Most of us who have traveled northbound on the interstate from New Hampshire are familiar with the sign that reads “WELCOME TO MAINE — The Way Life Should Be.” Under this well-known marker is a new message, “OPEN FOR BUSINESS.”
It’s more than a slogan. This sign reflects a new attitude that it’s no longer business as usual in Maine. The election of Gov. Paul LePage and a Republican-controlled Legislature has brought a spirit of hope and optimism that Maine can reverse its reputation as a bad state for business.
Already, the Legislature has produced major reforms in such critical areas as health insurance, public pensions and taxes, all of which, directly or indirectly, will improve the business climate.
Now, the campaign to improve our economy and create jobs has moved on to another area of opportunity — the state’s heavy regulatory burden.
Few things can smother an economy more than a regulatory regime that thwarts or discourages capital formation and the entrepreneurial risk-taking involved in starting a business. For decades, Maine’s business community has been plagued with many unnecessary and redundant regulations that made it difficult to flourish.
Fortunately, many of these barriers are being eliminated.
The Texas Instruments plant in South Portland (formerly National Semiconductor), one of the state’s largest employers, is a case in point. They use isopropyl alcohol in the process of manufacturing semiconductors. Until recently, disposal of the material cost the company up to $40,000 a year because the Maine Department of Environmental Protection classified isopropyl alcohol as hazardous waste. Under federal law, however, the material is not considered hazardous. After all, it is rubbing alcohol.
LD 1, a landmark regulatory reform measure approved by the Maine Senate and House by a combined vote of 181-3, changed that rule, and many others, to conform to federal standards. As a result, Texas Instruments will now be able to sell the used isopropyl alcohol so that it can be salvaged for use as a solvent. This approach is more environmentally friendly than the previous process of shipping it somewhere else to be burned. It also means a large Maine employer will no longer have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to destroy it.
Another example is the absurdity of a former state law regarding lobster traps. Maine fisherman could have faced a fine for storing traps on docks that they owned. The inexplicable reason: Maine’s DEP concluded that the shade created by lobster traps would result in the loss of “marine vegetation” — seaweed — near the docks. LD 1 eliminated that obstacle for Maine fishermen, many of whom are struggling to make a living in a heavily regulated industry.
There’s a new attitude in Maine when it comes to business — state government is here to help, not put up roadblocks. LD 1 created the position of small business advocate, who now hears regulatory concerns of small companies and reports back to the secretary of state, the governor and legislators about possible changes.
Being business friendly doesn’t have to come at the cost of being good environmental stewards. That’s why I voted for common sense legislation designed to protect our environment.
For example, I supported two bills that address the spread of invasive species in Maine. The first is LD 182, “A Resolve Directing the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources to Develop Criteria for Identifying Invasive Terrestrial Plants.” The second is LD 252, “An Act To Amend the Laws Governing Aquatic Nuisance Species.” Both measures will help the state identify invasive species and control their spread.
I also supported LD 553, which is intended to reduce Maine’s dependence on oil. The targets include a 30 percent reduction by 2030 and a 50 percent reduction by 2050. The focus will be on near-term policies and infrastructure changes that set the state on a reasonable trajectory to meet those goals.
For too long, Maine’s businesses have been burdened by over-regulation. We have paid the price in lost incomes, anemic job creation and economic malaise. The steps taken in the Legislature this year, and those planned for the next session, will go a long way toward restoring economic vitality in our state.
Rep. Jim Parker, R-Veazie, an environmental engineer, served on the Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform. He also serves on the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.
“Under this well-known marker is a new message, “OPEN FOR BUSINESS.”
This has to be a new record for the usual suspects on the BDN Comments section. Not a single snarky remark yet about the sign or the Soviet-Union style mural.
Nice article, too. It sounds like Rep. Parker has more than a passing acquaintance with common sense.
As does the poster chuckgg.
Thanks. Of course, common sense and 25-cents will get you a cup of coffee when it comes to politics. Well, these days, maybe $2.50 for the double-latte skim-milk mocha Grande at Starbucks.
This state and this country will continue their tailspin until some common sense is brought into the environmental equation.
I agree with Rep. Parker about burdensome regulations. Periodically, regulations should be reviewed and see if they still are applicable and what the cost-benefit ratio is of having such regulations. I am pleased to see Rep. Parker’s comments that one need not fail to be a good steward of the environment while reducing regulatory burden. All too often the baby is thrown out with the bath water. Certainly, we have seen this absurdity at the Federal level where regulatory oversight was insufficient or underfunded and many have paid the price. The BP Gulf oil rig explosion and subsequent pollution is perhaps the most recent and worst example. Billions upon billions of dollars were spent on a clean-up that would not have been necessary had the regulatory rules been enforced and safety checks completed. Lives were lost. Livelihoods were put on-hold. Reputations were tarnished. It was appalling and all to save a few bucks. It was all so unnecessary.
While I agree with Rep. Parker on the regulatory burden, this is not the only reason Maine is perceived by some as not favorable for business. There are certain geographic factors for which little can be done. We have tough weather, high energy use, limited rail and jet-port transportation, and we are “at the end of the line.” I am all for saving money but we also need to consider investing to improve our attractiveness to outside business interests. I won’t go so far as to say we need to put lipstick on a pig, but we could do more to make our location and business environment more attractive. We will never be the great plains wheat producers so like the plain girl going to the prom we need to put our best assets forward. There are many things we could do.
