for dummies

OK. You’re one of those who have ignored – or at least tried to ignore – the lengthy debates, the rhetoric, the yipping of this year’s campaigns. You’ve seen the ads, the signs and some headlines, but haven’t paid close attention.

But now it’s time to vote. It’s two nights before the test. To help you cram, here’s our take on what it all means.

Happy voting.

Question 1: Taxes

In a nutshell: Do you want $250 million more a year in state taxes to pay for a larger share of K-12 education costs, with the hope – not promise – of lower property taxes?

Pitfalls: If it sounds too good, ya-dah, ya-dah, ya-dah. The idea is simple enough. Shift the bill for education to the state. But that money has to come from somewhere. The choices are more sales and income taxes or less spending on other programs to the tune of 10 percent of the state budget.

Spin control: This question doesn’t require localities to reduce property taxes. It’ll be up to each city or town to decide what to do with the extra cash. The question’s biggest advocate is the Maine Municipal Association, whose members are local government officials. They’re tired of always being the tax bad guys and being stuck with unfunded mandates from state and federal governments, especially on special education. They want to pass that buck back to the state. And they don’t offer a specific plan for how to finance the change.

In a nutshell: If 1A passes, it would create a $250 million tax bill the state would have to cover, which would mean raising taxes or cutting programs. Instead of voting for 1A, would you rather increase education spending gradually, and spend more for programs designed to help ease the property tax burden? More funding for education, eventually, comes tied to a lengthy law that does a lot of tinkering around the edges of education and tax reform.

Pitfalls: This is a complicated answer to a straightforward question: How can we lower property taxes? 1B would dedicate two of every three dollars of new state revenue – hopefully generated by growth – to education. This is not a quick solution, but a steady increase in education funding over several years. If 1B passes, the Legislature may get the idea that it dodged the tax reform bullet.

Spin control: It increases funding for the Maine Homestead Exemption Program and the Circuit Breaker Program, which reduce the out-of-pocket expense for property taxpayers. But 1B does not compel local governments to lower property tax rates. It’ll cost the state roughly $15 million more in the first year; $25 million the second year; and $56 million the third year.

In a nutshell: No way to both 1A and 1B.

Pitfalls: Will the Legislature see a vote for 1C as a thumbs-up for the status quo, or recognize that voters are giving them one more chance to work on tax reform? If they opt for the status quo, beware the fallout during the next election. Get the pitchforks ready, the tax revolt may be on. Much of the support for 1C comes from the “no tax” crowd, who would eventually like to see a cap placed on property taxes and the work of government greatly curtailed.

Sun Journal says: Reject 1A and 1B. Pick 1C. Send a message to Augusta that it’s time to get serious about fixing the tax structure.

Spin control: No means no

Small talk: “Maine’s property taxes are too high, and too much of the state’s revenue is generated through this antiquated measure of wealth. During colonial times, a person’s wealth was easily gauged by the amount of land owned. That’s not the case now. But increases in other state taxes could be disastrous in a fragile economy in which Maine has already lost 17,000 good manufacturing jobs, and do we really want to carve away more money from essential state services? What the state needs is comprehensive tax reform that looks at the entire system the state uses to collect and distribute revenue.”

In a nutshell: Thank goodness, just one question here. Do you want the state to allow horse tracks – Bangor Raceway and maybe Scarborough Downs – to have an unlimited number of slot machines? Proceeds from slot machines would be split this way: 10 percent to help seniors afford medicine, 3 percent for scholarships, 75 percent would be kept by the tracks.

Small talk: “Maine’s harness racing industry is in trouble. Competition from out-of-state tracks that can offer larger prizes funded with slot machines is killing a home-grown, traditional, agricultural enterprise that keeps farmers, veterinarians, shop owners, trainers and agricultural fairs going. But I’m not willing to allow two racinos to be built in the state, generating $48 million a year or more for track owners and out-of-state gambling interests, without adequate guarantees that the state’s interest will receive more than lip service. And by the way, don’t the folks behind the Bangor deal also own a track in New York with slots – one of the very tracks putting pressure on our own industry.”

