AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine voters will see something on the Nov. 6 ballot they haven’t seen in two years: bond issues.
Four borrowing proposals adding up to nearly $76 million will appear just below the public question that has drawn the most attention leading up to the election: same-sex marriage.
Two-thirds of the total borrowing the state seeks is for highways, bridges and other transportation projects. The rest is for public higher education, clean water projects and land conservation.
Bonds have been absent from statewide ballots since June 2010. Since then, elected officials in Augusta have expressed wariness for adding onto state debt. Gov. Paul LePage discouraged further borrowing and lawmakers sent no bonds to voters last year.
But the Legislature reconsidered this year and approved five bond issues adding up to $95.7 million, only to have the governor veto one of them, a $20 million bond for research and development.
In the order in which the remaining bond proposals will appear on the ballot, they include:
• $11.3 million for capital improvements for the University of Maine System, community college system and Maine Maritime Academy. It includes money for an animal diagnostic laboratory and a plant diagnostic and insect identification laboratory in the state university system and improved machine tool technology in the community colleges.
• $5 million to purchase land and conservation easements that will provide water access, outdoor recreation, wildlife and fish habitat, farmland and working waterfront preservation.
• $51.5 million for transportation projects. The bulk of the money is for improvements to Maine’s highways and bridges, with the rest going to projects including shipping port upgrades at Searsport and Eastport, transit buses, airports and expansion and improvement of medical evacuation helicopter facilities.
• $7.9 million to replenish the revolving loan funds for public drinking water systems and for wastewater treatment facilities.
Campaigning on the bonds has been all but invisible, leaving it to voters to unravel the pluses and minuses.
“My job is not to interject myself in ballot initiatives or campaigns. However, it is my job to be very clear to the voters and the hardworking people of Maine that when they pass bonds, they are borrowing money. These are loans that must be repaid,” Republican state Treasurer Bruce Poliquin, who has taken a highly cautious stance with regard to state borrowing, said recently on a George Hale-Ric Tyler radio program.
His office says the $75.7 million in bonds plus $18.7 million in interest at rate of 4.5 percent over the 10-year life of the bonds will bring the total cost of borrowing to $94.4 million.
The ballot questions themselves put a different spin on the matter. Taken together, the $76 million in borrowing would draw down $150 million in federal, private and other matching grants, according to language on the proposals.
Legislative Democrats have been highly supportive of a bond package, saying it will generate jobs and noting that state debt service is declining.
“If we don’t make these public investments now, we will be missing an opportunity to create jobs,” Rep. Peggy Rotundo, D-Lewiston, said after the Legislature approved the bond package.
As of June 30, the state owed $472 million for general obligation bonds, with nearly $41 million in authorized but unissued bonds.
Even if voters approved the bonds LePage would hold out
So here is how I am going to vote No, No, No and No. Basically if the question has anything to do with borrowing money for pointless things, my answer is no
Roads, bridges, drinking water, the University… pointless.
The mind boggles.
Right, taxes pay for bridges and water, heck you can go to a store and buy it. The University, start putting them higher tuition they charge students to work elsewhere.
Not my problem the state or the University system can’t manage the money they already get. Bonds are a good reason why this state is in debt.
Well, heck, if you want to take the “not my problem” approach, then as a road user, bridge crosser, municipal water user and University student, it’s not my problem that you’re cheap. :)
Unfortunately,it IS your problem that the old and uninformed get to ruin this state.Only when you get in power can you make changes.Good luck to you.
It’s not my problem I pay in my taxes (as well as many others) and some how our state is still broke.
The last time I knew, if you had no money and was broke and went to a bank and asked for money, they ask how you intend to pay it back, if you don’t have the income to pay it back, you don’t get the money and the same should apply to the state, control the spending and then come back and ask to borrow
But we do pay it back.
Maine pays its bonds off early. The state has a very good track record of doing so.
The Federal government is borrowing too much, but we are talking about the State of Maine.
To hear some of you folks, one would think that Maine has never paid off a bond. It isn’t true.
We pay it back, at the expense of tax payers….look at the Turnpike, tolls go up because we need to pay it back. Money borrowed that the state does not have to begin with. I can’t borrow more money then I presently have or make someone pay me extra taxes.
I didn’t say Maine doesn’t pay back it’s bonds, the state needs to learn to manage money they already receive to begin with first.
The state doesn’t need another bond, we have a debt as it is, hence my example of going to the bank
These are your words, in quotes:
“The last time I knew, if you had no money and was broke and went to a
bank and asked for money, they ask how you intend to pay it back, if you
don’t have the income to pay it back, you don’t get the money and the
same should apply to the state, control the spending and then come back
and ask to borrow..”
