« No. 4 Tennessee wins 103-43 romp over Chattanooga

Ex-UM player, Bangor resident to coach NHL team »

Study: Tax breaks exceed state spending

By Mal Leary, Capitol News Service

Posted Nov. 15, 2010, at 9:19 p.m.
Last modified Nov. 16, 2010, at 5:15 a.m.

AUGUSTA, Maine — A study done by several state agencies at the direction of the Legislature has found the state spends more in tax breaks, credits and exemptions every year than it spends on programs in the state budget.

Tax expenditures, as they are called, are estimated at $6.6 billion for this two-year budget period. That is $1 billion more than state spending.

“Maine currently has 141 personal and corporate income and property tax reimbursement programs, and 133 sales tax and excise tax exceptions or preferences,” said Finance Commissioner Ellen Schneiter.

She is chairwoman of the working group conducting the study, which included representatives from Maine Revenue Services, the State Planning Office, the Department of Economic and Community Development and the Department of Labor.

She said the charge from lawmakers was to review all of the tax expenditure programs and recommend a process that makes sure all are reviewed regularly for their effectiveness.

Schneiter said the working group focused on economic development tax breaks, saying there are many tax expenditures that do not warrant detailed review because they will not be repealed.

“There are many of these exemptions, like sales tax on food or prescription drugs, that we didn’t think you would want us to spend a lot of time looking at,” she said.

Schneiter said the group identified 11 programs that are all related to economic development for further analysis and review. She said the programs, ranging from the Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement program to various tax credits that provide tax breaks to as few as five taxpayers, should be targeted for regular, comprehensive legislative reviews.

“These are all important programs that are in our economic development toolbox,” she said, “but we need to make sure they are effective and that we are providing oversight to make sure they are effective.”

The group is recommending the state adopt the same type of analysis used in the state of Washington to measure effectiveness of programs and report on them at least every four years.

“This is the result of legislation I put in and I am pleased with what you are presenting to us,” said Rep. Emily Cain, D-Orono, co-chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. “We need to be making this sort of review to make sure these tax expenditures are needed, or warranted.”

She said there needs to be a close look at all state spending, and tax expenditures are a form of spending. She said if government is giving a tax break to a company, there should be a public benefit from that tax break such as job creation.

“There are significant amounts of money that fly under the radar, while there are other smaller amounts that are micromanaged,” said Rep. David Webster, D-Freeport, who co-sponsored the legislation that directed the study.

He said several software programs are available to aid the state in assessing whether a tax break is yielding benefits to the taxpayers that should be used as part of the review process.

Sen. Richard Rosen, R-Bucksport, said while reviewing tax expenditures is a good idea, he doubts it would have the momentum to be considered without the state budget shortfall that will require substantial budget cuts to bring spending into line with available tax revenue.

“I don’t think we have ever been in a position with such enormous budget pressure before,” he said. “I think the business community and people that are looking to invest in Maine will embrace an approach that evaluates these tax expenditures that are related to economic development.”

Schneiter told members of the Appropriations Committee that in her research she found several studies that raised doubts about whether any of the various tax incentive programs anywhere in the country provide the “tipping point” that results in a business locating in a state.

“It’s more the psychology that we have these incentives in our toolbox to offer,” she said.

Rosen said there might be some instances where tax breaks have been the deciding factor for a company to move to state or expand a business. He said that is one reason the review and assessment of the various tax breaks for business are important.

“We need to know what works,” he said.

Similar articles:

Anonymous

Just ask Roxanne of Burts Bees why they moved their business which they started in the little town of Sangerville to a town in North Carolina and you will save a lot of money on all the studies that you are going to think you have to make. Just fix the reasons she gives you for moving. Then maybe some one else can buy the other half of Maine.
Anonymous

how much this study be cawstin us taxpayers ? who cares bout these gud biznises they give mah bruthers n uncles many job . dis is smoke n mirrurs. i thawt dem poor peoples n elee-gulls was atakin 95% of muh taxes ? investergates dem gubment ! they real bad threat 2 liberty . when u take dem down tho u betta do it in a small way (unlest u waterboard em) cuz we the peeple dont like bein treadin on !
Anonymous

