A spokeswoman for Eliot Cutler recently compared Maine’s gubernatorial race this fall to Goldilocks and the Three Bears in a Portland Press Herald column.
With all the slapstick behavior going on with outside money and special interest groups, it’s more like “The Three Stooges” at the moment, but let’s go with the Goldilocks thing.
The setting: a forest of some pretty depressing social and financial indicators. The lost: individuals and families, buckling under the weight of supporting each other as the economy continues to fail.
Before I even get to the polling station in the clearing I know I’ll find Republican Gov. Paul LePage’s chair way too hard and Democratic U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud’s chair a bit soft. The problem is, as an independent, I’m not at all sure that Cutler’s chair is just right. Fairy tale Goldilocks finds respite in temporary shelter, sustenance and a place to rest. This Maine voter will find respite in leadership that can articulate hope and a clear vision of the path out of the gloomy forest.
Finding that path and leading Mainers down it will require a nuanced understanding of the circumstances currently challenging our state, as well as our potential to persevere, to thrive. I just can’t associate words like “hope,” “clear vision” and “nuance” with LePage. He prefers negative communication and divisive tactics that reflect little faith in anyone.
Examples of his lack of nuanced understanding abound and, sometimes, even amuse. Of course, it would all be a lot funnier if he were the governor of some other state, but he’s Maine’s chief executive. Perceptions of our leadership are part of attracting businesses to this state.
Yet, the issues LePage raises resonate with significant portions of Maine voters. Take his latest initiative to drug-test recipients of TANF benefits who have drug-related felony convictions, for instance. You would have to be living under a rock not to be concerned about addiction in Maine or the state of our state budget. You might want to find a rock to live under when you realize this initiative doesn’t do much for either concern.
The TANF program is less than 1 percent of the state’s general fund appropriations — a budgetary you-know-what-hole in the snow. The best way to lower the cost of TANF is to attract and generate jobs that pay enough to cover the costs of transportation and child care. A good way to increase the cost of TANF is to use staff and resources to defend and administer this misguided initiative.
Maine’s addiction problem is far greater than just the few hundred drug felons in the TANF program. Treatment programs need funds to increase access points and promote recovery. Child protective services could use funds to develop specialized programs for families with active addicts. Schools could use funds to support their children.
The process of elimination leaves “a bit soft” vs. “maybe not just quite right,” and it’s kind of too bad they couldn’t join up and co-govern.
Michaud’s “Maine Made” and Cutler’s “Branding Maine” initiatives are hopeful, reflecting faith in Mainers and our resources. These and other initiatives, available on the candidates’ websites, also suggest a nuanced approach to problem-solving.
Michaud brings a wealth of experiential knowledge that could serve him well as governor: the relationships between levels and branches of government, how legislation plays out, when it’s time to change your mind. Cutler’s experiential knowledge is more on a national and global scale and is business-based, which could be helpful in leading a state so desperate for jobs.
When it comes to Governor Too Hard’s signature issue, welfare reform, signs of hope, vision and nuance dissipate. Cutler’s plan, at least the part that would compel some former recipients to repay some of their benefits, is laugh-out-loud funny. Until he offers projected figures to the contrary, I’ll keep laughing because I’m guessing not many recipients leave welfare programs to earn 300 percent of the poverty level shortly thereafter.
On the other hand, Cutler’s idea for a tiered reduction in services is as obvious as Michaud’s identifying the need for better management at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Neither talks about higher-paying jobs as welfare reform. Or about welfare misused as a subsidy for profitable corporations who underpay employees. Or about provider accountability or the gap between what services can be billed for and what services clients actually need. Or about a real path out of the DHHS part of this gloomy forest.
Patricia Callahan of Augusta works as a consultant for local nonprofit organizations.