In a previous article I spoke about the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) budget. Since I am a member of the IF&W committee I am directly involved in the budget related to Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W).
Presently the IF&W budget is nearly $25 million. All but about $1.8 million of this money comes from license fees (hunting and fishing) and registrations (Snowmobiles, boats etc). In other words a majority of the budget is financed by those who use the outdoors and rightfully so. However, there is a small portion of the budget, approximately $1.8 million, which comes from the state that is not a result of the fees assessed by those using the outdoors. Unfortunately because of this the IF&W budget can be asked to contribute as a total budget when asked by the Governor. In essence sportsmen are paying more than necessary to balance the State budget. So how do we fix this you ask? Two ways: One way would be to prioritize the services supplied by IF& W and fund only those services. The second way would be to develop a way where those who do not pay for a license or fee help pay for those services. In this article I would like to talk about choice number 2.
Choice 2: Part of the “additional “general fund money coming to the IF&W Department is to provide Search and Rescue for those lost in the woods. One way to recoup this money is to charge someone if we have to save their lives or find their bodies in the great outdoors. Presently this activity is paid for by the license and registration fees. Hikers, birders and kayakers do not contribute to this part of the IF&W budget, but get the same service. So… to make fairises let propose that if you get lost and you have some kind of license ( Hunting etc.) or registration (Boat etc. ) you do not have to pay the cost to be found. BUT if you do not have a license or registration then you are responsible for the costs to be found. Unless, yep here comes the zinger... you have a Maine Outdoor Card. This card would be like an AAA auto card for the woods. You get lost or need help there would be no charge if you have bought this card at a nominal fee, say $20 for a family. This is a way that non consumptive users of the land can help pay their fair share.
Sound like a good idea? Unfortunately we do not have a Maine Outdoor Card yet. However, I proposed such a bill and it will be taken up this Legislative session. I came up with this idea last spring while working closely with some friends. In today’s budget we need to be creative, perhaps this is one way.
If you have questions about this or any thing else please call me at 645-3420 or call e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.
Monday, April 19, 2010
5-point Welfare Reform Program
This fall, when knocking on doors, I continuously heard that something needed to be done about the welfare cost in the state. The program was broken and needed to be fixed. My good friend Representative Rich Cebra ® of Naples has introduced legislation that might just address those concerns. The bill, LD 254, is entitled An Act to enact a 5-point Welfare Reform Program.
As stated by Cebra, “Right now our system penalizes people who leave welfare and go back to work,” he said. “We’re holding folks back and it makes no sense. Consequently, we’re now into our second or third generation of a welfare class, and that’s not good for anybody. As a poor state facing huge budget deficits, we simply can’t afford a system that encourages people to stay on welfare.”
Let me cover some of the specifics. First the bill requires a 90 day residency requirement before someone qualifies for general assistance. Right now an individual simply comes into the state and automatically qualifies for general assistance. This hurts Mainers who need the assistance in these rough economic times.
The legislation’s second point would offer targeted tax credits to employers who hire economically disadvantaged Maine residents. This will encourage employers to help out Mainers that are in need of jobs.
Point three would eliminate the 20-hour rule. Currently, welfare benefits are cut off for anyone working more than 20 hours a week. This does not make any sense, and only discourages people from working. The legislation would use federal figures showing that a person receiving all welfare benefits “makes” the equivalent of $17.56 per hour for a normal 40-hour week. Under the bill, an employee earning $10 per hour, for example, would still receive benefits equivalent to the differential.
The bill’s final point would bring Maine law into conformity with the federal Welfare Reform Act of 1996, one of former president Bill Clinton’s landmark achievements. Rep. Cebra’s legislation would establish a 60-month lifetime limit to receive Maine benefits, the same as the federal limit.
In many ways this bill could have a real effect on the cost of welfare. It could go a long way to enabling people to get back to work. With this legislation, employers will have incentives for hiring new employees. This bill is a great place to start the discussion of welfare reform.