Team dumb futt will fix all this…by putting in more loopholes and cutting state services like never before.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JHRRBXBNDIK5KKF2MFPLY457W4 Tim

Good, I hope he does cut State services.
Anonymous

Not collecting new taxes the politicians can imagine is not an “expense”. The money does not belong to the state. The state takes money from those whom it does belong to. What it does not take is not a “cost”. Are the sentences too long for you? Too much for your attention span? A first-grader can understand that to say that the a person’s assets exempted from being taken by the state does not mean that it is a “cost” taken from what belongs to the state. A “news” article presuming the opposite is not a news article. This is Orwellian propaganda pretending that new tax increases would be a cut in spending. Where else but the Bangor Daily, which used to be a newspaper.
Anonymous

“Killer Bee” probably gets a tax break as a non resident for buying up Maine land and putting it in “Non-use” status.
Anonymous

Mr. Lepage will have a blast with this.
Hold on libs, cash your gv”mint checks now ’cause the printing press is running low on ink.
Anonymous

How can there be too many tax breaks when Paula Page campaigned and won on a platform of too many taxes?
Anonymous

We are already dead last of the 50 states for being business friendly. So our Dem leadership in the legislature says “Gee, let’s look at areas to remove what little tax break or business-friendly incentives remain.” Perhaps they are hoping to permanently give us the label of being anti-business. Lefties, thanks a lot for your “helpfulness.”
Anonymous

Burt’s bees moved south to be closer to the fruit orchids. It had nothing to do with the state government and every thing to do with Maine’s northern climate.
newportres

Flat tax.
Simple and fair.
Anonymous

Yes, let the less fortunate go die somewhere, as long as you save some money.
Anonymous

VERY much agree. A flat tax on every man, woman, and child (which the parents would be responsible for until age 18) would shift the cost of living to those who are using the services.
Why should someone with (1) child, or no children, in the school system pay the same as someone with (4)? Why can’t we all be responsible for our own actions?
Anonymous

Sure Sen Rosen.. Ah Huh. And I’m sure you think that giving $9,000,000 per year to the Maine Maritime Acacemy in your district is a great investment too. Somehow, with 1/2 of the student body from out of state leaving immediately after graduation and never look back and never pay a cent in taxes is maybe not a great business model.
http://hikinginmaine.com mAineAc

Actually, they didn’t go die someplace before. They were self sufficient. People don’t seem to realize that too much help can be worse than too little help in the long run. Help is good as long as it is temporary and people know that it is temporary. Once you start giving out things willy nilly people start to take the easy route. It is part of human nature. Why climb the peak when you can go across the valley. Doing away with some service may not be the right thing, but putting limits is definitely the right thing.
Anonymous

I also hope he cuts until they bleed out.
Anonymous

Why should I have to pay taxes for roads, bridges, police, fire services that I don’t use?
Anonymous

Gee I dunno. If your employer discounted your paycheck 20%, would you call that an expense?
Anonymous

They forgot to take his bees with them. Whats left of them are being well cared for on the Dunn Road over in Dexter. Just ask them.
Anonymous

Roxanne quimby moved her business south in order to PAY LESS TAXES! Stop with the liberal lies!
Anonymous

The big money in bee keeping is renting your bees out to farms for pollination. Burts bees had their offices in Maine and 90% of their bees where in the south working the fruit orchids etc. More and more people where getting into the bee pollinating business and Burts bees felt they had to move their headquarters closer to their customers in order to complete. It was a business decision based on location and not about taxes.
Anonymous

She didnt take any bees with her! She purchased bees wax to make her crapola! She did this in a less taxing state! Then she sells her crapola company and moves back here, buys a whole friggin township and shuts it down! Just like all liberals, she talks out of both sides of her mouth!
Anonymous

Most of their bees where already down south. That is why they left.
Anonymous

Just an FYI…..it is a fruit “orchard” not an “orchid”

