Keep dreaming
Rufus Wanning’s column, “Higher taxes on the rich spark the economy” (BDN March 31 – April 1), might more realistically have been titled, “Dream Economics 101.” While his plan for refueling our economic engine is as realistic, simple and clear as any conceivable, he assumes or maybe just dreams that the rich will have a sudden change of heart and a reversal of interest from hoarding dead money to breathing divine life into it by applying it to “rebuilding our [and their] infrastructure, expanding higher education, and to other investments in our [and their] future” essentially through charitable, differential taxation.
For until the rich can sense the real power and joy of driving this spaceship’s societal evolution into the Aquarian age, our politicians are bound by the chains of “stagnant cash from the rich” who haven’t yet understood Wanning’s last and major point that, “Paradoxically, by creating more demand, this plan also will help the entrepreneurs. By the end of two years, our economy will be humming again, tax receipts will increase and government spending on the poor will decline. Politicians will be arguing about what to do with the surplus.”
What a dream, but so was electricity and the light bulb and electrified homes, streets and cities.
Glenda Bell
Mars Hill
Level health insurance
As a cancer survivor, I don’t want to be treated unfairly in the health care system. My premiums shouldn’t be significantly higher than a healthy person — especially if it creates a barrier for me to access care.
The key to avoiding inequity is to create a level playing field for health insurance companies. If one health plan is less expensive because it has fewer benefits it will likely entice younger, healthier people and force someone like me into a more expensive plan with other older people or those fighting a chronic disease.
There is relief in sight in Maine. By 2014, every state is required to establish a state-run marketplace, or exchange, for people purchasing health insurance on their own. If set up and run properly, these marketplaces will allow people to easily compare health plans online and choose the one that is best for them.
What the Maine Legislature needs to ensure is that all insurance companies, regardless of whether they sell products inside or outside the marketplace, are subject to the same rules. Otherwise, plans sold outside the exchange could design their plans to attract healthy people, leaving those who are less healthy and with high medical bills in the exchange and driving up rates that would make coverage unaffordable to those who need it most.
Let’s make sure there is a level playing field, so everyone has access to the coverage they need regardless of their health status.
Marianne Moore
Volunteer, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
Calais
Mining and education
Mining at Bald Mountain will bring not only jobs to our region, but it will bring hands-on experience for our students. New legislation will bring forth more economic opportunity, sustainable income for hundreds and an environment that will host real world experience for those participating in academia.
Valuable educational experience can be gained from passing LD 1853. Students will have the ability to learn skills from professionals in the field. Engineering and construction, lab work and water quality standards are all part of the process in which students can be involved.
Mining development at Bald Mountain will bring hundreds of new jobs to a region that has one of the highest unemployment rates in Maine. The County is a region that survives on natural resources and has struggled through these tough times. Maine people are resilient and loyal. We are a hard-working bunch who know the value of our land and take great pride is its preservation.
Legislation that will allow for new laws and regulations on mining in Maine is a necessity for students, workers and the region in its entirety. The benefits that will be reaped by students alone are astounding. Very few have access to such a unique resource, and this will surely prepare our students to go out and excel in the work force.
Mainers know the value of hands-on experience. Mining on Bald Mountain will secure hundreds of jobs, put food on the table, and create value for our students.
Samuel Weymouth
Stetson
Glenda Bell
There is historical precedent for Rufus Wanning’s claim. Back at the beginning of the industrial revolution, the rich did indeed have a “change” of economic outlook, if not a change of heart. They took their money out of mothballs, and built factories, railroads, highways, mills, hotels and other useful stuff. During the period after the civil war, my Great Grandfather built three hotels in Orlando, Fla. Baton Rouge La. and Jackson Mississippi. These towns had recently become rail-hubs as other folks with money like the Vanderbilt’s , Mellon’s, and Manderson’s built railroads. All these “self made” people had investors. You don’t think someone just goes out and drills for oil, builds a textile mill, or a newspaper by themselves? The rich can be moved, BUT they have to see opportunity. They are rich because they do not throw their money away.
Marianne Moore
The Supreme Court is about to throw out most of what you are discussing. With no “mandate” there will be cherry-picking. The old, the very young, and the people with pre existing conditions will not be able to afford health insurance.
