Comments for: Judge to hear arguments in case of LePage’s removal of labor mural

Posted Feb. 29, 2012, at 12:24 p.m.
Last modified Feb. 29, 2012, at 5:48 p.m.

PORTLAND | A lawsuit seeking to have a 36-foot mural depicting Maine’s labor history returned to a state office lobby will be at stake when a federal judge hears arguments on whether the suit should be dismissed. A group of six Mainers filed a complaint last March to have …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Guest

    Here’s another issue of substance for the Lefties and OWS crowd

    • Anonymous

      Who created the storm? Governor LePage. All by himself. If he had left it up there, it never would have become a cause. It put his administration and all the Republican legislators in a clear light that says, they are anit-labor/working people.

      • Anonymous

        Perhaps… just like LePage overturning Baldi’s Executive Order prohibiting Maine officials from inquiring into the legal status of folks in Maine… Better left untouched so we could all enjoy illegals to shovel our snow and pick our potatoes.

        Certainly no harm leaving that one alone now was there having Maine be the only Sancturary State in the nation?

        • Anonymous

          I believe we probably have more ICE and Border Patrol agents in Calais, than we have police officers in all of Washington County. I think they are getting paid to do just that. If someone breaks a law and is brought to Washington County Jail, the subject of legal status comes up and is referred to ICE, who has the yeah or nay say about that particular situation. Just like Mall Side Tools “Gotcha Covahd”.

  • Anonymous

     I sure hope Woodcock tells them where to have the bonfire.

    I’d like to be there.

  • honey777

    LePage should just man up,  admit he made a mistake and put the mural back.

    • kcjonez

      Wake up honey…….you’re dreaming.  

    • Anonymous

      Why should he put it back up?

      • Anonymous

        It wasn’t his to take down.

        • Anonymous

          He had as much right to take it down as the empty suit had who put up.

          • Anonymous

             The mural was commissioned by a panel of Maine citizens and paid for by us as U.S. taxpayers.  It was displayed in a public building.  LePage had never seen it. 

            If Lepage wanted to move it, he should have set up another citizen panel to do so and also sought the approval of the artist (which was part of the contract).  A politician with an ounce of foresight would have found a new home for it before taking it down. 

            LePage and others including you may not like the artwork or the the contract or the amount that was spent on the mural, but the point is that taking the mural down in the middle of the night and locking it away is cowardly, disrespectful, wasteful — and probably illegal — and Lepage should have to answer for that.

          • Anonymous

            You mean like the Bust of Winston Churchill that obama sent back to the UK, that belonged to the people and not him.  Impeach I say Impeach.

          • Anonymous

            Trying to change the subject doesn’t change the facts.

            It’s usually a sign of having weak arguments or no arguments at all.

            And no, I’m not just responding to you but to all on these boards who bring up Obama’s name each time there is a criticism of LePage. Got a beef with Obama? Please consider posting it below an article about the President and his policies.

          • Anonymous

            Jed didn’t “change the topic”. He simply brought up a parallel act by another chief executive involving “art” placed on Federal property.

            Try looking up “analogy” for instance.

          • Anonymous

            WTG JED!

          • Anonymous

            If you had done a little research before posting your anti-Obama propaganda, you would have discovered the bust of Churchill was on loan. It was not a gift to the US government and therefore was not the property of the US government or the American people. But of course expecting the ranting right to actually get their facts straight is asking too much.
            By the way, the bust of Churchill was replaced by one of Abraham Lincoln, a real American hero. Of course you probably consider him to have been a liberal commie. not born in the US

          • Anonymous

            Well that panel of Maine citizens had very bad taste!

          • Anonymous

            Would you like to know what I am appalled at appalledbylepage_com?

            I am appalled the we use Unemployment Insurance Trust fund money to pay for a piece of “art”. $60,000.00 of Unemployment Insurance Trust fund money courtesy of the Reed Act.