….and I agree with ProCon, it is cheaper to do business in NC than in ME, there’s simply no refuting the fact
Anonymous

In your analogy, you’re making the assumption that government has performed a service for which they should be paid. That is simply not the case and not how it works. The government collects taxes to pay for services that WE choose prior to performing those services. If we decide to curtail those services, then the amount required for tax collection goes down. This is what people want. They do not want little accounting gimmicks from Emily-”I have a tough time not spending money” -Cain out of Orono, claiming that all we need to do is get rid of tax breaks (i.e. increase taxes!) to solve the budget issue. This type of BS double-talk is exactly what got the dems in trouble to begin with and apparently the arrogant, elitist morons simply didn’t get the point. Well the next election is only a few years away.
Anonymous

Burts bees moved to the south to be closer to their customers. The fruit orchids in particular. They did not move because of Maine’s tax rates.
Anonymous

The government performs lots of services for which it is paid in taxes. People should be talking about how much in taxes actually goes to support and subsidize businesses. Electricity, water, roads and sewer, police and fire, educated work force, economic development programs, tax breaks. Businesses benefit from government programs just like everyone else. If they don’t want to pay then let them get off the grid.
Anonymous

Everyone uses those services, you included.
It’s impossible not to use roads and bridges in some form, even if you don’t drive, you benefit from their use.
Anonymous

Actually, I believe that what they are talking about here is that some people or businesses have to pay these taxes while others are “exempt”. It’s basically a tax loophole. These loopholes should be closed if they do not serve to help the economy of the state or those in dire need. The taxes are already in place but not everyone has to pay so it leaves the state in the red because it is not collecting all taxes allowed in the budget.
Anonymous

Perhaps we could start by ending the ridiculous “Earned Income Credit”.
Never has there been a more blatant re-distribution of wealth and tax dollars.
Where does the money come from to give someone back more of a tax return than they even paid in the first place?
Anonymous

Even though you yourself don’t have children, can you think of any ways in which you might benefit from there being a public school system?
Billybear

How many did Burt’s Bee’s employ and at what rate of pay? Since we are not on a first name basis with Roxanne, who is a billionaire last I knew, maybe you can tell us why she moved.
http://twitter.com/mdesjardins Mike Desjardins

Someday, children that were products of that public education system will be your surgeon. Someday they will be building your home. Someday they will write the software you use or manage a restaurant or run a family business like a farm or a lumber yard.

Someday they will vote.

It’s foolish to think that you don’t benefit from a public education system, kids or no kids. If you can’t wrap your head around that, then think of it this way: perhaps you aren’t paying for the education of kids today. Perhaps you’re repaying for the education you got.
http://www.facebook.com/jeffinglis Jeff Inglis

The Phoenix had this story in 2008. Glad we spent the tax dollars to re-confirm our reporting.http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/abouttown/archive/2010/11/16/state-study-reveals-phoenix-was-right-in-2008.aspx

-Jeff Inglis, managing editor, Portland Phoenix
Anonymous

From the article above,
“Tax expenditures, as they are called, are estimated at $6.6 billion for this two-year budget period. That is $1 billion more than state spending.”
I hear often,
Maine and the incomming legislators are facing a $1 billion dollar budget gap.
So, we get tax expenditures back inline with state spending,
peel back a billion dollars in tax expenditures,
and boom, balanced State budget.
Anonymous

The EITC does redistribute tax dollars, as you say. But to qualify for it, one has to have EARNED income (ie a job) and fit within certain very low brackets. So, it encourages a job and self sufficiency, and the money that is sent back here is hopefully spent in the community, which helps us all, if you look a thte multiplier effect. It is not a totally bad thing. I have seen worse tax credits, for sure.
Anonymous

I have heard Roxanne speak on this topic. She never mentioned being closer to the bees. She mentioned exorbitant utility costs, high employer taxes and the fact that when she contacted DECD they weren’t interested in keeping her here. When she contact NC they were very interested in making it worth her while to move, so she did.
Yes, she is back with lots of cash, and yes, we will never all agree about everything she does with it, but last I checked, she is free to do what she wants with it.
Anonymous

