college students from voting." Nor do they wish to "spite" some students, or "make it more difficult" for all Mainers to vote.
The aim of the new voter registration law is to prohibit ILLEGAL voting. Period. The aim of the new law (along with the proposal to require photo ID to get a ballot) is to ensure that only eligible Maine residents vote in this state, and that when appearing at the polls, they are, in fact, the actual person who is asking for a ballot.
I could just as easily write "Maine Democrats don't want the new law, because they want to make it easier for college students and other people to vote in Maine illegally and fraudulently."
Inaccurate, blanket statements don't sound quite as well when they're flipped, do they?
In the past, it's been alleged that the Democratic party has used the vans on election day, to canvass the whole town of Farmington, pick up voters, and ferry them to the polls.
During the van rides, did they "instruct" those voters on "good" candidates or issues to approve at the polls? Did they give the voters brochures, cards, or other information on the "good" candidates and issues, during the van ride, so they'd be well-equipped to vote for the "good" candidates and issues?
I would have more concern with activities of that nature, than I have with the UMF Republicans parking those vans for the day.
Public property and equipment should not be used for political purposes.
It doesn't matter what their "intent" was, Gerald. The fact is that nobody did anything that prevented any students from voting if they wished to vote.
It wasn't "voter suppression," Gerald. Nobody prevented students from voting. Read the article - it clearly states that no students reported an inability to get to the polls. If the vans being unavailable was such a big deal, why weren't there hordes of angry complaining about being disnfranchised, and clamoring for their "ride"?
What the UMF Republicans did was take the public dollars out of the voting process. That is not the same thing as "voter suppression."
People need to calm down and read the article again. Charlie Webster didn't "prevent anyone from voting." He merely parked three of the university's five vans.
If students wished to vote, they could still get to the polls by any other means they chose. As the article states, nobody at the university complained that they couldn't vote.
Meanwhile, in response to Geller's comments in the article, there is a large cost difference between letting people hand out information on university grounds, and using publicly owned vans and petrol to transport people to the polls.
I agree with Charlie Webster - public money shouldn't be used for political purposes, outside the Clean Elections process.
"Farah, who came to the United States in 2006, had no recorded criminal history, Dolley said. She had lived in a refuge camp in Kenya for more than a decade before that, he said. She's a single mother on a fixed income."
**********
Kudos to her for all she's had to overcome. I'd just like to know where the 2000 Mercedes SUV came from. As someone living on a very fixed income, that is not the kind of vehicle I'm driving!!!
Also, why not get a license, and do as she should have, in the country supporting her family?
Typically, there are far fewer people at the floor elections than the referendum elections. That's why it's a flawed voting system. No matter what's approved at the floor election, it can be voted down by a larger turnout at the referendum.
What's the point of the floor meetings, since there are public budget hearings prior to elections, which provide ample opportunity for discussion?
Just another "gift" from the former state administration, which mandated that two-part election system as part of the consolidation program.
Typically, there are far fewer people at the floor meetings than the referendum elections. That's why it's a flawed voting system. Just another "gift" from the former state administration, which mandated the election system as part of the consolidation program.
I agree with you. The only reason this is even a "story," is because J. Dwight is a member of a state advisory board. He has almost nothing to do with Gov. LePage, but because there's that slim connection, the media feeding frenzy was unleashed as soon as the police report hit the papers.
Never mind that the original reports cited an untruth -- that Dwight was supposedly appointed to the commission by Gov. LePage. Dwight was NOT appointed to the Economic Forecasting Commission by LePage -- Dwight was appointed by fellow commission members.
However, because the original media source had that glaring inaccuracy, the muckraking began.
According to Adrienne, Dwight's wife, the SJ has essential details of the story wrong.
Adrienne wrote:
"Fun fast facts:
I'm pretty sure I made it to the correct court house at the correct time.
Outside the courtroom, I hugged and kissed my husband.
Kevin Joyce wasn't there.
I'm sorry, but I may have to add incompetent to "reckless, politically motivated media", for failing to verify the simplest facts.
Once again, reckless because they couldn't wait until the court made a determination, politically motivated because they juxtaposed his political affiliation (contributions) with domestic violence, and now incompetent because the simplest of details weren't accurate."
You can read the details at the link above. Adrienne Dwight's comments are on page one of the thread, and the timeline and details of the full incident are on page two.