If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.
As stated by Cebra, “Right now our system penalizes people who leave welfare and go back to work,” he said. “We’re holding folks back and it makes no sense. Consequently, we’re now into our second or third generation of a welfare class, and that’s not good for anybody. As a poor state facing huge budget deficits, we simply can’t afford a system that encourages people to stay on welfare.”
Let me cover some of the specifics. First the bill requires a 90 day residency requirement before someone qualifies for general assistance. Right now an individual simply comes into the state and automatically qualifies for general assistance. This hurts Mainers who need the assistance in these rough economic times.
The legislation’s second point would offer targeted tax credits to employers who hire economically disadvantaged Maine residents. This will encourage employers to help out Mainers that are in need of jobs.
Point three would eliminate the 20-hour rule. Currently, welfare benefits are cut off for anyone working more than 20 hours a week. This does not make any sense, and only discourages people from working. The legislation would use federal figures showing that a person receiving all welfare benefits “makes” the equivalent of $17.56 per hour for a normal 40-hour week. Under the bill, an employee earning $10 per hour, for example, would still receive benefits equivalent to the differential.
The bill’s final point would bring Maine law into conformity with the federal Welfare Reform Act of 1996, one of former president Bill Clinton’s landmark achievements. Rep. Cebra’s legislation would establish a 60-month lifetime limit to receive Maine benefits, the same as the federal limit.
In many ways this bill could have a real effect on the cost of welfare. It could go a long way to enabling people to get back to work. With this legislation, employers will have incentives for hiring new employees. This bill is a great place to start the discussion of welfare reform.
If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.
Tax Reform
In the late night, almost under the cover of darkness, the legislature passed a “tax “reform package. This package originated from a near party line vote on LD 1088. The original proposal called for a tax on such things as car rentals, real estate transfers, ski tickets, car repairs, meals and lodging, candy and many other things. In return the income tax was to decrease from 8% to 6.5. The goal was to try and transfer the loss of income tax revenue to tourists via the lodging and meals tax increase. The Governor did not like this bill so he modified it. The new bill introduced LD 1495, just as the final gavel was about to be sounded removed the ski ticket tax and the real state transfer tax, gave some tax credits and reduced the state income tax to 6.85% for those making over $250,000 and kept it at the proposed 6.5 % for those making under $250,000. Now the good, bad and down right ugly!
Good: There was a successful attempt to broaden the sales tax base. This is critical to do because we get most of our sales tax money from construction and car sales. When times are bad these sources dry up pretty quickly.
Bad: Well, first of all it was done by one party. There was no effort to make this a bipartisan change. Perhaps if they worked together we might have a better package with true bipartisan support.
Second: According to Maine Revenue Services, some 31,000 Maine families will have an income tax increase. A family with a combined income of $100,000, with federal deductions, of say $25000, will loose big in the new tax changes.
Third: Nearly 54,000 families will lose because the sales tax they pay on a broader range of goods will total more than their income tax cut.
Fourth: Car repairs will now be taxable. That’s right, as you decided to keep that old car longer during these tough times you will need to pay tax on the labor to fix it.
Fifth: Small businesses, trades people, technicians, mechanics, and countless others will become tax collectors for the state, with all the accounting and paper work nightmares
Sixth, and perhaps the biggest concern to me is the increase in the meals and lodging tax. The rate is climbing from 7 to 8.5%. While the proponents argue this tax will fall on the tourists, roughly 80 percent of restaurant customers are MAINERS!
THE UGLY: The bill was passed as one of the last items taken up in the session. The 33-page tome was dropped on legislators’ desks only minutes before the vote was ordered. Legislator’s, including yours truly, had little time to read the summary, let alone the fine print packed in the document. And we all know the devil is in the details!!!
Only time will tell how this all works out. To date this tax package is off on the wrong foot.
If you have questions about this or anything else gives me a call at 546-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com as always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.