Better to lower the tax rates than to target tax breaks according to legislators whims.
But let’s look at what you have to believe in order to accept the premise that money left in the taxpayers’ pockets is an expenditure by the state.
To accept that premise, you have to believe that all dollars generated in Maine or by Mainers are the state’s to dispose of as they see fit, and all property is really a debt to the state which those in power can decide to let you use in ways they approve, at a cost (tax) they choose.
Anonymous

Great answer Mike. But I was trying to get OSOCRrecon to think for himself!
Anonymous

Great comment.
Anonymous

“Rosen said there might be some instances where tax breaks have been the deciding factor for a company to move to state or expand a business. ” There MIGHT?? Why else would you be cutting them a break?
Anonymous

She is not a billioniare, very rich yes, but not a billioniare.
Anonymous

I thought liberals liked taxes?
Anonymous

A large part of those tax breaks go to “business”. We’ll see how “business friendly” Mr. LePage really is.
Anonymous

You are very confused about what a “subsidy” is. Businesses pay taxes and pay for utilities. That they receive the services they pay for is not a “subsidy”. They also pay property taxes in addition to the property taxes paid by the owners. About 70 % of that typically goes to the failing public schools and the teachers’ union. THAT is a subsidy, but it isn’t to business.

Get off our backs. We are not your “grid”.
Anonymous

If a business makes a profit and the government decides to not tax them (tax break), then it is not lost revenue on the side of the government, it is money that is rightfully owned by the business! Now if your saying that businesses do not pay for electricity, roads, water, sewer, police, and fire services you are somewhat confused, as without the businesses, you and I wouldn’t be able to afford these services.

The problem here is that folks of your mindset are just chomping at the bit to bite the hand that feeds you. And could you please iterate how ALL businesses benefit from government, beyond what they already pay for in services?…..and please spare me the BS crap about getting “off the grid” , as ALL businesses pay their fair share for the services you mentioned above.

It certainly seems to me, and apparently Forbes Magazine along with almost EVERY business in Maine, that the businesses of Maine have been hurt more than helped by the oppressive democrat regulatory machine that was running full throttle in Augusta over the last decade.
Anonymous

The political class has a new definition of “subsidy”. A “subsidy” is anything you get back for what you pay for. Anything you pay for that is not redistributed to someone else is now a “subsidy” to you. Being allowed to keep anything that is yours is now a “subsidy” to you. Such conceptual gibberish and nonsense is only possible to a statist collectivist mentality which thinks everything you have belongs to the government, so anything you are allowed to keep is a gift from government.
Anonymous

Whoa. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. You really don’t seem to understand what a subsidy is. For example, do you really think the taxes you personally pay cover the full cost of bringing electricity to your home or business, maintaining the roads, etc.? I suggest you look up the word in the dictionary.
Anonymous

I agree with you on one point. Most (not all) businesses pay their fair share. Emphasis on the word fair. So they should quit whining.
Anonymous

luvGSD equates being docked by your employer 20% of the salary he owes you with your not paying more taxes that you do not owe. He thinks that your not paying something to the government that you don’t owe is a “cost” incurred by the government. He “gee dunno” refuses to acknowledge that a tax that is not statutorily owed is not a tax that is owed, and what the government lets you keep instead of taking it is not a “cost”.
Anonymous

As a rate payer for electricity, you (or a business) pays for electricity. As a citizen or a business, you pay for roads every time you fill the tank with gas via the gas tax.