Speaking of "rights," and a "police state" - I used to live on a road that was commonly used by President Bush's motorcade in Kennebunk. On one such occasion, Secret Service agents ordered me to go into my home and remain there. My "offense"? I was out front of my house, using a trowel to weed my garden. The road was shut down because the motorcade was expected to be coming through, and the SS were patrolling the road beforehand.
I politely asked the big, scary-looking men why I couldn't be working in my own garden, in my own yard when the President's motorcade drove by. In response, I was told that unless I wanted "trouble," I would do as they recommended.
I'm surprised they didn't confiscate my trowel, too.
Thanks to the Sun Journal, for saying "no thanks" on the LePage story regarding the site selling merchandise bashing the Governor and his administration.
They're happy to make money and trade off the notoriety from his comments and the tough issues facing Maine, but too cowardly to give their names. What a swell bunch of people they sound.
Sadly, that's essentially what we already have in Maine. People who try to avoid the MaineCare co-payments end up in the ER all the time. I have good friends who work in Maine hospitals, and they see it every single day.
Maine currently has a completely unsustainable insurance system, and it's killing our residents, both financially and medically.
Families who do have insurance are forced to choose between groceries and paying their onerous insurance premiums. Maine has severely limited choices on plans and companies, because by law, we can't go outside the state for coverage. We can buy car insurance from a Michigan company, but not health insurance. Why?
Many other residents cannot afford any kind of insurance, so they end up at the ER, and on charity programs at our hospitals. They go without preventative measures, and end up sicker as a result.
Many of those on MaineCare, like I said above, try to avoid the co-payments by skipping their PCP's and going to the ER. Meanwhile, many Maine providers are not taking any new MaineCare clients, and some are dropping those they already have. That's because the payments are late, and inadequate to meet the real costs.
We need a serious change. Our insurance and health system is busted, and they need a serious "fix."
"..the specifics were contained in a 29-page amendment that wasn't made public until Friday morning."
*************
Here's the response from Rep. McKane:
"That is quite simply, wrong. The full amendment was heard on Wednesday. On Friday, a small amendment on captured insurance was offered to the full amendment."
"Every issue contained in LD 1333 has been heard and debated many times over the years. My testimony was essentially the same one I offered last session and the session before that. This wasn’t designed by insurance companies and in fact, they do not like the out-of-state insurance plan nor do they like the captive insurance plan."
Heartfelt prayers for everyone involved in this situation - the deceased lady's family, as well as the officers who responded to the call. All are grieving today.
It's not appropriate to blame the entire R party for the improper actions of a few people. There were 16 caucus groups meeting at the school that day. The poster incident happened in one room - occupied by the Knox County Caucus. They did not act with R party knowledge or permission.
The other R caucus groups meeting at the school that day knew nothing about the incident. What they did was wrong, and it should have never happened.
On the other hand, it's not fair to blame other people who have no involvement or culpability, merely because they're Republicans.
Thank you for the photo, and your honesty. To me, after seeing the photo, and hearing your description of the room, it seems as if the murals would be more appropriate in a museum setting.
And, he may do just that. However, it won't be addressed through legislation, since the Constitution mandates that any changes would take place AFTER he's out of office.
However, for Tipping and others to say that he "exempted himself" is plainly false. It's an attempt to smear him - period.
Steve Mistler wrote:
"If you have a library card, you can check the source for yourself."
************
Mr. Mistler - I'm sorry, but that isn't acceptable from a journalist. When you write a piece, you need to include sources and evidence for the statements you include. Yes, it would require homework on your part, instead of just writing, "Reportedly, such and such happened back in 1990."
However, that's the difference between a paid byline, and an anonymous appearance on "Democratic Underground."
He's since posted a disclaimer on his "Tipping Point" blog about the Constitutional statute concerning Executive Compensation, following emails to him containing the information. However, in reading the original, it's clear he didn't do his homework before publishing the piece. Instead, he launched a false, inflammatory smear piece, in an attempt to discredit Gov. LePage.
Hi, Doreen -- if you read the information I posted, above, you'll see that the issue is not as simple as the SJ and others have alleged.
Gov. LePage's compensation is set by the Maine Constitution, and those statutes have been in place for years. The position of Governor is treated differently under the Constitution than that of other state employees.