Good: There was a successful attempt to broaden the sales tax base. This is critical to do because we get most of our sales tax money from construction and car sales. When times are bad these sources dry up pretty quickly.
Bad: Well, first of all it was done by one party. There was no effort to make this a bipartisan change. Perhaps if they worked together we might have a better package with true bipartisan support.
Second: According to Maine Revenue Services, some 31,000 Maine families will have an income tax increase. A family with a combined income of $100,000, with federal deductions, of say $25000, will loose big in the new tax changes.
Third: Nearly 54,000 families will lose because the sales tax they pay on a broader range of goods will total more than their income tax cut.
Fourth: Car repairs will now be taxable. That’s right, as you decided to keep that old car longer during these tough times you will need to pay tax on the labor to fix it.
Fifth: Small businesses, trades people, technicians, mechanics, and countless others will become tax collectors for the state, with all the accounting and paper work nightmares
Sixth, and perhaps the biggest concern to me is the increase in the meals and lodging tax. The rate is climbing from 7 to 8.5%. While the proponents argue this tax will fall on the tourists, roughly 80 percent of restaurant customers are MAINERS!
THE UGLY: The bill was passed as one of the last items taken up in the session. The 33-page tome was dropped on legislators’ desks only minutes before the vote was ordered. Legislator’s, including yours truly, had little time to read the summary, let alone the fine print packed in the document. And we all know the devil is in the details!!!
Only time will tell how this all works out. To date this tax package is off on the wrong foot.
If you have questions about this or anything else gives me a call at 546-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com as always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.
Saviello Rangley Comments
Director Carroll, Members of the Commission, Members of the Public:
My name is Tom Saviello and I am the State Representative for House District 90 which includes Avon, New Vineyard, and Phillips, Strong, Temple and Wilton, plus the unorganized territories of Freeman, Perkins, Salem (part) and Washington Townships. On your way here you drove through the heart of my district.
I am professional forester, environmental manager, a member of the Legislature’s IFW Committee, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Rural Caucus, a sportsman, and professor of forestry and environmental studies at the University of Maine at Farmington. Today marks my 30th anniversary in the Forest products Industry.
I come before you today to express my concern over the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and with a deep appreciation for private property rights, the working forest, and the recreational access that is provided to the public based on the goodwill of private landowners.
Let us not forget that the jurisdiction that we are discussing here tonight is comprised mostly of private property, and that our ability to access this marvelous resource lies in the hands of private landowners who manage their land for timber and other natural resources. They need and deserve a big voice in the development of this plan.
It is my opinion that language in the draft plan is some what subjective and unclear, and could ultimately lead to the loss of land value, resulting is a loss of economic opportunity and recreational access for the people of Maine.
I would like to make five points:
First: the Commission purposely eliminated a section of the 1997 Comprehensive Land Use Plan when they drafted the new plan:
“Guide the location of new development in order to protect and conserve forest, recreational, plant or animal habitat and other natural resources, to ensure the compatibility of land uses with one another and to allow for a reasonable range of development opportunities, important to the people of Maine.”
This language was replaced with “Foster a sustainable pattern of development which safeguards the principal values of the jurisdiction by concentrating development near economic centers and maintaining other areas for traditional uses.” To me, you have eliminated the importance and focus of how badly rural Maine needs economic opportunity and forgotten that in order to maintain “other areas for traditional uses” you must retain value of the land for owners to keep their industries viable and consistent.
Point 2: Great things are happening in the jurisdiction in large part due to public-private partnerships. Yet, few if any, are mentioned in this CLUP. I would like to see more reference to the amount of conservation that is taking place in the jurisdiction. Along with that, I ask you to incorporate a new “principal value” into your list of four on page 1-1, which would state the importance of private ownership and rights in the jurisdiction. This has for over 400 years, and will continue to be, a dominate principle in Maine’s Unorganized Territory.