Subsidy: a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
Anonymous

Here, Here! Right on the money. And the same logic applies to this BS rhetoric regarding how we will “pay for” the Bush tax cuts, as if we are taking money out of some existing account……LMAO, I guess this type of thinking is what we get when we allow the DOE to brainwash our children with their “education” curriculum!
Anonymous

The whole point is that there are very few businesses left to do any whining and if Ms. Cain of Orono has her way, there will be even less!
Anonymous

The Earned Income Tax Credit – a federal program initiated by Nixon (who actually wanted a universal minimum income) and expanded via the Reagan Tax Reform Act of 1986 – is near-universally considered one of the most cost-effective assistance programs we have for low/lower-income working people.
Anonymous

Isn’t that great see how they claim they are giving you something by not taking it from you???
Anonymous

Poorly written. For example, ” Rosen said there might be some instances where tax breaks have been the deciding factor for a company to move to state or expand a business”. Eh???
Anonymous

If you mean by ‘ the less fortunate’ as people being down on their luck a quote I’ve heard in the past seems fitting here and that is and I quote ” I believe in good luck and the harder I work the more of it I have” end quote. I don’t recall who said it but it hold true in my personal case and I believe it would hold true for most other people too.
Anonymous

Ahhh, the old bait and swap! If the people working for us in disgusta was looking in the check book and spending money accordingly( like the people they were representing) instead of projecting what they thought they were going to be getting at tax time they wouldn’t be trying to pull this over our heads now…..if you never had it to begin with it was never yours anyway, you don’t count that as an expense or a loss, it’s a never had from the start.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Coboltmoon-Glass/1700674845 Coboltmoon Glass

Not collecting money for taxes is not spending or a cost. If this was the case all money would belong to the state and any money they let us keep is state spending. Only a bureaucrat could see money not taxed as an expense.
Anonymous

Hmm, I sure would be in trouble if I spent more than I have…..so what’s the problem with
the State people who spend state money?

Stop this foolishness!
Anonymous

If lower taxes and less regulation alone ensure growth and prosperity, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky and Alabama residents would have the highest incomes in the country. Instead, they have lowest. Median family income in Mississippi is nearly $10,000 less than in Maine.
Anonymous

This is the usual non sequitur deflection pretending that anyone who objects to discriminatory taxes to fund a monopoly government/union failing school system is “against education”. That is of course false and is a dishonest smear, not a “great answer”.

The most fundamental reason to reform this cesspool and introduce privatization and choice into education is to improve education. But why should the abuse be forced on property owners to pay for it? What does how much property you own have to do with what you should be made to pay for the cost of someone else’s “education”? This is more discrimination by progressives who despise property rights and want to punish landowners.

According to Desjardin’s rationalization, property owners should also be forced to pay for everyone’s food, clothing, iphone, dvd, newspapers and everything else, all controlled by government/union monopoly because they “might be your surgeon someday”. Obviously the same collectivist non sequitur.

Then there is his spurious appeal to “someday they will vote”. That alone is a reason to eliminate monopoly indoctrination controlled by government while forcing people who disagree with it to pay for it. There should be a wall of separation between government and education for the same reason there is a wall between government and religion.

And he thinks we’re only “repaying for the education we got”? Would that be the public education over which we had no choice to attend because it was a monopoly taking our parent’s money so they could afford nothing else? This smacks of the excuse given by the Soviet Union when it would not allow people to leave the country because it said the government had paid for their education. Will that be the excuse used to keep productive people from fleeing Maine? And how many times must we “repay” for “our education” by being forced to pay for someone else’s, over and over, with increasingly bloated costs and corruption, and in how any different places with how many different taxes?

When will it ever be permitted to break this chain of abuse? According to the statists, never, because the real reason for it is that they think we belong to the state and exist to serve it, which is the ultimate reason for all of their social controls.
Anonymous

No sherry, a tax that does not exist and not intended to exist is not a “loophole” that should be “closed” by adding more taxes.
Anonymous

Yes, notice the real meaning of the opening statement, “the state spends more in tax breaks, credits and exemptions every year than it spends on programs in the state budget”: It means they don’t have more than half of what is ours and regard the rest as theirs to be taken back because they have “spent” it on us by permitting us to keep it. “Only a bureaucrat …”
http://www.facebook.com/people/Coboltmoon-Glass/1700674845 Coboltmoon Glass

You can compare Maine to Mississippi if you want but with geographic similar states Maine is the worst by far for medium income. We rank 30th in the nation far behind number 5 New Hampshire. All New England States are in the top 20 except for Maine. I hope you don’t think Mississippi has a low medium income because of low taxes. BTW trying to prove your point you had to pick the worst medium income state in the nation and compare it to Maine.
Anonymous

There are a lot of labels being tosed around here.