The reason for that difference is so that the legislature can't force out a governor by cutting his compensation.
Next time you fling scurrilous accusations at Gov. LePage, kindly do us all a favor, and examine the facts before pushing the "send" button.
Thank you.
Steve Mistler wrote:
"However, the administration hasn't deployed the constitutional defense, perhaps because previous governors have reportedly sought separate statutory changes to their compensation to match their budget messaging."
************
"Reportedly"? Which governors, and what statutory changes? This is empty speculation, without a factual basis.
As for Tipping's article, it's a smear piece, which falsely accuses Gov. LePage of "exempting" himself from pension contribution increases being proposed for some other state employees. LePage couldn't change his contribution, according to the Maine State Constitution (see below). Even if a Constitutional amendment to change his compensation were enacted, the effect wouldn't begin until after Gov. LePage was out of office.
Tipping failed to do his homework, and the SJ does themselves no favors by carrying water for such a muddy source.
[u]Here's the Constitutional statute on Executive Compensation[/u]:
Section 6. Compensation. The Governor shall, at stated times, receive for services a compensation, which shall not be increased or diminished during the Governor's continuance in office. http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
The statute that sets the Governor's compensation specifically states how the pension amount will be calculated and what amount the Governor will contribute. The contribution from the Governor is not the result of a general law applicable to all state employees or even a class of employees -- it is specific to the Governor. A change in that statute to increase the required contribution from the Governor would reduce the value of the pension benefit and equal diminishing the Governor's compensation as prohibited by the Constitution.
[u]In order to amend the Constitution, here's the procedure[/u]:
Section 4. Amendments to Constitution. The Legislature, whenever 2/3 of both Houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to this Constitution; and when any amendments shall be so agreed upon, a resolution shall be passed and sent to the selectmen of the several towns, and the assessors of the several plantations, empowering and directing them to notify the inhabitants of their respective towns and plantations, in the manner prescribed by law, at the next biennial meetings in the month of November, or to meet in the manner prescribed by law for calling and holding biennial meetings of said inhabitants for the election of Senators and Representatives, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November following the passage of said resolve, to give in their votes on the question, whether such amendment shall be made; and if it shall appear that a majority of the inhabitants voting on the question are in favor of such amendment, it shall become a part of this Constitution. http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
If folks want to argue with Gov. LePage on administrative/legislative issues of substance, have at it. However, this kind of puerile mudslinging is counter-productive - for everyone.
Recent Comments
MECEP
You mean an "unelected" entity like the MECEP?
Both sides have think-tanks, and analysis entities. Nothing new, nothing untoward.
OPEGA Review of MSHA
Any bets on how fast the resignations start rolling in at MSHA?
Don't Worry - the Ipads are Coming
Not to worry, Auburn parents. After all, who needs proficiency in basic skills like math and reading, when your children can have IPads and laptops at their disposal!
[/sarcasm]
Mature, Civil, AND ....
....boorish.
"Husband's lines"? Sexist and patronizing, much?
http://www.facebook.com/mymom
http://www.facebook.com/mymommyisanangel2007?ref=ts
You're also paying for her college education, and probably housing, food stamps, and every other benefit going, including vehicle and childcare expenses.
According to the Myspace
According to the Myspace page, it is the Bree Messier in the article.
Does MaineCare cover after-care for tattoo patients?
http://www.myspace.com/robsdallascowgirl/blog/498298041
Tattoos, But no Healthcare?
Is this the young lady in question?
http://www.myspace.com/robsdallascowgirl/blog/498298041
How Mature and Civil
Are you always this mature and civil, or is this a special occasion?
Fine - as long as everybody
Fine - as long as everybody has to pay at least something in return for the program. Otherwise, the situation described in the article is precisely what we all end up subsidizing.
Sorry, Ms. Messier, But....
Messier said she does have concerns about whether eligibility requirements will change in Maine, as the health care has been a top benefit of her having moved to the state.
"New Hampshire should follow Maine, because the services are great," she said.
*************
Sorry, Ms. Messier, but if Maine fiscal conservatives have their way, those benefits are going to decrease. They have to decrease, because our state is broke. Largely because we are supporting far too many people who do move here precisely because of the benefits.
New Hampshire is better off financially BECAUSE they don't have Cadillac benefit plans for anyone and everyone.