This Obama plan was poorly conceived, hastily pushed through congress, and, without a public option, destined to fail. Don’t blame the Court, blame the people who sold you and other believers a pig-in-a-poke.
Samuel Weymouth
We disagree…vehemently. I suggest you check out Centralia PA Pitcher Oklahoma, and what used to be the majestic mountains of West Virginia. Also remember that Maine has a poor record with mining in the past, which is the reason for the current regulations.
AND
West Virginia has the most mines and some of the most lax mining regulation in the USA, and it is still the second poorest State in the Nation.
Unless you have an inside track on how the Supreme Court is going to rule on the Individual Mandate I think you are jumping the gun. I don’t think it will be overturned because of the far reaching consequences it may have. As a retiree who worked for weekly wages all my life I can’t recall anyone asking me if I wanted Social Security or Medicare taxes deducted from my pay checks so it would be fair to assume that these were mandated. How would a ruling against the health care mandate effect these programs? I can’t speak for anyone else but I am extremely glad that I had to pay into these programs because now I’m enjoying the benefits. I think when people get by the political retoric and can see how they will benefit from the mandate they will not want it overturned. I do believe that the only real way to solve the economic problem of providing healthcare to everyone is to move to a national healthcare system which most other industrialized countries have . Some of these countries deliver as good or better helathcare services as we have here at half the price.
Michael the mandate of Social Security as you refer it was not a mandate to participate in commerce and to create a market in order to regulate it. That’s a big difference and that’s why the SCOTUS is dealing with the issue at all.
No matter how you look at it the question is can the government force you to buy something you may not want. Given the great impact that healthcare costs put on our economy I think that the government will have the right to create this market and according to the CBO this is going to save millions of dollars over a period of time. As we all know the idea of the individual mandate was a Republican idea to start with but when Obama said he thought it was a good idea it suddenly became a poison pill. If you can think back to 2008 when the Republicans ran on the issue of Cap and Trade it was a great idea but when Obama said he was for it ,it too became a poison pill. The truth is that no matter how much good any of Obama’s policies do for our country the right wingers are going to do everything in their power to discredit him , even if it means hurting our country.
And therein is the mistake that liberals make. The Supreme Court is NOT ruling on how much it might save, how much good the ACA might do, or who came up with the mandate first. All of that is politics and Obamaspeak. The SCOTUS is ruling on the constitutionality of the certain provisions of the law and that’s all that counts.
Whats really odd is the Solictor General made some of your talking points during Oral arguments and one justice responded by asking…. “Do you think we’re stupid??”
I disagree with both of you that this is a partisan issue. It is an issue of freedom. If the Federal government can make us buy insurance to save us from ourselves, can they not also mandate we buy a new car when THEY believe ours is too old and unsafe? Can they mandate that we buy healthy foods, because after all they are paying sooo much for our health care? Can they mandate the whole pie-chart of our paycheck telling us (in the lower and middle classes of course) exactly how much we must spend on every item we purchase?
The die is cast. the gauntlet thrown.
Freedom or servitude what’s your choice.
I agree 100%. That is the essence of what the Court is ruling on.
There is a difference between what they’re ruling on and how they’re doing it.
Ok I’ll bite. What is your point?
I just find it ironic that those who have been screeching about activist judges for literally decades are now doing a 180 and boasting about the integrity of the judiciary.
My point is there is a difference between what the Court is ruling on and how they answer those questions. I think your assertion about liberals not knowing what the legal questions are in pretty silly. Most would admit that the SJC has been dealing politicized opinions as of late (the slew of 5-4, with the new liberal judges being the few who flip) and that’s what these gripes are about.
That is merely the political spin being put out by the White House because they may have have created an Unconstitutional Law.
The best evidence I can point to is the recent Obama attack on the judiciary when for the first time in US history the President attacks the Supreme Court BEFORE a verdict is rendered.
Activist judges historically have been those that reacted to political spin. That is what Activist means and THAT is exactly what Obama wants the justices to do. He is asking that the justices become activist. You know what? Obama does not have the right to pressure the court. That is what Hugo Chavez does in Venezuela as he shut down their court. What does it say for American policy in other countries where we are trying to build an independent judiciary that an American president can decide to throw that all away because he may politically embarrassed?
