5,000 and counting
Sen. Susan Collins has never missed a single vote since she took office in January 1997. This week, she topped 5,000 votes cast during her tenure. Five-thousand consecutive votes is a very impressive record.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with her position on every one of those votes should not diminish the deep commitment Sen. Collins has demonstrated to the spirit of the democratic system and to the people of Maine.
In fact, Sen. Collins has cited the dedication of working Mainers as her inspiration to make it to the Senate floor each and every time. Her commitment to her job and her appreciation of the impact that each vote can have on her constituents stands as a model of representational government.
With the elections just around the corner, it is my hope that newly elected and re-elected federal and state legislators will work as hard as Sen. Collins to examine the challenges we face in Maine. The needs of a constituency facing challenges around health and long-term care, unemployment, hunger and age discrimination deserve our elected leaders’ concerted and undivided attention.
Carol Kontos
AARP Maine state president
Windham
Apologies don’t cut it anymore
As a parent, grandparent and school psychologist, I have always advocated for sincere apologies when the situation dictates with the underlying principle that an apology issued on demand is of little value. I also believe that inherent in the process is that the apology will be accepted with the understanding that the behavior requiring the apology is not repeated. A very simple process.
However, if the unacceptable behavior returns over and over again, the apology has little value because it is likely that the individual hadn’t really been sincere in apologizing. With that in mind, Gov. Paul LePage’s apologies for his outrageous statements for close to three years during his campaign and his tenure in office just don’t cut it anymore. If the governor is so out of control that he cannot censor himself, he should not be serving. If the governor is not out of control but is deliberate in his choice of words (e.g., “spoiled brat,” “Gestapo”), he should not be serving. Either way, he is more than an embarrassment, he is a disgrace to the state of Maine and its residents.
Mark D. Roth
Bangor
Child support
I read Bob Emrich’s July 11 OpEd piece on marriage and found that I agreed with the basic premise of the piece: children do benefit from having two parents in a committed, loving and, yes, married family.
Society’s support for married families seems to be much greater than it is for single-parent families, much to society’s shame. What I found totally offensive was his supposition that those marriages need to be woman-to-man to be supportive of children.
When my husband and I became parents, we, like all new parents, became much more aware of the challenges of parenting and looked to families around us for support and ideas on how to raise our child to be the best human being she could be. Some of the families from which we
received the most inspiration were those of gay couples with children.
The children in families of gay couples are most often not just chosen, but tenaciously fought for. Others can tell you how difficult it is for gay couples to adopt, but what I know is how much these children are wanted and loved. Why should these children be denied the societal supports of a married family when this is what their parents seek to give them?
Tina Bernier
Pittsfield
Doesn’t understand
Our health care system is very complex and sometimes hard to understand, but I would expect Gov. Paul LePage to be well-informed enough to “get it.”
Apparently, he just doesn’t understand. Why else would he support health care freeloading? For part of my career as a nurse, I worked in the emergency department and I know first-hand that any uninsured person having a medical crisis can get care (exceedingly expensive care) at a hospital emergency room. Nobody checks insurance status before treating any sick person. In fact, it is illegal to do so. So who pays for that care? If the uninsured person can’t afford to pay the enormous bill, then the hospital covers its costs by charging more to the rest of us.
If everyone pays into an insurance fund, then the costs for everyone will be more reasonable and more fairly distributed. An alternative plan would be for those who don’t want to buy insurance to agree to be barred from getting any free medical care — but do we want the ambulance at the scene of a traffic accident to check victims first for their insurance cards, and leave them by the roadside if they can’t offer proof of insurance? Even the idea of that is abhorrent to us. So we will continue to treat everyone (as we should) but the cost will be paid by only some of us.
Frances Loring, RN
Bangor
Old Dawg
We all know that no one can ever truly replace the Old Dawg’s (Kent Ward) weekly column, no matter the subject — baseball, poor grammar, politics, whatever. The “ink-stained wretch” was always worth the read.