Debt financing makes sense in some cases. Long-term capital expenditures is one of them.
It isn’t smart to take on too much debt – we all know that. It isn’t smart to take a ten-year loan on something that has five years worth of value – we all know that.
It also isn’t smart not to spend money on public infrastructure. That seems wise, sometimes, on first glance – but it really is a form of deficit spending (the value of those infrastructure assets decreases). No money changes hands, at least not at the present time, but be assured that an expenditure has occurred.
So you can go ahead and pick which type of debt you would rather accrue – a debt that is financed long-term at pretty decent interest rates – or a debt that is easy to ignore and will become ever more expensive to fix as time passes.
And for the record – the Turnpike bonds are paid back by users of the Turnpike. Just the same as bonds issued by Verizon are paid back by users of Verizon.
So remind me again why I pay taxes? Why do I pay a gasoline tax at the pump? Oh no don’t bother I am sure the answer is not the same and even if it is somehow the legitimate reason for obtaining more bonds will be worked in there somehow. If the state so desires and depends on bonds to pay for things going forward, then I may as well quit paying taxes, someone should revoke the gas tax even.
I am aware of how the Turnpike system works, a little bit different then a torn up road like oh say Route 11 and 43 areas because we don’t have tolls. Users pay for the Turnpike now, sure they do, that’s why the prices at the booth just went up (aside from the previous MTA director going on some unnecessary spending sprees but I will leave that out for now) and that is exactly what is going to happen to taxes when there is no money to pay back bonds. A hike will take place somewhere because the return of investment won’t pan out. Money will get mismanaged and there is going to be a point where the state needs to somehow recoup that cost, raise a gas tax, raise another tax, cut a program, dip here, dip there, etc.
It is time the State and the voters quit going after bonds, balance a checkbook right, and take the money they already get and put towards what they are intended for, period. I get a paycheck, I have to take that money and pay my lights, heat, roof over my head, etc. Exactly what the state needs to learn to do with the money they get from each and every one of us when we pay excise taxes, gas taxes, or whatever example need be. Funnel the money where it belongs, period.
The state needs to do a better job at demonstrating why more money is still needed for transportation bonds, and furthermore if they are even going to be released on LePages watch.
The University can get their own money, they been funded before and raise their tuition, what are they doing with that money? Water? Borrow money for water? The ideas the state comes up with for borrowing money baffles me.
You pay a gasoline tax at the pump for roads.
It is also a very inexpensive tax, if you’d take the time to think about it. You pay less than 50 cents per gallon of gasoline, and 50 cents exactly for diesel.
That approximately 50 cents per gallon translates to: you get to rent the road for a rate of somewhere around $1.25 per hour (assume a 20 gallon tank and 20 mpg; that means $10 tax, and at 50 mph average speed, you drive 8 hours).
Try to rent anything else that cheaply. You’ll be very hard-pressed to find anything. Don’t try and rent a lane at the bowling alley for $1.25/hour.
It is too cheap. That is why the tax is insufficient. However, you’d gripe about raising the tax, just the same as you are griping about the bond.
Life isn’t free. You’ve figured out that too much debt is bad – when you figure out that the roads aren’t free, you’ll be even further ahead.
Look, I vote against some bonds for some purposes myself. But the transportation bonds are needed and they are important. Unless you want to destroy your kidneys on 11 and 43 forever.
I didn’t imply I would gripe about an increase in taxes, we are going to pay for this somehow may it be now or later, stable economy, not so stable economy. That is the way to pay for things and the purpose of them to begin with taxes, even with an increase at some point Maybe the tax is not much presently, just everything else without the tax is. I am not against borrowing, we just do too much of it as a state and the states is already scrambling to cut and reduce other programs for lack of money, pretty soon when the state starts paying on the number of bonds out there, our taxes will increase, for the sake of griping let’s hope it does not happen during some economic downturn
Borrowing should be reasonable, transportation sounds more important then the University system in my opinion but even though it sounds important, it needs me to vote what should be right for the state now and in the future.
There is years of blame to go around about why roads are junk in this state, we paid our dues, what happened with them? I am a voter, I need to make certain the state has a good reason to continue putting out transportation bonds to put on ballots, they are not making any promise that these will be paid back without raising taxes for example, if they did borrow away then I suppose, but if the debt does not get controlled, the spending and no one can really generate a good reason why we should continue to borrow I can’t support it
My Kidneys are not what they used to be, but I am glad my seat is not plywood anymore either
Cheap?
You pampered little pipsqueak.
We “cheap folks” out here in the country subsidize your roads, bridges, municiple water, and most of all your very expensive university.
If it was up to me, I’d cut you off in an instant, but the Maine voters GENEROUSLY gave you what you have, and you have the gall to call them cheap because they are out of money?