            And I am further appalled that the Reed Act state, “”Permissible uses of Reed Act money – The state legislature must appropriate Reed Act funds. The states have some latitude in the use of a Reed Act distribution, with limited federal oversight. The funds can be used to pay unemployment benefits, to cover unemployment-insurance or employment-service administrative costs and, in some circumstances, can be used as a revolving fund for major infrastructure investments, such as data-processing installations. Reed Act expenditures for qualifying infrastructure investments can be amortized through federal grants, without interest. These amortization payments are re-deposited into the state’s Reed Act account and restore a balance that can then be used again.” http://www.esd.wa.gov/newsandinformation/factsheets/ui-trust-fund-reed-act-funds.pdf

            How is a mural fit into any of the permissible uses of the Reed Act?

          • Anonymous

            It was the use of the Reed Act to fulfill the requirements of Maine’s “One Percent For Art” law, both of which have been in effect for years. Lepage broke the law when he removed the mural without consulting with the Maine Arts Commission or the artist with whom the contract was made. Whether anyone likes that particular art is irrelevant. It’s commission fulfilled Maine’s law. If you, or anyone, does not like the law, then lobby your representative to change it. When a governor violates the law as in this case, it causes many here and nationwide to lose any respect they might have had.

          • Anonymous

            ademain, here are the “Permissible uses of Reed Act money”.

            1) The funds can be used to pay unemployment benefits,

            2) to cover unemployment-insurance or employment-service administrative costs and,

            3) in some circumstances, can be used as a revolving fund for major infrastructure investments, such as data-processing installations.

            Which one does the mural fit in?

          • Anonymous

            In a letter from the US Department of Labor to the Maine Labor Commisioner, dated April 4, 2011; “The Reed Act permits a participating state to use its Reed Act Funds, under an appropriation by the state legislature, for the administration of its UC (Unemployment Compensation) law and public employment offices. The state properly complied with this requirement…” End of story. Again, if you have a problem with the Maine law or US department of Labor rules under the Reed Act, lobby your state and federal representatives, instead of defending a Governor who openly flaunts the law.

          • Anonymous

            The only letter that would matter would be a letter from the U.S. Attorney General giving a legal opinion that use of the funds fit the definition of the Act as passed by Congress and signed by the President. A letter from the agency providing the funds to the agency expending the funds is worthless as “one hand washed the other hand.”

          • amen

          • ….

          • Anonymous

            And it was ugly~~I am glad its down~It was depressing!

        • Anonymous

          Yes he did.

        • Anonymous

           Sure it was.

      • Anonymous

        Because he breeched a legal contract by taking it down.

    • Anonymous

       I’ve never seen a single indication that he has any ability to admit a mistake or compromise.  It’s not in his make-up.

      • StillRelaxin

        Let’s face it, Paul’s so dimwitted that he’s probably forgotten where he put the darn thing!

    • Anonymous

      Lol hahaha lol boohoo boohoo lol lol omg lol.

    • Anonymous

       Lepage would never stated he ever made a mistake.

  • Anonymous

     The Government does not have a right to 1st amendment protection.

    Those rights are reserved for the people.

    • Yes, it does. {But I dont like it!}
       
      Government speech has been well established!
       
      Government  doesn’t have the right to abridge someone elses right however!

  • kcjonez

    I hate using the slippery slope technique, a favorite of reactionaries, but…….if the court actually rules that there is such a thing as “government speech”, that will open the door for the eventual election of a peacenik who could order all the war memorials taken down because they send the wrong message that violence is a viable technique to resolve disagreements.  It could allow a future development minded governor to order the removal of all public parks and cemeteries and their replacement with uses that will add money to state coffers rather than cost the state monies to maintain them.  
    Government speech is a fiction that needs to relegated to the scrap heap.  Bad idea.

    • Anonymous

      They just might begin removing “religious” symbols from public property…  oh wait… they’re doing that already!

  • Anonymous

     The Judge should Remove LePAGE, the draft dodger….!!!