However, to think that we now have in his stead the unending carping of Ethan Strimling and Phil Harriman to face for the next 100-plus days till the election, and perhaps beyond, is a bleak prospect. All that they say has been said before by many others. They offer nothing new, nothing that piques one’s interest — in short, nothing worth the read. Saturday is just another day.
Pat Ayers
Camden
Health legacy
One has to wonder what kind of health care legacy our governor wants to leave our state. By failing to start a democratic and transparent process now of designing a health insurance exchange for Maine, he is crippling our ability to respond. He is forcing us to miss the opportunity to lay the necessary groundwork of education, community dialogue and planning. We will end up with the one-size-fits-all plan from Washington.
Gov. LePage, if you don’t allow Mainers to step forward and participate, then don’t complain if you don’t like the results. An ostrichlike response risks handicapping our state for decades to come.
Rosemary Delano-Merritt
East Eddington
Mark D Roth obviously doesn’t like the governor or is allowing himself to be misled by the liberal press. The latest episode of the governor’s warning about the use of the IRS to force people to buy a product (health insurance) against their will is an opinion obviously not shared by everyone. It’s an opinion nonetheless more than half of all Americans against the massive Obamacare law agree with.
No one, including Mark Roth, should have been offended when the governor reminded us of the IRS agency’s past use Gestapo-like tactics of fear and intimidation to collect taxes. And no one should infer from the governor’s use of the term “Gestapo” that the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis was minimized, because quite frankly it wasn’t. That said, what we witnessed in the aftermath of the governor’s remarks was a liberal media all too anxious to embarrass the governor.
Why is it that you continue to repeat a bald faced lie. Are you related to Governor LePage?
good questions…
This governor does not need help from anyone else to embarrass himself. He has been accomplished in that task since his inauguration.
That certainly is true. He seems to forget he is not speaking to a room full of Marden’s employees.
And we should join you in being misled by Faux News, etc.? Still sugar coating LePage’s hysterical and non-factual rant and analogy? He must be all too anxious to be embarrassed (and worse), and drag the rest of us along with him
Most people who are against the Affordable Health Act are against it because they are not aware of how it benefits and protects them. It just shows how lazy we’ve become as media consumers- relying on one news source for our information.
Ms. Kontos, I am more concerned about the votes Senator Collins has prevented the Senate from casting. Time after time she has joined a Republican filibuster to prevent the passage of legislation that a majority of the Senate supports. She has helped make the filibuster, which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, a tool for minority rule.
Enabling your own votes but preventing your opponents from voting is undemocratic, unfair, and unacceptable.
The filibuster is a Senate rule to ensure bills don’t get passed without much debate and consideration. Preventing a bill from going to a vote is an important part of governing democratically. Just imagine what the situation would be like if there was a complete undoing of what a previous administration had done every time their was a change in administration. There would be no continuity in government and thus no way to determine the direction of the country. Why build for the future when the future is unpredictable?
The word is “there,” not “their.”
These votes have occurred not on a vote to limit debate but on a vote to consider the measure. Even a vote to limit debate allows a great deal of time to discuss the measure’s pros and cons (I believe 50 hours.) The effect of Collins’ votes are to have zero debate.
There has been an astronomical increase in the use of the filibuster since President Obama began his term.
I hope you were not just being picky by pointing out my grammatical error. Anyway I’m glad you got the message. Yes, you are right, there was indeed a big increase in the use of the filibuster. That however is the usual response from the party in the minority when the other party has virtual control of what goes on in the Senate.
That maybe be the usual response, but here it is the factual truth as well. There has never been a time in history where the filibustered has been used/threatened this much. Never. Even uncontroversial matters are filibustered all so an attempt at McConnell’s and the party’s ultimate goal can be realized — not improving the economy or creating jobs, but to deny Obama a second term. How patriotic.
Never has the country been so divided either. That is the fault of the winner take all philosophy of the President.
If the first part of your comment is true, then wouldn’t the second of your comment simply be a symptomatic (rather than a truth) statement reflecting your own hyper-partisanship and not reality?