My Thoughts Exactly
Thank you - precisely what I thought when I read the article. Anyone saying that it "doesn't happen" is either kidding themselves, or willfully ignoring the truth.
Same Goes for Both Parties
As head of the Maine Democratic party, Ben Grant is also "free to do as he pleases." That's because neither party is an official government entity, which is how it should be. Nobody should be electing party officials but the members of that party.
Regardless, I believe that both Summers and Webster are acting properly in disclosing the investigation information now. It's nice of you to say that you wouldn't accuse them of a cover-up, had they failed to disclose, but there are many others who would do exactly that.
I disagree, and here's why --
I disagree, and here's why -- if it turns out the fraud allegations are valid, resulting in prosecutions, the AG and SOS would have been accused of a "cover up" for NOT disclosing the investigations upfront.
They are acting properly, because "the people's business shall be done publicly."
Opinion, not a News Article
I agree, Bob. This piece is clearly opinion, and should be labeled as such.
There were indeed "facts"
There were indeed "facts" presented. Both Webster and Summers stated very clearly what their allegations contain - voter fraud, and improper voting.
Think about police records or criminal investigations -- all you get is the basics, until the investigation is complete.
In this case, the refusal to name the people who might be involved is prudent, and proper. Those people haven't yet been charged with any crime, so it's appropriate to leave those details until they are charged. In particular, that applies to state employees.
I have no issue with what
I have no issue with what either Summers or Webster have done in regard to allegations of voter fraud in Maine.
After all, if the Democrats can base an entire political campaign on doom-and-gloom fears of "mittens in classrooms" and "old people starving and freezing to death with no rescue" -- think TABOR I and II -- then why can't the Maine Secretary of State hold a press conference to announce that his office has received credible evidence of voter fraud at a state department?
It seems to me the allegations of "stagecraft" and "empty beakers" would have been better employed during the TABOR campaigns. I never in all my life saw such a fetid collection of trumped-up alarmisms. The whole campaigns belonged in a wax museum.
In comparison, a couple of press conferences is like the flea riding on a woolly mammoth.
Yes, I do understand that
Yes, I do understand that concept, Gerald. That's why I don't see the van reservations being a legal issue.
What's clear, however, is that you don't understand the difference between encouraging voter rights, and improper, possibly fraudulent use of public money to advance a certain political agenda.
That's why you don't answer the question as to whether it's wrong if the D's "instruct" the voters as to how they should cast their ballot.
Oh, Please - Fling Mud, Much?
No, Gerald - the Republicans do NOT "want to prohibit college students from voting." Nor do they wish to "spite" some students, or "make it more difficult" for all Mainers to vote.
The aim of the new voter registration law is to prohibit ILLEGAL voting. Period. The aim of the new law (along with the proposal to require photo ID to get a ballot) is to ensure that only eligible Maine residents vote in this state, and that when appearing at the polls, they are, in fact, the actual person who is asking for a ballot.
I could just as easily write "Maine Democrats don't want the new law, because they want to make it easier for college students and other people to vote in Maine illegally and fraudulently."
Inaccurate, blanket statements don't sound quite as well when they're flipped, do they?
Of course, the same would
Of course, the same would apply to any Democrats or others elected, too. Right?
In the past, it's been
In the past, it's been alleged that the Democratic party has used the vans on election day, to canvass the whole town of Farmington, pick up voters, and ferry them to the polls.
During the van rides, did they "instruct" those voters on "good" candidates or issues to approve at the polls? Did they give the voters brochures, cards, or other information on the "good" candidates and issues, during the van ride, so they'd be well-equipped to vote for the "good" candidates and issues?
I would have more concern with activities of that nature, than I have with the UMF Republicans parking those vans for the day.
Public property and equipment should not be used for political purposes.
"If" is a very big word.
"If" is a very big word. "May" is yet another. One big word + another big word = two big words.
Are there legal issues with this situation?
"Probably not" are the two big words I choose.
It doesn't matter what their
It doesn't matter what their "intent" was, Gerald. The fact is that nobody did anything that prevented any students from voting if they wished to vote.
This Wasn't "Voter Suppression."
It wasn't "voter suppression," Gerald. Nobody prevented students from voting. Read the article - it clearly states that no students reported an inability to get to the polls. If the vans being unavailable was such a big deal, why weren't there hordes of angry complaining about being disnfranchised, and clamoring for their "ride"?