Point 3: Nobody wants to pave Maine’s north woods. Development is not ramped and uncontrolled in the north woods. We must recognize all the good that is happening, along with the private property rights and the need for economic opportunity in rural Maine.
Point 4: A new focus on “primitive recreation” is also of concern. For hundreds of years, the jurisdiction has been a working forest, and generally accessible for most every type of recreation, and in recent decades, has been open and accessible for motorized use- again based on the goodwill of private landowners. The language which states that the Commission must “forever retain its principal values” (pg.1-1 draft CLUP) is followed by one of four values which states “Diverse and abundant recreational opportunities, particularly for primitive pursuits” cannot be compromised.” Why is there a need to single out primitive recreation? This language should be replaced by language such as “diverse and abundant recreational opportunities, particularly the tradition of multiple use recreation.” This statement is much more inclusive of many recreational opportunities.
My understanding is LURC’s job is to guide development appropriately and not to manage recreation.
Point 5: There needs to be a better attempt to notify those that actually live in the UT and are under LURC jurisdiction about the public hearings on the final CLUP. I cannot imagine the calls I would get from constituents in a town if a new comprehensive plan was developed that affect their land ownerships and they were not notified. This should and needs to be done. LURC should have had a system in place to notify residents, especially landowners in the jurisdiction. There are many people who are missing from the audience this evening based on the lack of notification LURC gave to those who have the most to lose in this plan. Today there are landholders here who I expect will express the same concern.
In closing want to thank you for your efforts and I also want to thank private organizations that have allowed the public to use this resource. Under the 1997 CLUP things are working well, and like many others who have spoken or will speak at these hearings, I support the notion of operating under the current CLUP. Let’s learn from the prison consolidation efforts and not from the school consolidation adventure. Let’s make sure it is done right with the right stakeholders.
My name is Tom Saviello and I am the State Representative for House District 90 which includes Avon, New Vineyard, and Phillips, Strong, Temple and Wilton, plus the unorganized territories of Freeman, Perkins, Salem (part) and Washington Townships. On your way here you drove through the heart of my district.
I am professional forester, environmental manager, a member of the Legislature’s IFW Committee, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Rural Caucus, a sportsman, and professor of forestry and environmental studies at the University of Maine at Farmington. Today marks my 30th anniversary in the Forest products Industry.
I come before you today to express my concern over the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and with a deep appreciation for private property rights, the working forest, and the recreational access that is provided to the public based on the goodwill of private landowners.
Let us not forget that the jurisdiction that we are discussing here tonight is comprised mostly of private property, and that our ability to access this marvelous resource lies in the hands of private landowners who manage their land for timber and other natural resources. They need and deserve a big voice in the development of this plan.
It is my opinion that language in the draft plan is some what subjective and unclear, and could ultimately lead to the loss of land value, resulting is a loss of economic opportunity and recreational access for the people of Maine.
I would like to make five points:
First: the Commission purposely eliminated a section of the 1997 Comprehensive Land Use Plan when they drafted the new plan:
“Guide the location of new development in order to protect and conserve forest, recreational, plant or animal habitat and other natural resources, to ensure the compatibility of land uses with one another and to allow for a reasonable range of development opportunities, important to the people of Maine.”
This language was replaced with “Foster a sustainable pattern of development which safeguards the principal values of the jurisdiction by concentrating development near economic centers and maintaining other areas for traditional uses.” To me, you have eliminated the importance and focus of how badly rural Maine needs economic opportunity and forgotten that in order to maintain “other areas for traditional uses” you must retain value of the land for owners to keep their industries viable and consistent.
Point 2: Great things are happening in the jurisdiction in large part due to public-private partnerships. Yet, few if any, are mentioned in this CLUP. I would like to see more reference to the amount of conservation that is taking place in the jurisdiction. Along with that, I ask you to incorporate a new “principal value” into your list of four on page 1-1, which would state the importance of private ownership and rights in the jurisdiction. This has for over 400 years, and will continue to be, a dominate principle in Maine’s Unorganized Territory.
