Non-gunowner rights
Regarding gun rights, we had the same debate with the ruckus over smoking. It was said smokers had the “right” to smoke anywhere. After all, it is a free country. However, over time, it was finally recognized that non-smokers had rights, too. As hard as it may have been for smokers to understand, it was found that non-smokers, too, had the right to not be subjected to the risk of byproducts (secondhand smoke) from the smokers.
It’s really the same with carry and concealed carry. Those who carry say it’s their “right” to carry almost anywhere. It’s the law. However, concealed? “Wearing a jacket or coat,” which does conceal a weapon, is not a “right” granted in the Constitution. And, lest we not forget, just as with non-smokers, non-carriers have rights, too.
We don’t yet have separate sections in planes, restaurants and other buildings so as to know and distinguish who does or does not carry so we can choose health (or life). But just the same, I still retain the very same right to not be subjected to the risk of byproducts — injury or death — from those who choose to carry. And if I can see your weapon, I remain free to choose to be elsewhere and not subject myself to the risk of being anywhere within your pistol range….
The Second Amendment may allow the right to defend oneself. But, as hard as it might be for those who carry to understand, the Declaration of Independence also allows my, perhaps even greater, “inherent and inalienable” rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Linda E. Pletka
Orono
Minimum wage hijinx
The LePage Administration’s proposal to legislatively block Portland and Bangor from enacting higher minimum wages within their city limits is an example of state politicians cynically attempting to thwart local democracy on behalf of special interests. It’s also part of a coordinated agenda being advanced around the country by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the corporate-funded conservative business lobby.
The disingenuously named Act to Promote Wage Consistency, LD 1361, is what’s known as a pre-emption law, a class of statutes being passed in numerous red states to shield business profits from added labor costs on behalf of groups like the National Restaurant Association.
In addition to stopping minimum-wage increases, ALEC and its allies are simultaneously attempting to prevent or overturn municipal mandates requiring paid medical leave for employees. Pre-emption bills on these two issues have been recently introduced in more than a dozen Republican-run states, mostly in the South and West. Maine is virtually alone among Northeastern states in promoting some of the same legislation.
Pre-emption, which was pioneered by the tobacco industry in the 1980s to stop community smoking bans, has become a favorite tactic used by various industries to bypass local governments and invalidate economic regulations they don’t like. Recently, it’s been applied in fossil fuel-friendly Texas to reverse municipal environmental ordinances against hydro-fracking.
In Maine, the immediate objective appears aimed at keeping the wages of restaurant employees low.
Is the governor engaged in an unseemly war on under-compensated workers? It sure seems that way.
Wayne O’Leary
Orono
Analysis before incentives
There are many lessons to be learned from the New Markets Tax Credits debacle. One I haven’t heard talked about is the need for in-depth policy analysis. If there had been politically neutral, in-depth analysis of these credits, the flaws in the bill would have been highlighted early, giving lawmakers a chance to make needed adjustments prior to passage.
The State Planning Office, where I was deputy director, provided this kind of policy analysis for 42 years. But Gov. Paul LePage eliminated the office early in his first term, leaving a gap in services.
Rather than advocate for bringing back the planning office, I suggest we add capacity to the existing Office of Policy and Legal Analysis so it can provide analysis on complex issues — taxes, budget and big spending items like Medicaid.
Currently, the Legislature employs staff at OPLA to record testimony and explain bills. OPLA staff works diligently to provide this service. But, with over 2,000 bills each session, OPLA cannot provide in-depth analysis for any one bill. The addition two positions to OPLA — an economist and a high-level policy analyst — would provide an enormously important service to the Legislature and Maine citizens.
There will always be a certain amount of ideology in politics. But I know that “fact based policy” is both needed and possible. I urge the Legislature to add capacity to OPLA, to provide the in-depth analysis needed to get policy right, before investing taxpayer dollars.
Susan B. Inches
North Yarmouth
LePage budget bad for rural areas
Maine lacks rural policy. Like other states, urban policy is re-sized for rural — a poor fit. Rural Maine people earn less, are less likely to have health insurance, more likely to live in older homes. Rural communities have less tax revenue to fund local services, and offer students fewer courses.
Gov. Paul LePage’s budget attacks rural from all sides. The sales tax is regressive; increasing it is bad for rural businesses and residents. The governor would eliminate revenue sharing, critical for low tax base communities.
Dissolving the Bureau of Parks and Lands to plug budget holes will destroy acres of public land, a draw for tourists and recreation for rural residents. Nonprofits, which the governor wants to tax, play a bigger role in rural communities lacking revenues to fully support public services. Nonprofits leverage funds from outside the community and taxing them erodes this leverage. There aren’t enough rural volunteers to make up this difference.
Why eliminate the Homestead Exemption for young people when we want them to stay home? The budget does nothing to support rural health care still reeling from the governor’s failure to participate in the Affordable Care Act. Why provide tax breaks for corporations retroactively and in the future, when we should support rural businesses who give us a bigger bang for the buck?
A rural-friendly budget should support rural-driven planning, community collaboration, incentives for volunteers, mechanisms for property tax reduction through revenue sharing formula revisions, honor the school funding agreement, increase the homestead exemption, and incorporate the farm support initiatives proposed this session.
Jo Ann Myers
Waldoboro