Poliquin’s wealthy sponsors
Rep. Bruce Poliquin claims to be an advocate for the people from the 2nd Congressional District. But this could not be farther from the truth.
There are many indications that Poliquin is solely invested in the interests of his financial sponsors. We can take a look at his contributions and what percentage are from middle-class Mainers versus wealthy individuals gifting huge sums of money.
For instance, only 1 percent of his campaign funds are from small, individual contributions of less than $200 dollars, or $21,662. This speaks volumes about the connection he has with his voters he supposedly represents.
Most shocking however, is the fact that 50 percent of his contributions are from large individual contributions, and $700,000 from special interests like credit card companies, banks and insurance companies. The National Rifle Association has spent $201,398 on his behalf.
Poliquin has showed his true colors with the money he chooses to take, but also his vote for the House version of the Trump tax bill, which the Senate amended. The bill would have counted waived tuition for graduate students as taxable income, eliminated the student loan interest deduction and altered the American Opportunity tax credit.
As a prospective university student trying to find a way to pay for my tuition, this terrifies me. How am I supposed to get ahead in this country if politicians like Poliquin are making the very idea of a higher education soul-crushing?
Graham Ludders
Standish
LePage not above the law
The people in Down East Maine have lost faith in government after the governor ordered the closing of the Downeast Correctional Facility. On our governor’s orders, under cover of early morning darkness, the inmates were transported from the facility to another and workers were handed pink slips. What are we to make of this particular abuse of power? How much did all this cost Maine to arrange this closure?
Who pays for this havoc this governor has created? Our honorable governor bypassed the Legislature, and the courts have ruled he doesn’t have the authority to close the prison. The governor must be held accountable for this action that created this confusion. What is the consequence for our governor’s action?
Shouldn’t the governor be held responsible for the cost of the closure and now for the re-opening of the facility? I would say, yes. No one is above the law. We have seen his strong-arm way of dealing with the hardworking people of eastern Maine.
The governor does not represent himself well or the people of Maine whom he represents. The argumentative nature and bullying tactic that pervade his social interaction with adults has its limits when he disregards the law. Are we to accept this as the new normal of how this governor does business? We should not.
We demand that our governor be made accountable for this action and the havoc it created for us.
Sharon J. Cale
Machias
No corporate welfare
If our state legislators vote to give millions in tax breaks to General Dynamics to keep shipbuilding jobs at Bath Iron Works, they are paying extortion money, pure and simple.
General Dynamics made $3 billion in profit last year. General Dynamics just made itself even richer with stock buybacks from the tax break they got from Congress. The tax breaks from LD 1781 is chump change to General Dynamics and it is vital to our state’s real needs. And every bit of that may raise the amount of taxes each of us pays.
The people of Maine have already paid for Bath Iron Works at the municipal, state and federal levels. We already pay for the ships with our federal tax dollars. Please say no to the BIW tax giveaway. That money is ours and should be used for health care, education, infrastructure and the other public services our taxes are intended to support.
Gail Williams
Liberty
No more blood money
The children of this country have called people on their inaction, inability to protect them and all of society from preventable slaughter. We, the grandparents of those children, stand alongside them in calling them out, too. Although the Florida students are not actually our grandchildren, they could be. Nearer to your homes, they could be yours, or your very own children.
This is happening now. A spark is lit, there is a rising tide of incredulous disbelief at inaction, there is a rising tide of other voices, there is a rising tide of frustration and fury, and there is an election coming in the fall. Those politicians who have accepted NRA donations to their campaigns and who continue to accept those donations will be called out for taking blood money. Now is when it must stop.
The NRA does not work to support the well-being of this country, its work is to pay obeisance to the firearms industry and to continue its own greedy goals of money and power. Its work undermines our well-being and has been terribly effective in supporting our worst nightmares.
The time has come to see this situation in black and white. This country is unique for its many positive aspects, but at the moment it is unique for one overriding black eye that has haunted us for years, the loss of sane and sensible firearm control. We will continue to call them out until they finally listen.
Bill and Susan Carter
Yarmouth
Ranked-choice voting fair
Theodore Weaver’s March 21 letter to the editor proves the fairness and utility of ranked-choice voting. Using his hypothetical numbers for the first round, Democrat 49.99 percent, Republican 25.01 percent and Green 25 percent, shows that the Democrat did not get a majority of votes; 50.01 percent of voters voted against the Democrat.
In a runoff election between the top two vote getters, the Democrat and Republican would face off in one or two weeks. As in Weaver’s example, all the Greens would vote Republican in the runoff, the results would be Democrat 49.99 percent and Republican 50.01 percent. However close, the winner would get a majority of the votes. Ranked-choice voting gives the same result.
Although the numbers in the example provided are very unlikely, ranked-choice voting functions as an instant runoff, yielding results that a majority can be happy with even though some will not get their first choice (the Greens, in this example). It also helps when there are many more candidates vying for one spot.
Arthur Newkirk
Blue Hill