No, it’s not. Unless you’re willing to deny reality and pass it off as political spin, then whatever. But for the rest of us operating in reality, we can see that the Court HAS become highly politicized and HAS been dealing partisan rulings. When you see conservatives arguing that one man with a prescription to grow medical marijuana constitutes “interstate commerce” but then somehow the entire health care industry does not — people start wondering if something is up.
Your hyperbole is ridiculous. For example, Newt Gingrich spoke about the “activisit 9th circuit” and arresting justices — yet Obama speaking about his legal analysis is somehow tantamount to denying judicial review? Get a grip man. Obama saying an overturn would be “unprecendent” isn’t the same as the examples you’re refering to, not even close, you drama queen.
Even in the marijuana case you site you make my case. Noone is saying that healthcare is not interstate commerce. Not even the states presenting their opposition to the law. What they are saying is the mandate to participate in interstate commerce may be. That point alone make your entire argument moot.
There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that no President has attacked the Supreme Court before a verdict has been rendered. (White House backpedaling aside) That is true. Prove otherwise.
Why don’t you prove that your hyperbole is true? How is stating that overturning this would be unprecedented somehow a monumental attack? You compared it to denying judicial review. I’m pretty interested in hearing that, but I doubt you know, because you seem content in regurgitating talking points and citing out of context quotes.
Nice White House backpedaling.
Look at the speech/statement. It is no where near what you have characterized it to be. You complain about certain behaviors and then engage in extreme versions of those same behaviors yourself. Nice set of principles you have there.
I made no mention of judicial review anywhere in my posts. That is 100% you and White House media backpedaling and obfuscation.
Here is a soft pedaled criticism of Obama by one of his legal allies.
“Presidents should generally refrain from commenting on pending cases
during the process of judicial deliberation,” said Harvard Law professor
Laurence Tribe, a close
Obama ally. “Even if such comments won’t affect
the justices a bit, they can contribute to an atmosphere of public
cynicism that I know this president laments.”
The part he soft pedaled is “Presidents should generally refrain…” What he failed to say was its never been done before even when Roosevelt attacked the Supreme Court in the 30’s.
LOL and yet you still can’t even attempt to defend your characterization of Obama’s comments. Your cocern is feigned and you’re obviously just spewing the talking points du jour. If you want to keep pretending that you’re credible, go ahead, whatever makes you happy.
u have the patience of a saint
She is talking about one thing I another. A common malady of Liberals intent on obfuscating.
Even some liberals believe the president went too far yesterday. Ruth
Marcus, an editorial writer who covers the Supreme Court for the Washington Post,
said Obama’s assault “stopped me cold . . . for the president to imply
that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to
his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a
disservice.” It was a mistake for Obama to “declare war” on the court, says Jon Meacham, a contributing editor of Time
magazine. Voters don’t like hearing assaults on the Supreme Court
itself, probably because Americans believe “life needs umpires, even
ones who blow calls now and then.”
You’re just citing more hyperbole and avoiding the question. Why don’t y0u quote the actual statement and point to these blatant attacks and declaration of war?
Your quotes are silly anyway as public opinion of the courts has been on a steep decline since Gore v. Bush and subsequent cases such as Citizens United. According to Gallup, the Court’s approval rating in 2011 was 46%.
It kind of seems like you’re just seeking out the information you want that’ll affirm your baseless beliefs. Why else would you be so hesitant to provide in-context quotes from the actual material you’re trying to debase?
These comments are from Obama’s allies. His friends. The folks who want him to succeed.
Still desperately avoiding the question.
So are you saying Obama’s friend are wrong?
It’s irrelevant. I’ve asked you to simply point to the parts of his statements where he supposedly is declaring war against the court/denying judicial review/etc. That’s all.
Tell me what is more Activist than this?
I would
not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in
the year 2012.” ~~~~~Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
You’re laughably inconsistent. You decry talking points and then you spew them yourself. Do you know the context in which she made that remark? She was referring to the fact that our Constitution didn’t initially ensure equality for all, between 3/5 clauses and no rights for women. That’s not activism, that’s common sense.
You were making political points. So I returned the favor.