Not at all. The fact that there are so many filibusters is proof of the divisiveness of the President. It is either proof of that or of his essential weakness as a leader to pull us together as a country. You decide.
LOL, your criticisms aren’t even compatible with each other. He’s such a weak leader and he’s weak because he’s accomplishing his agenda? Wow, what a sign of weakness!
The only way that the President may have divided us further is that he is calling out and challenging Republicans who aren’t willing to work with him or Congressional Democrats.
Wewere already divided before he took office.
This has not been the “usual response.” Google “use of filibuster by year” and you will see the stark increase in filibusters since Democrats regained the Senate majority in 2006. Votes on cloture set an all-time record for the 07-08 Congress (112), dropped only slightly to 91 for President Obama’s first two years, and will likely top 91 for the current session of Congress (It’s 60 at the current time.).
When the three highest Congressional terms for use of the filibuster are the last three terms, intelligent voters should understand that something is terribly wrong with our democracy. The Senate is already the most undemocratic institution in America, with one Senator from Wyoming having as much say as a Senator from California. To allow 40 Senators who could represent as little as 13 % of the nation’s population to bring business to a halt is not what the founders intended.
Actually, that’s exactly what they intended. It’s called “The Great Compromise”. Look it up…
It wasn’t intended to be used for noncontroversial votes. It was intended to actually be used as well, not just constantly threatened.
Rest assured, I know about the Great Compromise without having to look it up.
You did not read my post closely. I questioned making an institution designed to be somewhat undemocratic even more undemocratic by requiring 60 votes to pass any legislation. The founders did not create the filibuster, which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. They required super-majorities in the Senate of 2/3 (67 given the Senate’s current size) for only a few matters: conviction of an impeached officer, ratification of treaties, and proposal of amendments to the Constitution. Everything else requires but 50 votes if the Vice President breaks the tie.
We have gone from a situation in which 51 Senators representing 25% of the population can block legislation to one in which 41 Senators, representing 13% of the population can block legislation. This is a perversion of the founders’ intent.
You must have been absent when the senate was covered in civics class.
What about my posts reflects any misinformation? Having studied the Constitution in both college and graduate school, I am happy to debate you on its intricacies. You, however, seem content with an ad hominem attack rather than a critique of what I had posted.
Senator McConnell is on record as saying his party’s major goal since the last election was to defeat Obama.
Republicans have set new records for using the filibuster and it’s not because they want more time to consider a bill. When bills are brought to the floor concerning issues that they always were in favor of and they block them just so that Obama can’t get anything done,that’s pure obstructionism. There should be an up or down vote on everything. Voters have a right to know why the people they elected to office voted for or against a bill and hold them accountable for their vote if they don’t like it
One day soon the Republicans will be in charge and the Democrats will do the same thing. Maybe if the Democrats would have included the Republicans when crafting Obamacare, a new cooperation between the parties could have begun. Instead we have more and more animosity between the parties and bills that both side could agree on are never even voted on. There’s enough blame to go around on both sides.
Obamacare, as you call it, is based on the health care policies advocated by the republicans in the 1990s and on that put forth and passed under the republican governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. The republicans first suggested universal health care under President Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s. So the republicans have had about 100 years to craft a health care policy for all Americans. Since the democrats succesfully implementd the republican plan, the republicans have decided to be obstructionist like little school kids fighting over who gets to be the team leader.
The difference between me and you is that, as a conservative, I can recognize the shortcomings of my party along with the shortcomings of your party.
Why have we not had a budget in three years? Why do we have to keep our funding going through continuing resolutions? No one in Washington has the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done to get our country’s fiscal house in order. In the very near future our national debt will become unsustainable. We all want the economy to turn around but that’s a double edged sword. As soon as our economy starts doing well interst rates will go up. We will be spending more on interest on the national debt than we spend on defence and medicare, COMBINED. I heard recently that watching the Republicans and Democrats argue about the debt is like two guys arguing about their bar tab on the Titanic. We’re sinking while Nero fiddles.
Again, there’s enough blame to go around.