Point 3: Nobody wants to pave Maine’s north woods. Development is not ramped and uncontrolled in the north woods. We must recognize all the good that is happening, along with the private property rights and the need for economic opportunity in rural Maine.
Point 4: A new focus on “primitive recreation” is also of concern. For hundreds of years, the jurisdiction has been a working forest, and generally accessible for most every type of recreation, and in recent decades, has been open and accessible for motorized use- again based on the goodwill of private landowners. The language which states that the Commission must “forever retain its principal values” (pg.1-1 draft CLUP) is followed by one of four values which states “Diverse and abundant recreational opportunities, particularly for primitive pursuits” cannot be compromised.” Why is there a need to single out primitive recreation? This language should be replaced by language such as “diverse and abundant recreational opportunities, particularly the tradition of multiple use recreation.” This statement is much more inclusive of many recreational opportunities.
My understanding is LURC’s job is to guide development appropriately and not to manage recreation.
Point 5: There needs to be a better attempt to notify those that actually live in the UT and are under LURC jurisdiction about the public hearings on the final CLUP. I cannot imagine the calls I would get from constituents in a town if a new comprehensive plan was developed that affect their land ownerships and they were not notified. This should and needs to be done. LURC should have had a system in place to notify residents, especially landowners in the jurisdiction. There are many people who are missing from the audience this evening based on the lack of notification LURC gave to those who have the most to lose in this plan. Today there are landholders here who I expect will express the same concern.
In closing want to thank you for your efforts and I also want to thank private organizations that have allowed the public to use this resource. Under the 1997 CLUP things are working well, and like many others who have spoken or will speak at these hearings, I support the notion of operating under the current CLUP. Let’s learn from the prison consolidation efforts and not from the school consolidation adventure. Let’s make sure it is done right with the right stakeholders.
Rep. Thomas Saviello Reelected as the Rural caucus Chairman
AUGUSTA – State Rep. Thomas Saviello has been reelected as the chairman of the Rural Caucus. The Rural Caucus was established over 10 years ago as a nonpartisan group of legislators who leave their party affiliation outside the door and work in the best interest of rural Maine.
This will be Rep. Saviello’s second term serving as the chair of this caucus. This caucus is different than any standing committee in the legislature. It membership is dictated by where the representative comes from. The chairs are elected for their leadership capabilities and not appointed by the legislative leadership. The caucus meets early in the morning before session starts. It is a place to truly voice ones thoughts and opinions related to pertinent legislation.
“I am honored to be elected as chair again with my fellow legislators, Representative Bill Brown (R) and Jim Schatz (D),” said Rep. Saviello (U-Wilton). “District 90 is a rural district with lots of miles and few people. If similar districts like mine do not stick together we will be run by the urban areas of the state.”
Rep. Saviello went on say “I am honored at the trust that my fellow legislators have put in me by electing me chair again for a second term. I will do my best to insure rural Maine has a voice in the 124th legislature”
The issues before this caucus can be anything that could have an affect on the rural areas of the state. Last session this caucus was instrumental in changing the school consolidation legislation from totally unacceptable to being tolerable. This session the caucus has already weighed in on their concerns on the funding of rural hospitals.
Rep. Saviello represents District 90, which includes the towns of Avon, New Vineyard, Phillips, Strong, Temple and Wilton, plus the unorganized territories of Freeman, Perkins, Salem (part) and Washington Townships.
Feel free to contact Rep. Saviello with ideas, questions or concerns at home at 645-3420 or by email at drtom16@hotmail.com.
This will be Rep. Saviello’s second term serving as the chair of this caucus. This caucus is different than any standing committee in the legislature. It membership is dictated by where the representative comes from. The chairs are elected for their leadership capabilities and not appointed by the legislative leadership. The caucus meets early in the morning before session starts. It is a place to truly voice ones thoughts and opinions related to pertinent legislation.