What the UMF Republicans did was take the public dollars out of the voting process. That is not the same thing as "voter suppression."
Reading Comprehension - It's a Good Thing
People need to calm down and read the article again. Charlie Webster didn't "prevent anyone from voting." He merely parked three of the university's five vans.
If students wished to vote, they could still get to the polls by any other means they chose. As the article states, nobody at the university complained that they couldn't vote.
Meanwhile, in response to Geller's comments in the article, there is a large cost difference between letting people hand out information on university grounds, and using publicly owned vans and petrol to transport people to the polls.
I agree with Charlie Webster - public money shouldn't be used for political purposes, outside the Clean Elections process.
"Farah, who came to the
"Farah, who came to the United States in 2006, had no recorded criminal history, Dolley said. She had lived in a refuge camp in Kenya for more than a decade before that, he said. She's a single mother on a fixed income."
**********
Kudos to her for all she's had to overcome. I'd just like to know where the 2000 Mercedes SUV came from. As someone living on a very fixed income, that is not the kind of vehicle I'm driving!!!
Also, why not get a license, and do as she should have, in the country supporting her family?
It's the Consolidation Plan that's Flawed
Typically, there are far fewer people at the floor elections than the referendum elections. That's why it's a flawed voting system. No matter what's approved at the floor election, it can be voted down by a larger turnout at the referendum.
What's the point of the floor meetings, since there are public budget hearings prior to elections, which provide ample opportunity for discussion?
Just another "gift" from the former state administration, which mandated that two-part election system as part of the consolidation program.
It
Typically, there are far fewer people at the floor meetings than the referendum elections. That's why it's a flawed voting system. Just another "gift" from the former state administration, which mandated the election system as part of the consolidation program.
I agree with you. The only
I agree with you. The only reason this is even a "story," is because J. Dwight is a member of a state advisory board. He has almost nothing to do with Gov. LePage, but because there's that slim connection, the media feeding frenzy was unleashed as soon as the police report hit the papers.
Never mind that the original reports cited an untruth -- that Dwight was supposedly appointed to the commission by Gov. LePage. Dwight was NOT appointed to the Economic Forecasting Commission by LePage -- Dwight was appointed by fellow commission members.
However, because the original media source had that glaring inaccuracy, the muckraking began.
Despicable.
According to Adrienne,
According to Adrienne, Dwight's wife, the SJ has essential details of the story wrong.
Adrienne wrote:
"Fun fast facts:
I'm pretty sure I made it to the correct court house at the correct time.
Outside the courtroom, I hugged and kissed my husband.
Kevin Joyce wasn't there.
I'm sorry, but I may have to add incompetent to "reckless, politically motivated media", for failing to verify the simplest facts.
Once again, reckless because they couldn't wait until the court made a determination, politically motivated because they juxtaposed his political affiliation (contributions) with domestic violence, and now incompetent because the simplest of details weren't accurate."
************
http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/political-advisor-j-dwight-charged-do...
Thank you.
The SJ needs to correct their article, and issue an apology.
Adrienne Dwight Says Charges are Unfounded
J. Dwight's wife, Adrienne, has posted a full accounting of the incident on As Maine Goes.
http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/political-advisor-j-dwight-charged-do...
You can read the details at the link above. Adrienne Dwight's comments are on page one of the thread, and the timeline and details of the full incident are on page two.
"...There will be seasonal
"...There will be seasonal employment opportunities created when the fireworks shacks start appearing next summer on Maine highways, supporters said."
*********
"Shacks"? Excuse me? The new law says that fireworks sellers in Maine must have permanent, retail locations; just like any other store.
Nice use of damning spin, however. Kind of like the rest of the editorial.
Speaking of "rights," and a
Speaking of "rights," and a "police state" - I used to live on a road that was commonly used by President Bush's motorcade in Kennebunk. On one such occasion, Secret Service agents ordered me to go into my home and remain there. My "offense"? I was out front of my house, using a trowel to weed my garden. The road was shut down because the motorcade was expected to be coming through, and the SS were patrolling the road beforehand.
I politely asked the big, scary-looking men why I couldn't be working in my own garden, in my own yard when the President's motorcade drove by. In response, I was told that unless I wanted "trouble," I would do as they recommended.
I'm surprised they didn't confiscate my trowel, too.