I’m just an ol’Boy from The County, but this is how I look at the question of subsidies…

We all agree that if a widow moves into senior citizen housing that requires that she pay 25% of her income (social security/pension) as rent, the difference between that 25% & full rent is a subsidy. As a nation, members of Congress from both parties that we elect have determined that elderly people with few resources should have alternatives to sleeping in an outhouse (as one of my neighbors Sowneast was found doing) or on the street… So we invest a bit of our taxes…that is clearly a subsidy.

If those same members of Congress, in the shared belief that homeownership is a positive thing for our country allows a morgage interest deduction as one tool to support homeownership, and I utilize that on my W2 to save $4-5K on my taxes, is that not also a form of subsidy?

In the first case, we spend tax money collected. In the second, we choose as a deliberate policy not to collect it.

It seems to me that in either case, it’s essentially a $4-5K cost to our public treasury.
Anonymous

Yes, I have previously seen Maine Revenue Services “reports” for years employing this Orwellian logic in enumerating as “costs” to the state what they are not allowed to take because the tax laws do not allow all the taxes they want. It would be hysterical to read except that they are thugs who mean it. These “reports” are intended to give “legitimacy” in the name of a “study” to an a priori false collectivist premise, which is of course also shared and promoted by the Phoenix, which breathtakingly “reported” it while railing against “The Rich”.

As bad as it is, better that the state waste money repeating this nonsense propaganda than using it for more of what MRS euphemistically calls “enforcement” as it imposes “estimated” and “re-interpreted” taxes in shakedowns against innocent people who don’t owe them — along with “fees” consisting of “penalties” and exorbitant “interest” tripling the bogus taxes. Only bureaucrats who think they own us and everything we still have could think that this state-sponsored organized crime in the name of recovering “costs” is justified. If the new administration and legislature don’t clean up this cesspool of civil rights abuses worthy of only a third world country, which includes MRS persecution of political enemies, it will be a moral trajedy.
Anonymous

Quimby told Yankee Magazine in 2008:

“To me, ownership and private property were the beginning of the end in this country. Once the Europeans came in, drawing lines and dividing things up, things started getting exploited and overconsumed. But a park takes away the whole issue of ownership. It’s off the table; we all own it and we all share it. It’s so democratic.”

Quimby is not free to flip private property to the National Park Service in order to take it out of private ownership forever, eliminating private property rights, local government, and a free private economy in favor of rule by viro bureaucracy. No one has the right to change our form of government into statism.
Anonymous

A “chip on our shoulders” for objecting to this patent nonsense inverting the meaning of words? You haven’t seen anything yet. Normal people are furious over elitist, progressive social controls meddling in our personal lives, seizing more and more of our hard-earned money through escalating taxes, and destroying the economy. Now we are supposed to submit to insult on top of injury and sit by silently suffering the indignity of being told that what we still have left is a “subsidy” from the state and that new and higher taxes the state wants but has no authority to collect are a “cost” we impose on them? This is Orwellian.

The people responsible for this perversion of language are not so stupid as to not understand this. They are deliberately destroying the language and use of words to prevent people from thinking in terms of and discussing essential distinctions. They hear people objecting to their subsidies, taxes and controls and try to redirect the anger by reversing the meaning of the words in their perpetual spin. The game is over.
Anonymous

Yes, obviously, but it is even worse — and the clown who says the opposite knows it too.

We pay tolls and gasoline, excise, property and other taxes that pay for roads. The government siphons off money from those payments to use elsewhere. Using roads we are over-taxed for is not a “subsidy”.

Most of us pay a utility bill issued for our use of electricity. The utility company makes a profit for the service of generation and transmission it provides. We are not “subsidized” by using electric power that we pay for. The state only makes the costs higher through its taxes and regulations.

But the progressives prattle that businesses producing energy are “subsidized” because they don’t pay higher taxes than they already do, calling this “corporate welfare” in another perversion of language. It’s all on the false collectivist premise that the government owns and has a claim on everything, we live to serve the state, and anything we have is by the benevolent permission of government.