I think you are forgetting how this all started. It started with Republicans at the table: http://ahlalerts.com/2010/02/10/obama-begins-reaching-out-to-gop-for-input-into-health-reform-legislation/
There may have been Republicans at the table at the start but this was just for show. They were completely shut out when the bill was being crafted. How can you pass a bill that you haven’t read?
The problem is not that everyone doesn’t have access to healthcare, the problem is that healthcare is too expensive. This bill doesn’t fix the problem at all. There are plenty of ways to make healthcare more affordable and I’m all for subsidizing those who can’t afford it. You should be able to buy health insurance from any company you want to. There should be tort reform to help reduce malpractice costs. Small companies should be able to band together to make insurance more affordable.
Shut our or refused to attend the discussions? Actually, from reports I have read this should bring the cost down by $1000 per family. And, you still get to choose your insurance company if they participate in the exchange. That is their choice. I don’t choose my health insurer now. My employer does. Agree with you totally about malpractice costs.
When you do not need then minority to pass a piece of legislation there is no need for inclusion. That was Obama and the Democrats plan all along.
Have some principles. You applaud and praise when Republicans are voted in, but then you act like it’s some nefarious plot when Democrats have a majority. They were voted in too! You’re trying to have it both ways and it just makes you look silly.
Of course they were voted in. Have some principles yourself. You claim they were included in the legislative process. I claim they were not because they weren’t needed.
Is that an “I’m rubber and you’re glue” thing?
Irrelevant. Prove my statement false.
LOL, I have time and time again, as others have. You’re ridiculous. You think because you say something it’s automatically true?
You offer no proof.
Okay, I already have, but whatever. Let’s say what you claim is true. What were the Republicans trying to offer to include and/or as an alternative to what the Democrats were putting forth? You say they were shut out, etc. What did they have that the Democrats refused to hear?
good point.
Like I said. Can’t get into their heads so you are just ‘inventing’ a scenario. A tired one at that.
They were shut out. Obama and the Dems were drunk with power.
Do you actually believe that costs will go down? When have government reports about cost savings EVER been accurate?
Medicare costs have already come down.
The Republicans were there only for show, their sole interest was to obstruct.
That was a complete dog and pony show. That was not a “table”, that was a photo op and the Republicans said so coming out the door. That was the end of any resemblance of bipartisanship. You do not treat people like the President did and expect help later. The fact is Obama knew he didn’t need Republicans and that meeting told them that. That event is also the reason for the great division in our country over the issue.
Sooner or later people are going to have to wake up to the fact that the only way healthcare is going to be affordable and available for everyone is to do away with our profit driven healthcare system and create a national healthcare program. All this BS about the government is going to ration your healthcare and they’re going to come between you and your doctor is nothing but scare tactics by the right. I’m on Medicare and I’ve never been treated better. I make my own choices as to who I want to see and when I want to see them. Private insurance companies are a lot more restrictive than Medicare. The “real” reason for the great division in our country is that Barak Obama won the election and the Republicans can’t stand it. They’ll lie,cheat and steal or do whatever they think they can get away with to regain power. They prove it day after day.
It will be hard to get us all on Medicare while the insurance-for-profit industry has such a strong influence. I pay into Medicare, but will be unable to use it as my district insures us through Anthem. If school district personnel were to be on Medicare, it would save tax-payers a lot of money, because a very large part of a school system’s budget is eaten up by our health insurance benefits.
Your health insurance premiums most likely go to enrich the coffers of the teachers union. You should thank them for putting the children last.
Most likely? Do you know for a fact?
I don’t know the facts in Maine but in many states the teachers union get a kick-back from the insurers for taking high priced policies. That was true in Wisconsin for instance and was one of the main reasons that school districts there were able save millions of dollars after the Walker reforms. It was also one reason the union was so ticked off.
Surely you must have seen it right here in the BDN that most districts are forced to get their insurance from the teachers union who makes millions off of it. The children are always considered next to last, right after the taxpayers. Here are two links.