“I am honored to be elected as chair again with my fellow legislators, Representative Bill Brown (R) and Jim Schatz (D),” said Rep. Saviello (U-Wilton). “District 90 is a rural district with lots of miles and few people. If similar districts like mine do not stick together we will be run by the urban areas of the state.”
Rep. Saviello went on say “I am honored at the trust that my fellow legislators have put in me by electing me chair again for a second term. I will do my best to insure rural Maine has a voice in the 124th legislature”
The issues before this caucus can be anything that could have an affect on the rural areas of the state. Last session this caucus was instrumental in changing the school consolidation legislation from totally unacceptable to being tolerable. This session the caucus has already weighed in on their concerns on the funding of rural hospitals.
Rep. Saviello represents District 90, which includes the towns of Avon, New Vineyard, Phillips, Strong, Temple and Wilton, plus the unorganized territories of Freeman, Perkins, Salem (part) and Washington Townships.
Feel free to contact Rep. Saviello with ideas, questions or concerns at home at 645-3420 or by email at drtom16@hotmail.com.
Rep. Saviello Health Insurance
The Legislature is entering its final month of work, when the action intensifies and budget negotiations set the tempo. Bills move through the House like a herd of cattle. But every so often a bill stops as a big issue comes to the forefront. That was the case last week, when the House debated and ultimately killed a bill to let state residents purchase health insurance from out-of-state companies. The vote broke mostly along party lines.
This vote kept away freedom of choice, common sense and financial security for Maine families. As you know, the cost of health insurance in Maine has spiraled out of control. Our rates are the second highest in the country. One company holds a virtual monopoly on the market for individual insurance.
A vote in the House to keep Mainers locked into this situation was sad. It eliminates potential competition in the heath insurance market. In an economy like this, it is difficult to understand why my fellow legislators would deny working families the chance to save thousands of dollars a year.
Maine used to have a dozen or more companies offering health policies and competing for business. Nearly all of those firms have been driven out of the state by so-called reforms. An estimated 140,000 Maine residents have no insurance at all, usually because they simply can’t afford the exorbitant expense. Another 270,000 are on Medicaid, one fifth of the state. If our rates were closer to the national norms, many of those folks could afford commercial insurance.
The numbers are staggering. Family policies here can easily run to $15,000 or $20,000, even with high deductibles. Maine families and individuals pay a higher portion of their income for health insurance than anyone else in the nation. My friends in Wilton researched what it would cost their family if they lived in New Hampshire. They found for the same policy offered in Maine they would pay $3600 to $4800 per year less if they could purchase the insurance policy from New Hampshire. They are frustrated that Maine insists on keeping them shackled to a failing system.
A bill sponsored by Republican Representative Jon McKane, of Newcastle, sought to break those shackles. His bill would have allowed Maine residents to shop around for insurance anywhere in New England and find the best prices and the best plans for themselves and their families. Jon is an electrician who has worked to solve our insurance fiasco since he was first elected in 2004. Every reform bill offered over the past few sessions would have moved Maine closer to the American mainstream. Common sense solutions have been proposed to give Mainers the same kind of system that the vast majority of Americans enjoy in their own states. Unfortunately every single bill has been killed.
I know that without meaningful reform, the best deal for Maine consumers would be out-of-state insurance. Families could save thousands of dollars a year. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut all have robust insurance markets. New Hampshire has 11 companies selling individual policies. Massachusetts has 21. Maine has only two. Just imagine if we suddenly had the choice of dozens of companies and plans to choose from. By joining together with our regional neighbors, Maine would be part of a huge insurance pool and would have the advantages of much greater competition. We would have the same consumer protections that these states offer, plus any other protections we wished to impose.