    • Anonymous

      Dumb comment of the day.

      • so true!  and there were lots to choose from lol

    • Anonymous

      If that was the case, they should of removed Clinton when he was in  often.

      • Anonymous

        Clinton was busy being a Rhodes Scholar, LePage went to Canada.  Big difference.

        • Anonymous

          Road scholar alright, in Russia, so he could get out of the service. Who pardoned the draft dodgers by the way. Carter, another Democrat.

          • Anonymous

            I do believe when Carter pardoned the draft dodgers is when LePage returned to the US.  Am I wrong?

          • Anonymous

            and was not Clinton protesting the war in Russia? What little I can find it said “If I recall correctly, it was only the person’s 19th birthday that was entered into the lottery to determine their draft status. So, whatever happened with LePage, it would have been the 1967 lottery that determined his status.By the time he went to Canada, his draft status would have been old news. He’d either have been drafted, excused or prosecuted by then.” True or not I do not know.

          • Anonymous

            Who pardoned Nixon? Ford another Republican.

          • Anonymous

            And Clinton did not inhale.

          • Anonymous

            But did the little intern swallow?

          • Anonymous

            I was talking about weed. Though you bring up another point.

          • Anonymous

             Draft dodgers should have gotten medals. They helped end a war of aggression and greed.

          • Anonymous

            They should of been sent over afterwards. Medals, are you kidding. Our men & woment dying over there. It does matter who started it.  Oh, by the way was not it Nixon who ended it?

        • Anonymous

          Don’t you mean Clinton was a “road” scholar giving all his womanizing?

  • Anonymous

    When the government decided to invoke “free speech” (a right supposedly protecting the people from an oppressive government) you know we’re all screwed.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s my version of “government speech”: LePage won’t get re-elected. 

  • Anonymous

    Such a waste of money, is that all we have to do. You think both sides could find compromise. ( I did say both sides)

    • Anonymous

      Such as?

      • Anonymous

        The cost of the court, the attorny’s

        • Anonymous

          But what would the actual compromise be?  There are two choices:  display the mural at the Dept of Labor or don’t display it.

          • Anonymous

            Why just those 2 places?

    • Anonymous

      Right he could of contacted the artest an other places that they could of put its art an every thing would of been ok

  • Anonymous

    Regardless of your opinion on this piece of art, the way it was removed isn’t good for this state.  The terms of the contract between the artist and the state were not followed.  So much for this being a “business-friendly” state.  What company in their right mind would want to relocate to a state that does not honor its contracts?

  • Anonymous

    Every time Paulie  gets off his leash, he causes problems. David Koch is having an industrial choke collar made…in China.

  • Anonymous

    he should mind his d*** business… don’t try to fix what isn’t broken

  • Anonymous

    What a waste of taxpayers money that could have gone to the unemployed.

    • Anonymous

      And that is where the money came from to pay the artist to produce the art. The Unemployment Trust Fund “excess” dollars that were not “needed”.

      • Anonymous

        Wrong. It was from a fund specifically created to have art  in public buildings. It did not come from employment benefits. That is just a right wing made up story, as most from the right are.
        It was authorized under the “One Percent For Art ” law. I realize the right wing nuts are selective about which laws they follow.

        • Anonymous

          ademain sorry to burst your bubble but I did the research when this issue first came up. The funds came from the Federal Bureau of Labor via a law called the Reed Act. The Reed Act  allows Congress to transfer money from the federal Unemployment Insurance trust fund to the individual state accounts; however,
          Congress may limit how states can use those funds.

          In the case at hand Congress allowed a transfer of funds close to $60,000.00 from the Unemployment Insurance trust fund to fund a mural. It was not authorized under the “One Percent for Art” or any other “art” program.