Thank you
Thanks to the Sun Journal, for saying "no thanks" on the LePage story regarding the site selling merchandise bashing the Governor and his administration.
They're happy to make money and trade off the notoriety from his comments and the tough issues facing Maine, but too cowardly to give their names. What a swell bunch of people they sound.
I am glad the Sun Journal said "no."
Sadly, that's essentially
Sadly, that's essentially what we already have in Maine. People who try to avoid the MaineCare co-payments end up in the ER all the time. I have good friends who work in Maine hospitals, and they see it every single day.
Maine currently has a completely unsustainable insurance system, and it's killing our residents, both financially and medically.
Families who do have insurance are forced to choose between groceries and paying their onerous insurance premiums. Maine has severely limited choices on plans and companies, because by law, we can't go outside the state for coverage. We can buy car insurance from a Michigan company, but not health insurance. Why?
Many other residents cannot afford any kind of insurance, so they end up at the ER, and on charity programs at our hospitals. They go without preventative measures, and end up sicker as a result.
Many of those on MaineCare, like I said above, try to avoid the co-payments by skipping their PCP's and going to the ER. Meanwhile, many Maine providers are not taking any new MaineCare clients, and some are dropping those they already have. That's because the payments are late, and inadequate to meet the real costs.
We need a serious change. Our insurance and health system is busted, and they need a serious "fix."
Sorry, but if you read the
Sorry, but if you read the comments from McKane that I posted above, you will see the "surprise" element of this issue is largely erroneous.
The Article is Wrong
The SJ article says this:
"..the specifics were contained in a 29-page amendment that wasn't made public until Friday morning."
*************
Here's the response from Rep. McKane:
"That is quite simply, wrong. The full amendment was heard on Wednesday. On Friday, a small amendment on captured insurance was offered to the full amendment."
"Every issue contained in LD 1333 has been heard and debated many times over the years. My testimony was essentially the same one I offered last session and the session before that. This wasn’t designed by insurance companies and in fact, they do not like the out-of-state insurance plan nor do they like the captive insurance plan."
http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/gop-pushes-surprise-insurance-overhau...
*********
Specifics do matter. The SJ should issue a retraction.
Heartfelt Prayers
Heartfelt prayers for everyone involved in this situation - the deceased lady's family, as well as the officers who responded to the call. All are grieving today.
That Pesky Thing Called State Law
You could sign 1,500 petitions, all to no avail. Maine has no recall provision for the Governor.
You're entirely welcome to
You're entirely welcome to disagree with me two thousand times... up to you.
The forum on here is being squirrelly, thus the double post Oh well.
Common Sense, Exactly What was Needed
A common-sense move by the Governor and his team. Now, the DOL can get back to work. Exactly what I expected.
Common Sense, Exactly What was Needed
A common-sense move by the Governor and his team. Now, the DOL can get back to work. Exactly what I expected.
Misinformation
It's not appropriate to blame the entire R party for the improper actions of a few people. There were 16 caucus groups meeting at the school that day. The poster incident happened in one room - occupied by the Knox County Caucus. They did not act with R party knowledge or permission.
The other R caucus groups meeting at the school that day knew nothing about the incident. What they did was wrong, and it should have never happened.
On the other hand, it's not fair to blame other people who have no involvement or culpability, merely because they're Republicans.
Thank you for the photo, and
Thank you for the photo, and your honesty. To me, after seeing the photo, and hearing your description of the room, it seems as if the murals would be more appropriate in a museum setting.
The Video Company is Selling Ads to Pay for the Show
Several news articles have stated the video company is selling ads to pay for the show.
Well.
And, here we've all been told the Democratic party and its cronies can commit no wrong. Ain't that odd.
No, he can't - not in the
No, he can't - not in the manner you describe. Read the Constitutional statute, above.
Why do you insist on repeating falsehoods?
And, he may do just that.
And, he may do just that. However, it won't be addressed through legislation, since the Constitution mandates that any changes would take place AFTER he's out of office.
However, for Tipping and others to say that he "exempted himself" is plainly false. It's an attempt to smear him - period.
Like I wrote above, "Substance - not Scandal."
Pattie - I'm not certain what
Pattie - I'm not certain what portion of Robert Reed's post you're admonishing, but I hope to see the same for some others on this page.
Thank you.
Library cards, indeed - are you a reporter, or not?