You need to read her interview with the Egyptian media in total.
I did and you’re wrong.
Context. When the Constitution was adopted, slavery was allowed, women could not vote, and even men without property could not vote in most states. The president was elected by electors who were appointed by state legislatures. Senators were selected by state legislatures. The Bill of Rights was added by ammendment. So, as it was first enacted, the Constitution was not quite the same then as it is today. You’ve taken her quote out of context.
As far as I know the first 10 amendments are part of the Constitution as are the other amendments.
Justice Ginsberg probably knew they had been ratified beforeshe told the Egyptian media to look at other Constitutions that did not have basic rights like judicial review.
And it remains, with the Bill of Rights, there still were no equal protections. You’re still wrong.
That’s not what happened: Verrilli was talking to Justice Kagan about the relation between government and markets when Justice Scalia rudely interrupted their conversation and started his own discussion with Verrilli. I was when verrilli was trying to explain the point when Scalia again interrupted and made the statement , “These people are not stupid”
Scalia kept right on interrupting. He would not listen to Verrilli’s argument. The position of Supreme Court Justice demands great deference and great courtesy. Scalia used this against Verrrilli to shut him up so that neither the public or the court would hear a valid argument in favor of the mandate.
Here is the transcript:
GENERAL VERRILLI: To live in the modern world, everybody needs a telephone. And the — the same thing with respect to the — you know, the dairy price supports that — that the Court upheld in Wrightwood Dairy and Rock Royal. You can look at those as disadvantageous contracts, as forced transfers, that — you know, I suppose it’s theoretically true that you could raise your kids without milk, but the reality is you’ve got to go to the store and buy milk. And the commerce power — as a result of the exercise of the commerce power, you’re subsidizing somebody else –
JUSTICE KAGAN: And this is especially true, isn’t it, General –
GENERAL VERRILLI: — because that’s the judgment Congress has made.
JUSTICE KAGAN: — Verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan, that you’re young and healthy one day, but you don’t stay that way, and the system works over time. And so I just don’t think it’s a fair characterization of it. And it does get back to, I think, a problem I think is important to understand –
JUSTICE SCALIA: These people not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and need the money now.
GENERAL VERRILLI: But that’s –JUSTICE SCALIA: — I don’t know why you think that they’re never going to buy it.GENERAL VERRILLI: But that’s — that’s –And Justice Scalia interrupts him again.
You rewrote the text of the conversation or copied it from someone else who did.
This is the correct text.
JUSTICE SCALIA: We’re not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young
and — and need the money now.
As for Interruptions. If Verrilli is incapable of making his argument he should not have been before the court. The fact is he had no answer. Is he a grown up lawyer or not?
A reporter didn’t hear clearly and reported that Scalia said “We’re not stupid”. The official court transcript is what I posted. Scalia said,”They’re not stupid” in reference to younger people.
I agree with your points. As I see it the government is saying that we are all already in the system and therefore we should all be contributing to it. That is not only correct, but fair.
You are trying to make the broccoli argument that Scalia thought was so clever.
The name is Scalia not Scolia.
We will see if his argument holds credence with the remaining Justices. It is a good one and goes to the heart of the matter.
Where does the governments authority over your paycheck begin and end under the commerce clause?
Scalia, Scolia, we all make typos. You left out an apostrophe.
Yes. But I do try to spell peoples names right. You are correct it is not important. Tell that to the next person who criticizes a conservative poster for that infraction.
Apostrophe? Where?
If I spelled a person’s name wrong, I would appreciate someone correcting me. So feel free.
The apostrophe should be in “government’s authority”.
I think I am done with grammar today. How about those Red Sox?
Go Sox!
government’s — You were not talking about more than one government (governments) but you were talking about something belonging to the government (the government’s authority). The apostrophe shows possession in this situation.
Pointed out an hour before your post. Thanks though. Again… its not important. I was simply correcting the spelling of a persons name without other comment, one way or the other.
The misuse of the apostrophe is a pet peeve of mine — but it’s hard to mention a pet peeve without sounding, well, peevish.
I listened to all the audio of the arguments and my take on Scalia is that he always thinks himself to be the smartest in the room. I find him to be obnoxious and an embarrassment to this country.