          D0n’t believe me, here is a CNN news item that specifically states that the funds came from the Reed Act http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-05/politics/maine.mural.controversy_1_mural-department-of-labor-building-national-farm-workers-association?_s=PM:POLITICS

          And here is another link that explains the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund and Reed Act funds http://www.esd.wa.gov/newsandinformation/factsheets/ui-trust-fund-reed-act-funds.pdf

          “Permissible uses of Reed Act money – The state legislature must appropriate Reed Act funds. The states have some latitude in the use of a Reed Act distribution, with limited federal oversight. The funds can be used to pay unemployment benefits, to cover unemployment-insurance or employment-service administrative costs and, in some circumstances, can be used as a revolving fund for major infrastructure investments, such as data-processing installations. Reed Act expenditures for qualifying infrastructure investments can be amortized through federal grants, without interest. These amortization payments are re-deposited into the state’s Reed Act account and restore a balance that can then be used again.”

          So, there is your proof. I cannot for the life of me see how the expenditure of close to $60,000.00 in Reed Act funds fits any of the permitted uses. Do you?

          • Anonymous

            I believe you’re wasting you time pointing out facts in this instance.

            Just trying to be helpful…

          • Anonymous

            Using my google search, I entered the key words “reed act mural”. Clicking on the link entitled “Maine Mural Controversy: US Labor Department Says Put It….”, I then found a link in the article which allowed me to download a pdf version of the letter from the US Labor Department to the acting Commissioner of Maine Labor. It clearly states the mural is within the law. But, since you think you know the facts better, go check it out yourself.
            “In a letter…a senior US Labor Department official writes that the Federal government appropriated the funds to Maine for the mural”

          • Anonymous

            The only letter that would matter would be a letter from the U.S. Attorney General giving a legal opinion that use of the funds fit the definition of the Act as passed by Congress and signed by the President. A letter from the agency providing the funds to the agency expending the funds is worthless as “one hand washed the other hand.”

          • Anonymous

            I know about the Reed act. I believe the Reed Act was the source of the funding to satisfy the Maine law I mentioned. There is no discrepancy. My point was that the statement that it deprived someone from receiving unemployment payments and therefore was a waste of unemployment funds is a bold faced lie. It is the only time the right attempts to show a concern for the unemployed. The rest of the time they are labelled as lazy drug addicts living off someone else’s money. They show their “concern”  for the unemployed as an attempt to justify the penguin’s violation of law..

          • Anonymous

            ademain you are far better off to admit you were wrong then trying to spin your mistake around and around.

            I stated that Unemployment Trust Funds were used to pay for the mural. You said I was wrong. I provided the proof that my statement was correct and then you come back with “the Reed Act was the source of the funding to satisfy the Maine law I mentioned. There is no discrepancy.”

            Now, here are the “Permissible uses of Reed Act money”.

            1) The funds can be used to pay unemployment benefits,
            2) to cover unemployment-insurance or employment-service administrative costs and,
            3) in some circumstances, can be used as a revolving fund for major
            infrastructure investments, such as data-processing installations.

            Which one does the mural fit in?

          • Anonymous

            See my response above regarding the letter from the US Department of Labor to the Maine Labor Commissioner, dated April 4, 2011. I will only add that the money came from funds for administrative use, not from unemployment compensation funds.

          • Anonymous

            And I will only say this once again. The REED ACT source of founding is the UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TRUST FUND.

            And the Reed Act says it can be used for one of three things:

            1) The funds can be used to pay unemployment benefits,

            Well “art” cannot pay unemployment benefits.
            ~~~~~
            2) to cover unemployment-insurance or employment-service administrative costs and,

            Well “art” cannot “cover unemployment-insurance” and “art” is not an “administrative cost”
            ~~~~~
            3) in some circumstances, can be used as a revolving fund for major infrastructure investments, such as data-processing installations.

            And under no circumstances could “art” be considered “major infrastructure investments, such as data-processing installations”
            ~~~~~
            The only letter that would matter would be a letter from the U.S. Attorney General giving a legal opinion that use of the funds fit the definition of the Act as passed by Congress and signed by the President. A letter from the agency providing the funds to the agency expending the funds is worthless as “one hand washed the other hand.” 