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2011/10/14/news/state/large-insurance-carrier-for-educators-sues-to-halt-new-law/
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2010/01/14/news/bangor/bangor-school-system-stymied-on-health-insurance/
More likely they go to enrich the lobbyist who work for Anthem. If I get a large refund check at the beginning of August, that will tell me what most of my premiums were for.
It goes to enrich the union and, as usual, the union is NOT happy to have any competition…
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2011/10/14/news/state/large-insurance-carrier-for-educators-sues-to-halt-new-law/
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2010/01/14/news/bangor/bangor-school-system-stymied-on-health-insurance/
You are on medicare… Obama’s health plan is based on MEDICAID. A totally different program funding mechanism and criteria.
Obama split the country over healthcare and he found that out in 2010 when he lost 63 Democratic Congressional seats in one of the greatest wave elections in 100 years.
I am on Anthem, and am paying into Medicare. I am already covered- if I need to go to the emergency room I won’t be sponging off of others.
Ok but Obamas healthcare plan involves expanding medicaid not medicare. I am not sure what your point is though.
My point is we’re paying into it anyway. If my district didn’t have to pay Anthem, that should result in a savings.
You are not paying into medicaid. Except though your taxes.
I am talking about medicaid.
we may be talking past each other. take care guy.
I’m willing to bet that now that people see what they bought into a lot of them seats are coming back. I know that Medicare and Medicaid are two different systems in the way they are funded but the only thing that really matters is how the services will be provided and I don’t think the providers will care if it’s stamped Medicare or Medicaid as long as they get paid.
They get paid differently. Same procedure different reimbursement schedules. Also different source of payment. State vs Feds for instance.
Yes.
Boy it is fascinating how many very different interpretations of what really went on are out there. I guess we can believe whatever we want to believe about how this all came about. In the end it was up to the House and the Senate. Found an interesting comparison of the two bills that were passed in each and from them we got the compromise we now have. The how and why I think will forever remain a mystery as we cannot get inside the heads of those who voted for and against. I do not really believe any of their public comments, then or now.
Bizarre. The compromise was between the Democratic Senate version and the Democratic House version. Short memory??
Yes, I saw that. No memory. Read it when I went looking for info. I do not think I said otherwise. Unlike Social Security and Medicare this bill had no Republican support. No wonder there are deep divisions around this. Despite that I am satisfied that finally something was done. The ‘problem’ was adding to our deficit by leaps and bounds. If there was a Republican plan to address it, they did not do a very good job of telling the American people about it. If this does not reduce the deficit as projected hopefully it will at least slow its growth down.
You make me laugh. The Republicans weren’t serious about joining the discussion. You’re a dishonest person if you try and maintain that. They didn’t put forth proposals, they went on Fox News and pushed lies. It was about politics and not about actually reforming healthcare. Had it been about healthcare, they would have outlined their alternative, but they haven’t. They continue with the mantra “repeal and replace”, but they can’t even articulate what it would be replaced with. The guy you have running for President is the one who designed the supposedly Democrat/socialist plan. It’s really ridiculous. I mean, nobody buys the narrative you’re trying to push — certainly not independents, people with a memory and/or those capable of objective thinking.
Well isn’t that what your Republican/Tea Party is planning on doing if they should gain the majority in the Senate and the Presidency? Over turn ACA seems to be their mantra, with no viable alternative plan.
“Just imagine what the situation would be like if there was a complete undoing of what a previous administration had done every time their was a change in administration.”
Sounds a lot like what the homosexual marriage group is trying to do, except instead of trying to do what the administration did, they are trying to undo what the people did.
The referendum process allowed the majority to repeal a law that was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. That referendum process is being employed again in November to ask the people to allow same-sex couples to enter into the contract of civil marriage …. it does not make it law …. and as we all are well aware, administrations (legislatures and governors/ legislatures and presidents) do not always pass laws based on the will of the people.
Undo what the people did by engaging in the same process of allowing people to vote? Public opinion is changing and there is 3 years worth of new voters. If you don’t like the people’s initiative process, then lobby to change that law.