This baloney about government roads surfaces from progressives programmed with slogans every time the excessive cost of government comes up. We are supposed to believe that the fiscal mess in government is because of “roads”. The roads are not the cause of the mess created by the pressure group warfare driving up the cost and other impositions of government.
Anonymous

The euphemism about “getting tax expenditures back in line with state spending” translates to “spending has escalated beyond the already escalating taxes so raise taxes more”. Balancing a budget means spending within one’s means, not imagining that the deficit is a “cost” of letting someone else keep what is his and “recovering” it by seizing it from him.
Anonymous

I do not agree. We are already paying taxes to assist these people. I consider myself to be “comfortable” in my earning capacity, but have not always been so. In those times, I have taken second jobs to get by, and would take a 3rd if required. People no longer are willing to do what ever it takes to survive.
So then, we have people receiving earned income tax credits, and since they get back ALL that they paid in taxes, PLUS some of what could be our tax return, they are contributing ZERO to society and in fact are in the negative, as far as contributing. Why should someone paying zero taxes be allowed to decide how any tax dollars are spent with the power to vote? How is that different than me being allowed to review your check book, and have the power to tell you how your money is spent?
So in fact, we are forced to provide for these people BEFORE we are even allowed to take care of our own families. The government seizes this money for them, and we are given what is left.
Anonymous

Absolutely right. And as it requires them to work, they are in fact, contributing to society. And by them working, even though we do pay them some cash, we are NOT paying for them not to work. EITC is much cheaper than SNAP, TANF, Maine Care, etc, all of which we would pay, and for all of which they would be eligible.
P.S. I believe EITC also got expanded by the congress during the Newt Gingrich years as part of welfare reform.
Anonymous

ummm. Isn’t that how we got all of our parks? People selling or giving land to the Department of the Interior?

Anyway, I tuhought we were talking about how she moved Burt’s bees?
Anonymous

Privatization of government services has failed over and over and over and over. Yes, they cost less, but the services provided are either not as good or not as equitably distributed.
Anonymous

I’d be willing to bet it was an able-bodied straight white male.
Anonymous

Is it most appropriate to compare us with geogrpahically similar states? Socio-economically similar states, governmentally similar states. You can twist it any way you like. Frankly, I think we’re a lot more similar here to Vermont (gasp!) than New Hampshire.
Anonymous

And wouldn’t that also be exactly in line with the idea of the free market – that she can do what ever the heck she wants to with her land, even donate it to the government?
Anonymous

No, changing the form of government to eliminate private property rights is not “the free market”. Calling it that is more of the progressives’ Orwellian perversion of language package-dealing their statism in the name of “freedom”. In addition to Quimby having no moral right to impose statism on other people or to use our government to do it, even the National Park Service — and you can be sure Quimby herself — knows that new National Parks cannot be imposed without Congressional authorization.
Anonymous

“ummm” no. They take it. Once land is decreed to be used for a National Park there is normally nothing the property owner can do about it. Other National Parks carved out of already-government land are imposed by government restrictions, prohibiting all other uses.

We are talking about progressives’ Orwellian perversion of language, beginning with how not taxing you more is called a “cost” to government. Quimby wants to use the “real estate market” in order to destroy it. Forever. The National Park Service calls anyone who sells to them under the threat of eminent domain a “willing seller”.
Anonymous

Every honest person knows that the market provides superior products and services at lower cost than government bureaucracy under central planning. Private schools are normally far better than public schools under the current coercive monopoly system. The better private schools, and even the better home schooling, puts public schools to shame. Progressives know that, too.

It isn’t a lack of quality that they object to, but freedom of choice, which is why they defend the current entrenched and failing public school system despite the misery it causes, and obstruct reforms allowing choice. They are collectivist nihilists who hate individual achievement. They don’t like it when free individuals make intelligent choices on their own and achieve more than those who don’t.