Steve Mistler wrote:
"If you have a library card, you can check the source for yourself."
************
Mr. Mistler - I'm sorry, but that isn't acceptable from a journalist. When you write a piece, you need to include sources and evidence for the statements you include. Yes, it would require homework on your part, instead of just writing, "Reportedly, such and such happened back in 1990."
However, that's the difference between a paid byline, and an anonymous appearance on "Democratic Underground."
Thank you.
What I call "scurrilous" is
What I call "scurrilous" is Tipping's accusation that Gov. LePage knowingly "exempted himself" from an increased pension contribution.
Please see Tipping's original articles, published in the Kennebec Journal, the Morning Sentinel, and the Bangor Daily News.
***********
March 13
MIKE TIPPING: LePage exempts own pension from budget cutbacks
http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/lepage-exempts-own-pension-from-budget-c...
***********
He's since posted a disclaimer on his "Tipping Point" blog about the Constitutional statute concerning Executive Compensation, following emails to him containing the information. However, in reading the original, it's clear he didn't do his homework before publishing the piece. Instead, he launched a false, inflammatory smear piece, in an attempt to discredit Gov. LePage.
I call that scurrilous.
Please explain the substance
Please explain the substance of your comment. In what manner do you see this as "manipulating" the Maine Constitution?
It's right there, in black and white. "..compensation shall not be increased or diminished."
You may not care for the letter of the law, but that doesn't change its meaning.
Hi, Doreen -- if you read the
Hi, Doreen -- if you read the information I posted, above, you'll see that the issue is not as simple as the SJ and others have alleged.
Gov. LePage's compensation is set by the Maine Constitution, and those statutes have been in place for years. The position of Governor is treated differently under the Constitution than that of other state employees.
The reason for that difference is so that the legislature can't force out a governor by cutting his compensation.
Thanks.
Dear Mr. Tipping - Next time
Dear Mr. Tipping -
Next time you fling scurrilous accusations at Gov. LePage, kindly do us all a favor, and examine the facts before pushing the "send" button.
Thank you.
Substance, Not Scandal.
Naran Row-Spaulding
Which "previous governors"?
Steve Mistler wrote:
"However, the administration hasn't deployed the constitutional defense, perhaps because previous governors have reportedly sought separate statutory changes to their compensation to match their budget messaging."
************
"Reportedly"? Which governors, and what statutory changes? This is empty speculation, without a factual basis.
As for Tipping's article, it's a smear piece, which falsely accuses Gov. LePage of "exempting" himself from pension contribution increases being proposed for some other state employees. LePage couldn't change his contribution, according to the Maine State Constitution (see below). Even if a Constitutional amendment to change his compensation were enacted, the effect wouldn't begin until after Gov. LePage was out of office.
Tipping failed to do his homework, and the SJ does themselves no favors by carrying water for such a muddy source.
[u]Here's the Constitutional statute on Executive Compensation[/u]:
Section 6. Compensation. The Governor shall, at stated times, receive for services a compensation, which shall not be increased or diminished during the Governor's continuance in office.
http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
The statute that sets the Governor's compensation specifically states how the pension amount will be calculated and what amount the Governor will contribute. The contribution from the Governor is not the result of a general law applicable to all state employees or even a class of employees -- it is specific to the Governor. A change in that statute to increase the required contribution from the Governor would reduce the value of the pension benefit and equal diminishing the Governor's compensation as prohibited by the Constitution.
[u]In order to amend the Constitution, here's the procedure[/u]:
Section 4. Amendments to Constitution. The Legislature, whenever 2/3 of both Houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to this Constitution; and when any amendments shall be so agreed upon, a resolution shall be passed and sent to the selectmen of the several towns, and the assessors of the several plantations, empowering and directing them to notify the inhabitants of their respective towns and plantations, in the manner prescribed by law, at the next biennial meetings in the month of November, or to meet in the manner prescribed by law for calling and holding biennial meetings of said inhabitants for the election of Senators and Representatives, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November following the passage of said resolve, to give in their votes on the question, whether such amendment shall be made; and if it shall appear that a majority of the inhabitants voting on the question are in favor of such amendment, it shall become a part of this Constitution.
http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
If folks want to argue with Gov. LePage on administrative/legislative issues of substance, have at it. However, this kind of puerile mudslinging is counter-productive - for everyone.