Pitfalls: It’s about saving harness racing. It’s about scholarships. It’s about prescription drugs for seniors. No, it’s about money for investors. The other talk is the sweetener on a deal that will give the slot machine license holders the right to make millions of dollars, most of which will flow to out-of state-investors.

Spin control: Question 2’s backers would like voters to think of this referendum as a big-issue decision: Are slots OK for race tracks if some of the money goes to good causes? It is not a big-picture vote. There are plenty of specifics in the legislation about how revenue will be split and about how the gambling will be regulated. Horse tracks with slots are often called racinos because they combine elements of race tracks and casinos.



Sun Journal says: The cost for prescription drugs is too high. Students need more help paying for college. The harness industry is struggling. But an unlimited number of slots exporting Maine money is not the way to solve the problems. Reject Question 2.

Question 3: The Indian casino

Ballot question: Do you want to allow a casino to be run by the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation if part of the revenue is used for state education and municipal revenue sharing?

The bottom line: Do you want to allow a large-scale casino in Maine to be owned by the tribes? Of the projected $650 million income it would take in a year, the state would get $100 million; the tribes $50 to $100 million, another $125 million would cover payroll, and an undisclosed amount would go to those backing the casino.

Pitfalls: Don’t be sidetracked by claims of racism, “kiddie gambling” or runaway crime. They’re all red herrings. Talk of jobs and tax cuts are great, but this question is about big money and who’s going to get it.

The question put to voters sounds simple, but the law behind it is not. It’s long, complicated, obtuse, confusing and ambiguous. Plus, it builds in an advantage for the house – just like in gambling. Language in the law “must be liberally construed in favor of gaming by and on behalf of the Tribes.”

Spin control: Voting yes will amend the federal Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement of 1980, of which the casino terms could not be changed for 20 years unless the tribes agree. The casino would operate as a state-granted monopoly. If the state gives a license to any competitors, the casino doesn’t have to pay the state a dime.

Small talk: “The casino proposed by the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot tribes is appealing. It tries to address two of the largest problems facing the state: High taxes and lost jobs. But building an economic development plan for the entire state based on the self-serving interests of the gambling industry is foolhardy.

“Maine has much to gain from a casino, but the terms should be negotiated, not thrown on the table in a take-it-or-leave it deal. We should open the state’s gambling monopoly for competitive bids and evaluate any deal on the basis of what it does for the state.

“Nobody pays sticker price for a new car, why should the state pay the sticker price for a casino. I’ll be telling the Legislature to make a better deal.”

Sun Journal says: Take this deal and shove it. We can definitely do better. Reject 3.

State borrowing
Question 4: Environmental projects

Ballot question: Do you favor a $6,950,000 bond issue for the following purposes:

1. The sum of $2,000,000 to construct and upgrade water pollution control facilities, providing for a match for $10,000,000 in federal funds;

2. The sum of $1,500 to provide grants to construct water pollution control facilities;

3. The sum of $500,000 to clean up uncontrolled hazardous substance sites;

4. The sum of $500,000 for the small community grant program to provide grants to rural communities to solve local pollution problems;

5. The sum of $500,000 for the overboard discharge removal program to provide grants to municipalities and individuals to eliminate licensed overboard discharges to shellfish areas, great ponds and drainage areas of less than 10 square miles;

6. The sum of $1,200,000 to support drinking water system improvements that address public health threats, providing the state match for $4,140,000 in federal funds; and

7. The sum of $750,000 to construct environmentally sound water sources that help avoid drought damage to crops?

Total estimated lifetime cost is $8,765,688 representing $6,950,000 in principal and $1,815,688 in interest (assuming interest at 4.75 percent over 10 years).

The bottom line: Do you authorize your state government to borrow $6.95 million, which will cost $8.76 million with interest, to make a variety of pollution control improvements?

Pitfalls: To clean water? What could be wrong with that? Clean water good. Dirty water bad. Yes vote on bond good.

Spin control: The question shows us where all the money is going and a yes vote will draw more than $14 million in matching funds from the federal government.