There is no doubt that the people of Maine wanted this bill to succeed. They didn’t see any downside, because there really isn’t one. Under the McKane plan, the decision was voluntary. If you wanted to stay with your Maine insurance, that was fine. Nothing was being taken away. But people who preferred other options would have had them. In legislative surveys, at least 95 percent of folks said they wanted the freedom of choice to buy insurance someplace else. No one likes being told by politicians that they have to stick with a loser. There are no rational arguments against the McKane bill.
For me this was simply a political loss. But the real losers were Maine families. They could have had an escape route from our insurance debacle, but now there’s no way out unless the Senate gives the bill another chance.
As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90. If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com
This vote kept away freedom of choice, common sense and financial security for Maine families. As you know, the cost of health insurance in Maine has spiraled out of control. Our rates are the second highest in the country. One company holds a virtual monopoly on the market for individual insurance.
A vote in the House to keep Mainers locked into this situation was sad. It eliminates potential competition in the heath insurance market. In an economy like this, it is difficult to understand why my fellow legislators would deny working families the chance to save thousands of dollars a year.
Maine used to have a dozen or more companies offering health policies and competing for business. Nearly all of those firms have been driven out of the state by so-called reforms. An estimated 140,000 Maine residents have no insurance at all, usually because they simply can’t afford the exorbitant expense. Another 270,000 are on Medicaid, one fifth of the state. If our rates were closer to the national norms, many of those folks could afford commercial insurance.
The numbers are staggering. Family policies here can easily run to $15,000 or $20,000, even with high deductibles. Maine families and individuals pay a higher portion of their income for health insurance than anyone else in the nation. My friends in Wilton researched what it would cost their family if they lived in New Hampshire. They found for the same policy offered in Maine they would pay $3600 to $4800 per year less if they could purchase the insurance policy from New Hampshire. They are frustrated that Maine insists on keeping them shackled to a failing system.
A bill sponsored by Republican Representative Jon McKane, of Newcastle, sought to break those shackles. His bill would have allowed Maine residents to shop around for insurance anywhere in New England and find the best prices and the best plans for themselves and their families. Jon is an electrician who has worked to solve our insurance fiasco since he was first elected in 2004. Every reform bill offered over the past few sessions would have moved Maine closer to the American mainstream. Common sense solutions have been proposed to give Mainers the same kind of system that the vast majority of Americans enjoy in their own states. Unfortunately every single bill has been killed.
I know that without meaningful reform, the best deal for Maine consumers would be out-of-state insurance. Families could save thousands of dollars a year. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut all have robust insurance markets. New Hampshire has 11 companies selling individual policies. Massachusetts has 21. Maine has only two. Just imagine if we suddenly had the choice of dozens of companies and plans to choose from. By joining together with our regional neighbors, Maine would be part of a huge insurance pool and would have the advantages of much greater competition. We would have the same consumer protections that these states offer, plus any other protections we wished to impose.
There is no doubt that the people of Maine wanted this bill to succeed. They didn’t see any downside, because there really isn’t one. Under the McKane plan, the decision was voluntary. If you wanted to stay with your Maine insurance, that was fine. Nothing was being taken away. But people who preferred other options would have had them. In legislative surveys, at least 95 percent of folks said they wanted the freedom of choice to buy insurance someplace else. No one likes being told by politicians that they have to stick with a loser. There are no rational arguments against the McKane bill.
For me this was simply a political loss. But the real losers were Maine families. They could have had an escape route from our insurance debacle, but now there’s no way out unless the Senate gives the bill another chance.
As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90. If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com
PROTECTING JOBS AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE BOTTOM LINE
This year, water extraction received a lot of attention both in Augusta and in local communities. During the last legislative session numerous bills were introduced related to water bottling facilities. Although many users rely on Maine’s vast groundwater resources, one of the very smallest and most responsible users getting particular attention is Poland Spring.