Aside from that, his arguments were right out of the tea party playbook , utterly nonsensical.
Scalia because he is so blatantly partisan, mouths off in public and showboats when he should be listening is not worthy of the position he holds.
and he beat the crap out of the Governments case and he was not the only one. Kennedy did as well.
GLENDA,
I find myself wanting to respond, but once again I have asked Scottie to beam me up.
MARIANNE,
Everyone has health care now and will continue to have when “Commie Care” kicks in. Nothing will change. A few pay, and many ride free. Same song different program.
You have healthcare Amcon because you are still suckling at the Gov’t teat via veteran’s benefits. Give it a few years and the repubs will be labeling your benefits as “entitlements” and looking to cut.
He served our Country, did you?????
I did….
I certainly did both as an active duty enlisted man then as a reserve officer after college, and it infuriates me when people decry Big Gov’t, yet are quick to que up for those services. Mark my words, when the true costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan vets begins to balloon the VA budget, the repubs will start calling VA benefits an “entitlement program”, and be looking to cut.
Then you do know that most military folk are Republicans, Republicans are big on defense and supporting the Military…. So VA benefits are probably safe….Tri care seems to work pretty well, I think it may work for the rest of us, but everyone should pay into it..
Republican voters, yes. Republican polititions however only seem concerned with staying in power and enriching themselves as much as possible. I’m sure you are aware that Ron Paul (running for the R nomination, but obviously a Libertarian) has received more military donation money than any other candidate. I guess when you are the tip of the spear, you want the spear wielder to utilize you judiciously.
And what have you done to deserve your entitlement amcon? What have you done? You come on so pure I’ve a feeling you are a leech.
Now that attack comes right out of the obama jealousy Playbook. You all are right about one thing. I served and earned my benifits’ which is more the I can say about the freeloading crowd. Go to your dictionary and look up Earned and Freeload. Hopefully this will help?
Amcon, you have good health care because we appreciate your efforts protecting the country. This has nothing to do with President Obama, jealousy, or a play book. You get health insurance because it is the right thing to do. What ugly little neuron deep in your conservative brain tells you that other people don’t work hard and should be denied health care. Is this the Christian in you talking or some nasty little selfish fascist?
Well said.
I, too, served. Six years. Proudly in the US Navy. Is my service as good as yours or am I a leech? I also volunteer twice at month at Togus. The vets have taught me a lot more than I’ve helped them. Have I seen you there?
As my husband is, you, as a veteran, who has served your country, shouldn’t be paying any sort of premiums in my “perfect society” handbook. But, yes, my husband has to pay for both his and mine in upwards of close to $6,000 a year – neither have any Dxs or Rxs. We have a gap here – you have many 18-30 y.o. who don’t or won’t pay their way, and the elderly, who most can’t afford the premiums, so they shrivel up and die. The middle group – now there you have the people paying out their a##. But it should be the 18-64 year olds paying the most. In my dream world, if you are retired, I feel you have paid your dues, not more dues for higher health care…whoops, fell asleep there.
Everyone certainly does not have healthcare now. Your saying so does not make it so.
“A few pay, many ride free.” That’s what the individual mandate fixes. When everyone has health insurance, we insured people don’t have to pick up the tab (in the form of increases in what hospitals charge for treatment) for those who have no insurance to cover the cost of their medical expenses.
Glenda, thanks for the laugh!!
Has there ever, any where , been a responsible mining operator? Go ahead start mining in Maine, but let’s not pretend that there will be hundreds of good jobs for Mainers or that the mine operators will be sensitive about the environment. And definitely let’s not pretend that those interested in mining Maine give a tinker’s dam about Maine, Maine people or the prosperity of Maine.
and lets not pretend that Liberals care about jobs
Flat, are you implying that liberals are holding up hundreds of jobs the proposed mine on Bald Mt. will offer to Mainers? Get real. Mainers have no background in mining technology. All the technical and administrative people needed to run the mine will be company people from outside of Maine. What’s left? Truck drivers , crane operators conveyer belt and screening attendants. Do you really think a small mining operation is going to have hundreds of these jobs? Hove you ever watched an above ground mining operation?