Small talk: “How can anybody be against clean water? And at these interests rates, we can’t afford not to borrow.”

Sun Journal says: Vote yes.

Question 5: Building improvements for colleges and libraries

Ballot question: Do you favor a $19,000,000 bond issue to make repairs, upgrades and other facility improvements and enhance access for students with disabilities and upgrade classroom equipment at various campuses of the University of Maine System; the Maine Maritime Academy; and the Maine Community College System, which was formerly the Maine Technical College System, and to provide grants to construct and renovate public libraries and to improve community access to electronic resources?

Total estimated lifetime cost is $23,963,750 representing $19,000,000 in principal and $4,963,6750 in interest (assuming interest at 4.75 percent over 10 years).

The bottom line: Do you authorize your state government to borrow $19 million, which will cost nearly $24 million with interest, to make a variety of improvements and build classroom space at the state’s public colleges, as well as improving public libraries?

Pitfalls: The children are our future, and they’ll be helping us pay this bond off.

Spin control: Maine’s community college system will receive $12 million for repairs, upgrades and expansion. More than 47,000 students enrolled in the state’s community colleges this fall – a record. To meet that growth, an investment is needed in the system’s infrastructure. The same is true for the University of Maine system. If we, as a state, want to create quality institutions of learning, we have to invest in our education infrastructure.

Small talk: “You went to the L-A College? Hey, I went to L-A College. Did you hear they make out pretty good with the bond question? The school will get about $2 million for expansion and new laboratories. CMCC does pretty good too: $1.5 million to add more space and keep the technical programs technical. Now my kid will be able to get into the nursing program.”

Sun Journal says: Vote yes.

Question 6: Transportation projects, hospital helipads

Ballot question: Do you favor a $63,450,000 bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, airports, state-owned ferry vessels and ferry and port facilities and port and harbor structures; development of rail corridors and improvements to railroad structures and intermodal facilities; investment in the statewide public transportation fleet and public park and ride and service facilities; statewide trail and pedestrian improvements; and expansion of the statewide air-medical response system through construction of hospital helipads, building additional refueling facilities, upgrading navigational systems and acquiring training equipment to improve access to health care that makes the state eligible for $217,000,000 in matching federal funds?

Total estimated lifetime cost is $80,026,313 representing $63,450,000 in principal and $16,576,313 in interest (assuming interest at 4.75 percent over years).

The bottom line: Do you authorize your state government to borrow $65.5 million, at a cost of $80 million including interest, to do a long list of transportation improvements including rail, highways, port, public transportation, pedestrian improvements and hospital helipads to expand air-medical response system statewide?

Pitfalls: This deal was crafted like sausage. There was a lot of ugly in the process, with plenty of horse-trading between lawmakers who wanted to make sure their pet project was taken care of.

Spin control: For the state to qualify for some federal transportation dollars, it must agree to allocate state money to infrastructure projects. The matching funds were sent to Washington from state drivers who have to shell out every time we fill up with a tank of gas.

Small talk: “Our transportation infrastructure is key to the economic health of the state. Quality roads, railroads and harbors make it easier, and more efficient, to deliver goods and services. They are vital for a prosperous business climate and for attracting new employers to the state. The money will pay for about 2,000 miles of road paving, almost 200 miles of new highways and repairs to 80 bridges.

“This bond also funds upgrades to helipads at hospitals around the state. It’s an important improvement that could save lives.

“We need to take action now to avoid the further deterioration of our highways, bridges and railroads. Plus, this bond will translate into 10,000 jobs.”

Sun Journal says: Vote yes.

A big spin control for all of the bonds: The $89.3 million in new bonds is slightly more than the $85 million in bonds that the state will pay off this year. The state’s debt service will remain less than 5 percent of general fund and highway fund revenue, a benchmark for judging an appropriate level of government borrowing.

Written by Editorial Page Editor David Farmer, with reporting from Bonnie Washuk and Chris Williams. Graphics and design by Paul Wallen and Pete Gorski.

Copy the Story Link