You are disgusting.
Why buy overpriced water in the store? You want to but a bridge? We canarrange that. Oh, and these are bonds, not taxes, proposed to keep tax rates down. Duh.
Duh, as my previous comments imply it is what creates unnecessary debt. These come with interest which means more money, go explain that to LePage then and maybe he will release the bonds that he has yet to release that voters approved. If the Turnpike can’t make revenue to cover the bonds, what did they do, raise the tolls. What do you think is going to happen if year after year we borrow, borrow, borrow and realize there is going to be an issue paying it back for (insert whatever reason you like here)? Well the Governor is not going to open his wallet to offset the cost? Your neighbor isn’t? So taxes will increase.
And I don’t want to “but” a bridge either
People that just can’t stop spending money they don’t have. Now that’s “The mind boggles.”
We can start with question #1 and stay right in the NO column.
Pointless? Hardly. About time we forced LePage’s hand. Four yeses.
We are in the poor house now and they want to bond our way out. We can`t afford what we have.
The budget needs to be balanced and previous bonds paid before we borrow again
The govenor has it right don`t spend if you can`t afford it
We need to set a prime example for Washington
How are we ever going to pay 16 trillion back
In my younger years I got way into debt from spending more then I was making. New car, better gas mileage, new hot water heater, save money on electricity and the list goes on. I finally got out of debt. The secret was, I STOPPED spending more money then I was making. Sometimes you have to put off spending even if you have a good idea.
It’s a shame all the country’s master economists are spending all their time posting on news comment feeds instead of fixing things. Seems like an inefficient use of resources to me.
Reminds me of a baseball quote-possibly Dallas Green?
“Of course I’d love a guy who can hit .350,catch every ball and throw strikes all day.The problem is,he won’t put down his beer and come try out from the stands .”
I hope all these questions pass.
another waste of money borrow borrow borrow. People don’t understand the cost of these bonds. The university system needs to partner with the private sector for funding of these projects as that is what they support anyway.
When did the University system become responsible for our roads, bridges, and water infrastructure? For that matter, when did it become the private secotor’s responsibility?
I predict that all of these bonds will get passed by the voters because, as the saying goes, “Mainers have never met a bond item that they didn’t like.”
It’s called the people’s choice and people don’t always choose wisely.LePage=Exhibit 1.
That means we will need to brace ourselves for his second term.
Voting no on all counts. Much like a family with no access to credit, this state cannot spend money it doesnt have. Is it going to hurt? Definitely, but like others have said, we cannot pay down our debt by borrowing more money.
Every freaking year there is a list of bonds to approve. Here is part of the list that keeps coming back;
UMaine
Transportation projects
Land purchases
Drinking water or sewage treatment
and though not included in this year’s requests there is usually a bond for winterizing homes which is perhaps the only one I’d vote for.
The appetite to borrow is never-ending. Stop it now, vote NO on all bonds.
Especially the U of M, they have become a Roman Nation within themselves, it needs to be stopped, it needs to be cut, in this on-line age, University needs a on-line headquarters, now these small satelites all over the state, some need to go, the Chancellory needs to go, I get madder every day Selma Botman is collecting a check, even after she was fired, this Roman Nation within itself needs to meet the people. It is not a big palace of learning, it is a big business sucking the people and state dry. NO BONDS!
$$$ in minus $$$ out = government spending twice out than $$ in …when does it end ? We will never be out debt because we get more bonds before paying out all the previous ones. Come on Mainers Stand Up Brush Yourselves Off and vote in November for a better idea both in DC and Maine. No to spending and yes to better politicians.
NO!
Gawd dam it, two thirds of all the money in any of these bonds would just be funneled down a rat hole, I think it is time to really actually stop the old State O’Maine bond racket. The U of M with their hand out, you got to be kidding me? We are going to buy what real estate for preservation and easement, how about a detailed list? Details, details, are not the voters, smart enough for details, we just vote over millions on some, vague statements, of improvement or upgrade. NO!
Just say NO on bond issues, save yourself from tax bankruptcy.
Again, bonds are longer term funding to avoid tax increases.
Great idea drag them out so we’re paying for thousands at a time until hell turns to ice and interest on top of these long drawn out bonds
What is that people don’t get about WE ARE BROKE
God almighty for a nation of people who think tbey are so smart
cant understand there’s no money and unless people get off their lard
and start working, they will be less then nothing in a decade.
By the way gopher40 who do you troll for?
What’s the point of voting for any bond one way or the other when the current gov won’t sign-off on bonds approved by voters in the past?
Get rid of the Governor.