I am glad to see the State having taken over the rail lines up north. These should be repaired and improved over the years and made available for the Toronto-Montreal-Quebec cross-Maine line to the Maritime provinces. This would save hundreds of miles for the Canadians and we would no longer be “at the end of the line.” We would be in the middle. Combine this with Peter Vigue’s East-West Highway initiative and you have an inter-modal system attractive to the big shippers. Run it through Bangor International and now you have land, sea, air, and rail. Great combination. We need to think globally.
Education: We suffered a great deal of “brain drain” as those who could leave Maine for other jobs, did. Why did Peter Vigue of Cianbro have to setup a school to teach 250 new people how to weld? Why didn’t our population have those trained people ready to go? How many companies have looked at Maine and said, “Nice place, but a huge unskilled labor pool.”? To compensate for the geographic limitations we should have very low-cost (low in-state tuition), high-skilled training in Vocational schools to feed industry. We need to be THE spot for precision manufacturing and specialized skills.
Why aren’t we following the German model where small farms become energy producers where power is sold back to the grid? I have an 85 acre farm and all I can grow is hay. If I had the ability to sell power to the grid, this would become my “crop.” Oh, we cannot do that because Net-Metering gives us only a credit that we “use or lose.” There are lots of small farms that could be turned into small energy producers. We are effectively prohibited from doing this due to MPUC regulations. So, Rep. Parker, there is another regulatory burden that could be lifted, or is CMP too powerful? I checked about legislation to follow the German model. It was shot down some years back after being introduced by a Portland representative who is no longer in the Maine legislature. It seemed like a good idea then. It seems like a better idea now, what with the cost and efficiency of solar panels having much improved.
Finally, one of my pet peeves: Conservatives can be broken down into two groups – those who are fiscally conservative and want to see a good P&L statement for the State, and then there are the social conservatives who feel religion is is jeopardy, the world is coming to an end, a theocracy is a good idea, and 2012 will bring Armageddon (in other words, the nutbars).
Of course, the latter group is just plain nuts. There is no other way to say it. Looking from the former’s viewpoint, Marriage Equality in Maine would seem to me to be a slam-dunk. Iowa has reported increased profits and certainly New York will, all a result of the additional business generated by the passage of Marriage Equality. Aside from this being an obvious secular civil rights issue, it would cost the State not one dime, and would increase business for the State to the tune of an estimated $20M annually. It also allows us to no longer be considered “Mississippi North” and a bunch of redneck backwoods hillbillies. It instead would attract progressive firms who have for many years offered same-sex partner benefits. The number one asset for all high-tech companies is their people, many of whom are progressive, liberal, educated, and either have same-sex partners or who favor benefits for their co-workers who do. The 2009 Referendum-1 debacle was an instant turn-off to many high-tech companies who must be able to provide a positive environment to their staff by locating in geographic areas that support their people. We need to get Marriage Equality passed so we can join the rest of the New England States, New York, Iowa, and DC, (and many foreign countries, including Canada).
I am optimistic for Maine as long as we look forward to new businesses and not backward to those long-gone industries that went offshore never to return.
just right wing BS about over regulation — also about the “soviet style” mural — did ya check under your bed for commies this morning?
from the fiscal times, hardly a liberal rag
“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” the McClatchy report found. Monthly surveys by the National Federation of Independent Business show that small business concerns about regulation are lower today than they were in the 1990s when the economy was booming.
Rather than regulation, the main problem that turns up again and again is a lack of business, a lack of sales, a lack of customers. In other words, a lack of aggregate demand in the economy. As Harvard economist Martin Feldstein put it in a July 15 commentary:
“The high unemployment reflects the lack of demand rather than any fundamental problems with the U.S. labor market…. The reduced spending by consumers has caused companies to cut back on production. With little prospect for an upturn of demand for their products, businesses have laid off numbers of workers, reducing their incomes and raising the unemployment rate.”
This observNone of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” the McClatchy report found. Monthly surveys by the National Federation of Independent Business show that small business concerns about regulation are lower today than they were in the 1990s when the economy was booming.
Rather than regulation, the main problem that turns up again and again is a lack of business, a lack of sales, a lack of customers. In other words, a lack of aggregate demand in the economy. As Harvard economist Martin Feldstein put it in a July 15 commentary:
“The high unemployment reflects the lack of demand rather than any fundamental problems with the U.S. labor market…. The reduced spending by consumers has caused companies to cut back on production. With little prospect for an upturn of demand for their products, businesses have laid off numbers of workers, reducing their incomes and raising the unemployment rate.”
This observation is confirmed by research. A July 21 Federal Reserve Bank of New York study examined several small business surveys and concluded that the principal cause of layoffs and slow hiring is poor sales and weak consumer demand for firms’ products and services.
ation is confirmed by research. several small business surveys and concluded that the principal cause of layoffs and slow hiring is poor sales and weak consumer demand for firms’ products and services.”