When the mine is no longer producing instead of cleaning up, closing down and paying the, wages, pensions etc.due to workers, mines declare bankruptcy and flee the scene, leaving unpaid bills, ripped off workers and a million dollar mine mess that the taxpayers of Maine pay for. Look into the history of mining. It is not a responsible industry.
Now if you think that kind of business will do wonders for Maine, put it right up there with the five richest states then go ahead, invite the mine in. Just don’t be surprised when it doesn’t turn out to be a gold mine for the state.
Will those technical people come to Maine to live or run their operation from Virginia? Also heavy equipment operators make the same as a middle school teachers.
As for the history of the mining industry, it is not that different from any heavily unionized industry. Eventually the union people crawl back under the rocks that spawned them.
A lot of the technical work can be run from out of state as can the administration of the mine. I’m not against mining here or anywhere else. What I’m against is thinking this mine will offer hundreds of jobs to Mainers. It won’t and I’m against being lied to by an industry that has very bad employment, clean up, safety, transparency records. Let a mine come but make it responsible. Make it pay good wages to the Mainers they do hire. Make them provide a safe work place. Make them clean up before the leave and make them keep the state aware of what they are doing and what they are planning to do. If we allow them to dig up Maine then they have some responsibility to Maine.
Do you want it otherwise?
That’s an easy, and obviously untrue, smear.
By the way, my grandfather died in an accident in a copper mine when my mother was seven. My other grandfather was an iron miner. My uncle lost his eye in a mining accident. Yes, we want jobs, and we also want safe working conditions and a living wage, and we care about preserving the beauty of Maine for our children and grandchildren.
and let’s not pretend that the Literals care about jobs
Glenda Bell: “Higher taxes on the rich spark the economy” (BDN March 31 – April 1), might more realistically have been titled, “Liberal Mindless Dream Economics 101.” 90%+ taxes? Really?
Well lower taxes on the rich sure haven’t turned out to be the jobs builder that they were supposed to be.
That’s mostly because of unfair trade laws that allow rich people to move their businesses overseas and keep their cash. If we really want America to do great things, we need to raise tariffs on imports, and punish corporations that move their businesses overseas.
We have the highest corporate taxes in the world. Why do you think companies leave? Tariffs are a liberals answer that decidely punish citizens and contribute to a downward economic turn.
Tariffs would just level the price of imports to match domestic product.
We could give big tax breaks to corporations that keep their businesses in the US, which could help invite well needed factory jobs back here.
What’s wrong with all that?
” joy of driving this spaceship’s societal evolution into the Aquarian age,”
Is this like NASCAR when you are high?
I can picture the beads in her hair and the 50 year old tie-dyes….
Glenda Bell is a new-ager of some sort judging by that sentence alone, and supports the overall thesis of the letter. Unless she is being sarcastic, in which case I agree. But it doesn’t seem to be sarcastic.
Cleaning up the superfund site when the mining interests are done will keep people (not necessarily Mainers) employed for a long time.
Glenda, don’t forget the ARPANET dream come true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
Since it is sort of a slow letter day, I have decided to offer a brief, impromptu grammar lesson for the grammatically challenged:
thegreatwandini’s top five grammatical gaffes:
1- It’s not its fault. It with an ‘s always means “it is”. When it possesses or owns something, just add the s.
2- affect/effect: Affect is a verb–an action; effect is a noun–a thing. How does this affect you? It may have the effect of writing well which makes me happy!
3-There are just never any apostrophes needed to make a word plural. Never. Just add an s if you have more than one pig.
4-If the pig, or pigs, possess some lovely slops, then you may say they are the pig’s slops, or, if you have more than one pretty pig, they are the pigs’ slops. Lucky pigs!
5-There is no need to clean up their mess; they’re willing to do it themselves. (their shows possession; they’re is the contraction of “they are”)
Have a nice day!
Thank you.
Here are a couple more of those words that people always get wrong: then & than. “If you are 8 and I’m 10, THEN I am older THAN you are.”
To, two and too: ” I want TO buy TWO Cokes and a cookie, TOO.”
YOU’RE going to get in trouble if you don’t clean YOUR room!”
That is why you are the “Great One”………
Your knowledge is top notch…….
It is a honor to have you posting here.
Marianne Moore: good letter.