Please turn off the spin machine. Like a child in a whirling amusement park teacup, the spins only make us dizzy and irritable.

Such as last week, when a trio of state officials unexpectedly called to proffer opinions on a new report, “Poverty in Maine 2006,” released by the Maine Community Action Center and the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine.

The report generated an alarming statistic: from 2002 through 2005, the amount of Maine households using food stamps leaped 50 percent. A variety of factors were cited, with Maine’s chronic underemployment and lower incomes primary among them.

Others included improved technology (debit cards versus paper vouchers), greater outreach success (Maine was part of a program to enroll low-income elders), legislative changes to ease food stamp eligibility, and rising energy prices forcing food stamp enrollment. Even the state’s embarrassing new computer system was said to have spurred enrollment, for making the application process “simpler.”

The officials, in light of the staggering numbers, wanted to reinforce that efforts to get eligible Mainers onto food stamps have been successful, and more people are getting help.

Though the state’s desire to “clarify” the report’s points is understandable – it is an election year, after all – spinning swollen food stamp rolls as a success is myopic. It also diverts attention from other valuable information, especially when the focus turns to Androscoggin County.

The report found poverty in Androscoggin County is stagnant. Population growth is average. The poverty rate (percentage of population living below the poverty line) is average. Low-Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) enrollment mirrored state averages; so did average per-capita income.

Androscoggin County deviated from state averages, but not positively, in food stamp enrollment, free/reduced school lunches and educational attainment.

Most striking is how little poverty in Androscoggin County has improved since 2002. Few of the key indicators cited – not LIHEAP enrollment, poverty rate, unemployment or per-capita income – brightened across the three-year study. Mediocrity was merely maintained.

Yet organizations that fight poverty, such as the Good Shepherd Food-Bank in Auburn, fear a “downward trend” of donations, especially food. Good Shepherd said recently the organization’s food purchases increased 49 percent last year, though monetary donations increased only 10 percent.

Other groups have heeded the call, like the Young Professionals of the Lewiston Auburn Area, which helped raise $500 and 7,000 pounds of food items for Good Shepherd during a recent fundraiser.

State officials added that the governor’s investment in higher education will, eventually, help lead people from poverty. They’re correct, but should realize education is a long-term solution for a short-term problem. In the meantime, people will still struggle with bills, hunger and home heating.

So, while factors behind food stamp enrollment are varied, what to do about it is simple. Instead of spinning the reasons why Maine is where it is, pay more attention to what should be done: staunch poverty.