Other than the children of hypocritical politically-privileged liberal politicians who send their children to private schools, progressives want everyone reduced to the lowest common denominator in the name of forced “equality” and statist indoctrination — the equality of a failed herd of animals “equitably distributed” and thoroughly controlled.
Anonymous

So, Blackwater has served us better than our “statist” armed forces? How about when Texas privatized its welfare system… that was supposed to fix everything and be a model of how the private sector could streamline government. Instead it was a massive, massive failure.

The problem with your bureaucracy argument is that every large corporation has exactly the same kind of bureaucracy, with so much middle-management that waste and lack of service are inherent there as well. Then add a healthy profit on top and it cannot function as well as government. Since, in a privatized system, the corporate bureaucracy and profit cannot be eliminated, service declines. People fall through the cracks.

It has happened time after time after time after time when services have been privatized. It is government’s duty to serve everyone equally. It is the private sector’s job to make profit. The two are not always compatible. Sometimes they are, but often not. And it is too easy, when things get rough, for execs to give themselves raises while cutting services.

re: schools: show me the private schools full of inner-city kids that are performing so well. Private schools do better for one simple reason: They charge tuition, which eliminates students who have the least stable living environment. Its not a level playing field.

And by the way, statements about “all progressives are nihlists” etc, frankly show how out of touch you are with your neighbors and fellow americans. You make yourself look like a damned fool.
Anonymous

So exactly how is telling her she can’t give her land to the government the free market? Wouldn’t that take away her free wil lto do with her assets as she pleases? Isn’t that precisely the cornerstone of the FREE market? Wouldn’t it be “imposing statism” on her for someone else to control her use of her property?

I am against the national park idea, I just think your rant about her Imposing Statism on you is rediculous. You need to get out of the woods once in a while.
Anonymous

If this clown wants to submit himself to tribalism while he rails against “profits” and individualism, confuses the military with a market, and all the rest of his rambling nonsense, then let him.

But he has no right to hijack the coercive power of our government to impose his anti-intellectual human sacrifices on the rest of us. He has no right to deny the rest of us our right to think and choose for ourselves on behalf of our own lives and without regard to his demands for forced equality dragging us down to a lowest common denominator. That is the root of the revolt against Obama and the progressives.
Anonymous

Pay attention to the meaning of words. Imposing Federal government control over an entire area and annihilating private property rights is not the free market. Preventing statism is not statism. Freedom is not using physical force against other people in the name of “doing as you please” while not looking at what it means beyond the end of your nose. Such inversion of the meaning of words is progressive Orwellian newspeak.
Anonymous

Who is “he”, and who is railing against individualism? Who is taking away your right to think for yourself?

Can you back up any of your ranting with any sort of event, fact or figure, we can continue our discussion, but to incoherently throw together catch-phrases, well, it doesn’t deserve further response.
Anonymous

Yes, but who would take away her property rights? The government. And once the government starts taking away the fundamental rights of who you can & can’t transfer your property to, well, isn’t that creeping toward defacto “statism”?

I for one never said that freedom ended at the end of your nose; nor do any of the progressives I know. In fact, most of them believe that we have a strong responsibility to our society for the rights and services we are given. For that they are labeled by some as socialists. Its actually the libertarians who are obsessed with personal liberty that DOES end with their body & property.

Some people find that actually you have the most freedom with a strong central government with well-funded, well-run services and strong regulations. You don’t have to worry about crime, going bankrupt because of a medical condition, not being able to get to work because your car is broken down, etc etc. Unfortunately, since about 1980 or so our government has been incrementally defunded bit by bit until it is no longer very responsive. For instance, if you want to stop welfare fraud, you’ve got to fund the investigators.

What really worries me is that you seem to have little knowledge of the hearts and minds of those you are writing such angry and broad-brush statements against!

Politics

Previous story:

Next story:

Study: Tax breaks exceed state spending

Similar articles:

BDN Marketplace News

Marketplace Businesses

BDN Marketplace Coupons

BDN Blogs

Capitol Incite

Pine Tree Politics

Bangor Daily News

About Us

Subscribe

Advertising

On the Web