It wasn’t “the people” that the Maine Ethics Commission caught RED-HANDED violating our campaign finance laws and who threw the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote, Celer, it was the anti-gay hate cult NOM.
It is actually there to insure that the rights of the minority are not trampled by the jack boots of the majority. It goes both ways.
We need to give her credit for when she did cross party lines. Just last week she voted to support the bill that would have given tax credits to companies that return jobs from overseas.
She has joined over 90% of Senate filibusters. In my view, 10% is not a passing grade.
Oh, I’m not saying she should get a passing grade. She is just less obstructionists than her colleagues, which, granted, is not a very high standard.
Roesmary Delano-Merritt, it’s hard for me to understand how the governor’s response in setting up a health insurance exchange “risks handicapping our state for decades to come” when in fact the state has to my knowledge never instituted such an exchange. The state has managed without one from the time of its existence and will manage well without one for the next several months.
It helps if you don’t conveniently ignore entire aspects of the letters. “He is forcing us to miss the opportunity to lay the necessary groundwork of education, community dialogue and planning. We will end up with the one-size-fits-all plan from Washington.”
Good letters all.
If the Republicans would have been included in crafting Obamacare? They made it more than plain they didn’t want to be included, that is just a talking point they think is going to fool the public. Obviously it worked on some. Remember what Senator Jim DeMint said? If they could kill Obamacare, Obama would be a one term President. Does that sound like they wanted to help craft a real healthcare bill? Did you ever notice that the ONLY time healthcare for all Americans becomes an issue is when the Democrats are in charge. The Republicans truely do not give a damn about healthcare as long as they’ve got theirs. As far as both sides not wanting to give,that’s a crock too. The Dems offered the Republicans 98% of what they wanted for spending cuts and they turned it down. The Republicans have made it plain they want to attack Medicare,Medicaid,and Social Security . How many people do you think want the Dems to cave in on those issues? My guess is ,not many. The Republicans kept talking about jobs,jobs,jobs,but since they’ve taken control of the House they haven’t come out with a credible jobs plan yet. They put forth bills with more tax breaks for the 1% and for good measure they throw in repealing Obamacare knowing full well these bills are going nowhere but they can try and scam the voters into believing the Dems are obstructing. As far as I’m concerned the Republicans have chosen to let Americans suffer just to try to score political points. One day soon the
If the Republicans would have been included in crafting Obamacare? They made it more than plain they didn’t want to be included, that is just a talking point they think is going to fool the public. Obviously it worked on some. Remember what Senator Jim DeMint said? If they could kill Obamacare, Obama would be a one term President. Does that sound like they wanted to help craft a real healthcare bill? Did you ever notice that the ONLY time healthcare for all Americans becomes an issue is when the Democrats are in charge. The Republicans truely do not give a damn about healthcare as long as they’ve got theirs. As far as both sides not wanting to give,that’s a crock too. The Dems offered the Republicans 98% of what they wanted for spending cuts and they turned it down. The Republicans have made it plain they want to attack Medicare,Medicaid,and Social Security . How many people do you think want the Dems to cave in on those issues? My guess is ,not many. The Republicans kept talking about jobs,jobs,jobs,but since they’ve taken control of the House they haven’t come out with a credible jobs plan yet. They put forth bills with more tax breaks for the 1% and for good measure they throw in repealing Obamacare knowing full well these bills are going nowhere but they can try and scam the voters into believing the Dems are obstructing. As far as I’m concerned the Republicans have chosen to let Americans suffer just to try to score political points.
0-0-0-0
Republicans being shut out of the healthcare debate is an obvious lie. If it wasn’t a lie, Republicans would have put forth proposals and alternatives — they didn’t do that. They repeat the mantra “repeal and replace” and yet they can’t answer the question as to what they’d replace it with. It’s just so phony and disingenuous. The reason they can’t answer the question is likely because Obama already took their ideas, lol.
Mark D. Roth
I wonder if you feel the same way about Obama?
Does it matter? In comparison, what does the President have to apologize for?
Pat Ayers – Speak for yourself. I think they’re great.