What’s with this outragous excise tax we pay when registrating a new car. Isn’t that supposed to pay for roads? Also when paying sales tax, the state taxes you on the window sticker price. Nobody actually pays the sticker price so the state is taxing you on money that was never spent. That’s more money the state is stealing from the consumer. No more borrowing. If the state wants to justify these taxes then let them use that money to repair the roads. No more borrowing money we can’t afford.
I remember, it was about 9 or 10 years ago, that Senator Susan Collins “awarded” $60,000,000 to the Uof Maine to….are you ready? To study the weather. Seriously. The article in the BDN stated that this “research” would help blueberry farmers to know when bad weather might be coming that was detrimental to their crops. And it would help lobster fishermen. How it would help blueberry farmers and lobster fishermen, the article did not say. That $60 million dollars was to be dispersed over 10 years. I have a hunch that that 10 years is either up or nearly so. So now the UofMaine is going to identify insects, among other things. Of course, that 60 million dollars was “federal” money. Were we to believe that it was “free” money to the State? Whether the money comes from Washington or Augusta, we are still the taxpayers who provide those monies. Unfortunately, however, we have no say in how those monies are being spent.
there are already 41 million in bonds that are approved but not yet issued. so the legislature is hoping to add to the amount? they can issue bonds to provide jobs without us authorizing more debt.
blaming the governor for trying to keep things in check is another lefty lie.
No, more like “righty” idiocy.
ROMNEY / RYAN 2012 !!!
What a stupid comment – lol.
These bonds will do more for job creation in Maine than anything LePage or Rmoney have proposed or passed.
Obama 2012 – and kick the Tea Party out.
Scale ’em
Yessah
Yea and just look how Obama raised the deficit, sounds like you will vote yes for all the bond issues.
Johnny/Danny one note again …
This is one time that both Peggy and LePage are both right at the same time. Bond’s are debt that must be paid off and LePage is right in keeping the State from getting in too deep. But Peggy is also right in the Bond’s, when marketed, also bring in an additional 2 to 1 Federal matching grant money for these project’s that are seriously needed, the bridge’s and road’s especially given the weather effect’s on the transportation system. The same can be said for the airport expansion and development plan’s, when matched with the need for better and safer medical evacuation area’s. The funding for the Port’s is also a good investment, Eastport more so since the Millinocket bio-coal plant is now being built and, knock on wood, is scheduled to go on-line next year which is about the time it’s going to take to get Eastport’s facillities ready for the shipping of the bio-coal to Europe.
The Bond’s for Searsport are a more sensitive matter. Given Searsport’s current terminal issue, the Bond’s are a way to get the project moving. But the Bond’s are also based on the assumption (Do we all remember ASS-U-ME from our younger day’s ?) that Searsport’s Town Council, and the other Municipality’s and Regulatory Agency’s are all gonna sign off on the current Searsport development plan. Are the Bond’s going to be voted on ? No question, especially since The Penguin has openly said they have to be as they were submitted for the ballot. But the fact that he’s also staying at VERY long arm’s length also tells me that these Bond’s, if voted on and passed, are going to be held up by LePage. The Penguin’s official statement, his attitude and his stiff arming have made that very clear. The stage has now been set for January’s opening State House session. Only 2 issue’s remain. The Bond issue being passed and the make up of the State House with regard to overiding LePage’s inevitable VETO of the Bond’s sale.
Where, Mike, do you think the “Federal matching funds” come from? The tooth fairy?
Federal matching funds are seperate from Maine State fund’s. And what’s more important is that the Federal fund’s come with no Bond tag’s attached. Complain all you want but Federal Matching Fund’s multiply the State Bond’s economic effect’s 2 to up to 5 time’s beyond their immediate number’s thru the ripple effect’s of the money. Even The Penguin can’t argue that. Neither can Millet, and he’s the one charged with measuring the Bond’s cost’s and effect’s. Now if LePage could only get someone to explain it to him, like maybe Peg Rotundo, he might actually begin to see the light. But he keeps listening to economic leader’s like Rush and the Wall Street crowd and we all might as well start getting our ax’s and horse’s ready for this winter. That and start playing the Lottery for our kid’s educational fund’s.
Why is it to cost the state 4.5% to borrow when homeowners are paying under 4% to borrow for a longer term-15 years?
Bonds are loans pure and simple, they have to be paid back with interest. In this state of economy do we really need to borrow more money? My vote is no.
When you vote on highway funds and other transportation improvements you are voting to either maintain the current level of fuel tax, or to raise it.
If you thing $3.89 a gallon is high enough; vote NO on the bond issues.
We should vote them all in. We should have had the R&D bond in too (token veto by LePage?). After all, we’re supposed to be Making the State jobs favorable, right?