Approximately five years ago, Kingfield began the process of creating a local environmental ordinance to protect this valuable resource and used it to permit a spring water bottling plant. They crafted a strong ordinance that both protected the aquifer and helped create jobs and economic opportunity for the community. The ordinance was overwhelmingly approved by the Kingfield voters. The planning board then considered Poland Spring’s application and sought advice from an independent geologist hired by the town. The planning board set a conservative and sustainable withdrawal limit in the permit it approved. A permit from DEP was also required and obtained. The combination of state and local regulation provides redundant and rigorous oversight, while still allowing Poland Spring to operate responsibly and create good jobs
That’s exactly what this state and our local communities need to be doing. We need to encourage companies that create good paying jobs to invest in our towns and expand in Maine. Managing our natural resources to provide jobs has gone on in this state for centuries.
As a legislator, I am all too aware of the decline in jobs in the manufacturing sector in our area. These jobs must be replaced or Maine will continue to suffer. Poland Spring is one of the few companies looking to invest in Maine in this difficult economic climate. The company completed a $60 million bottling plant in Kingfield, spending $19 million with local contractors and putting several hundred Mainers to work during construction.
Today, more than 41 families living with in 20 miles of the Kingfield facility enjoy a good paying job with health care, dental and other great benefits. Another 20 have part-time or seasonal work. Because of their dedicated local workers, the Poland Spring plant has the highest rate of efficiency and recycling of any Nestle Waters bottling facility in the country.
To mark this environmental achievement, and similar ones at its Poland Spring and Hollis facilities, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection recently named Poland Spring an Environmental Leader in Maine. I’ve seen that leadership firsthand through Poland Spring’s work across the state.
If we want to be more than a tourist destination, with more than service jobs, we must both protect and add value to our natural resources to create jobs that provide a good living for Maine families. Poland Spring does precisely that by responsibly using our abundant ground water resources to create the world’s finest bottled spring water. Poland Spring has proven they are a responsible steward of our ground water resources with a commitment to investing in local communities.
If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always it my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.
Approximately five years ago, Kingfield began the process of creating a local environmental ordinance to protect this valuable resource and used it to permit a spring water bottling plant. They crafted a strong ordinance that both protected the aquifer and helped create jobs and economic opportunity for the community. The ordinance was overwhelmingly approved by the Kingfield voters. The planning board then considered Poland Spring’s application and sought advice from an independent geologist hired by the town. The planning board set a conservative and sustainable withdrawal limit in the permit it approved. A permit from DEP was also required and obtained. The combination of state and local regulation provides redundant and rigorous oversight, while still allowing Poland Spring to operate responsibly and create good jobs
That’s exactly what this state and our local communities need to be doing. We need to encourage companies that create good paying jobs to invest in our towns and expand in Maine. Managing our natural resources to provide jobs has gone on in this state for centuries.
As a legislator, I am all too aware of the decline in jobs in the manufacturing sector in our area. These jobs must be replaced or Maine will continue to suffer. Poland Spring is one of the few companies looking to invest in Maine in this difficult economic climate. The company completed a $60 million bottling plant in Kingfield, spending $19 million with local contractors and putting several hundred Mainers to work during construction.
Today, more than 41 families living with in 20 miles of the Kingfield facility enjoy a good paying job with health care, dental and other great benefits. Another 20 have part-time or seasonal work. Because of their dedicated local workers, the Poland Spring plant has the highest rate of efficiency and recycling of any Nestle Waters bottling facility in the country.
To mark this environmental achievement, and similar ones at its Poland Spring and Hollis facilities, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection recently named Poland Spring an Environmental Leader in Maine. I’ve seen that leadership firsthand through Poland Spring’s work across the state.
If we want to be more than a tourist destination, with more than service jobs, we must both protect and add value to our natural resources to create jobs that provide a good living for Maine families. Poland Spring does precisely that by responsibly using our abundant ground water resources to create the world’s finest bottled spring water. Poland Spring has proven they are a responsible steward of our ground water resources with a commitment to investing in local communities.
If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always it my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)