First the wind-up, then the pitch. Gov. John Baldacci began laying the groundwork Monday for another effort to suspend the laws of supply and demand.

He ceremonially signed two bills sponsored by Senate President Beth Edmonds, D-Freeport, designed to move the state closer to a higher minimum wage for a category of workers loosely termed personal care assistants.

The governor has clearly been encouraged by his successful effort last year to set a $30,000 annual starting salary for teachers.

We opposed that effort as a fundamental end run around the locally controlled contract system that has served Maine well for generations, and as a costly and misguided attempt to supersede the free market.

During that campaign, the governor often noted his personal connection to the issue. His wife is a teacher, he would point out, and he knew how hard teachers worked.

The governor is a sincere fellow, but he’s also a good politician. The law was also intended to lock down the support of teacher unions for his upcoming election bid.

Now the governor and the Democratic leadership say they are concerned that Maine’s growing elderly population won’t get the care it needs.

So, the two bills signed Monday will provide the foundation for an effort in the next legislative session to set a $10 minimum hourly wage for personal care workers.

One bill establishes a state “study” of what it would cost to establish the $10 entry level benchmark. The other proposes that the state increase the hourly pay to $10 for assistants hired by the state to care for disabled people and those in nursing homes.

So, when the governor gets done taking care of teachers and personal care assistants, who will be next? Child care workers? How about social workers? Why not fast food workers?

And that’s why the governor and the state should stay out of this business; there is no end to the list of worthy but underpaid occupations.

Only two things can happen when state government starts meddling with wage levels, and both of them are bad.

Either there will be fewer people in this business or they will work fewer hours. That is, of course, unless the governor’s long-range plan is for the state’s taxpayers to make up the difference, the way he did with teachers.

What the governor seems to fail to realize is that bumping up the bottom wage usually forces employers to bump up wages through the ranks. If entry-level workers go from $8 to $10 per hour, what does an employer tell the person who has been working for five years and makes $9 per hour?

What happens to the elderly people who hire a neighbor for $8 an hour now, but will be forced to increase that to $10?

What happens to the nursing home that is barely making ends meet, which suddenly must give 20 or 30 workers a $2 or $3 pay hike?

The market system isn’t perfect, but it is the best way we’ve seen yet for allocating scarce resources. The governor and the state should simply get out of the way.