          • Anonymous

            Duplicate post removed by poster

    • Anonymous

       It’s disrespectful to talk that way about the governor’s salary!

  • Guest

    There is some shread of evidence that Paul or his poeple have learned to pick their battles.

  • luvGSD

    I’m glad to hear this.  I hope they do get a jury to hear the case.  I think most of us agree that what the Governor did was wrong.  The mural was obtained and paid for through a lengthy, well-reviewed process, and appropriately contracted for the Department of Labor to represent Labor.  The Governor has changed his story many times about why he had it removed in secrecy and under cover of darkness.  It was a contemptible, ham-handed and ill-conceived act, and it’s time for this embarrassing chapter in Maine’s history to close.

    • Anonymous

      Well if they do seat a jury, they are supposed to have an “open” mind with no preconceived notions on guilt or innocence.

      • luvGSD

        That’s right JD. But I think it will be difficult to find jurors with no opinion on this matter.

  • Anonymous

    What a waste of time and money we don’t have.

    • Anonymous

      well he wanted to waste tax payers money well he is

  • Anonymous

    Talk about a big waste of tax payers money, but what do they care it’s not their money, so the painting is down, I donated several Pics to the Bangor DMV, I took the pics, I framed and matted the pics, they are no longer there, I should sue the DMV.   Dam put the pics back up after a New Gov gets voted in.

  • Anonymous

    “The Maine attorney general’s office contends that the removal amounted to so-called “government speech.” What in the h3ll is “government speech”?

    • Guest

      I agree with him, The government has no bussiness pushing the unions agenda, just because they paid for their liberals in office…

      • Anonymous

        I don’t see were it says union on it  ? All i see are hard working men an women there that shaped our country

        • Anonymous

          It is only 3 panels on the BDN pic not the whole thing, the whole thing is 36 feet long

        • Anonymous

          It has 13 panels, lets make it easy go look at it your self at:

          http://www.judytaylorstudio.com/mural456.html 

          • Anonymous

            only one pic MITE be about union quick we better do something about it or the sky will fall in. If unions are so bad how come one car company is giving out money to there employess an the CEO said ” they have given up a lot over the years that’s why they are getting is money” or is he lieing ?

  • Guest

    I bet a picture of the Man called  Christ wouldn’t last 2 days before libs would burn it in the streets.. 

    Mr Obama took down tons of Paintings at the white he found offensive to his taste.. Go to the white house Libs and protest there..

  • Guest

    I hope it’s in a very damp basement.. Baldacci commissioned the painting to give a friend money. I can’t imagine Baldacci has any taste in art.

  • Anonymous

    I hope that the judge rules that this “Organized Labor Mural” (Unions) be put up …………………… in a museum where it should have been in the first place.

    The Maine Labor Dept. is for “ALL” Maine workers not just Union workers.

  • Anonymous

    The issue is not whether some cretin thinks it is “ugly”, or where it is located, the issue is the process of state sponsored censorship. That’s what reminds me of North Korea

    • Anonymous

      Which part… Including “chairman” Forteman in the mural… or all the labor unrest celebrated?

  • Anonymous

    http://www.judytaylorstudio.com/mural456.html After looking at the pic, I can not agree that it is a Union only pics, one panel has a partial union flag on it, and unions were part of the history of this country.  But if one person complains about the ten commandments they come down.  so what good for the goose is good for the gander.   I’m not pro union, nor am I pro church. 
    I do not find this pic offensive either., nor do I find the Ten Commandments offensive.  

  • Anonymous

    Do we really have to hear more on this …seem to me more things are way more important !! 

  • Anonymous

    To Clarke Canfield of the Associated press,In the second paragraph of  your writing you claim that there was a ” public uproar” concerning the removel of this mural. when infact,it should have read more like a few narrow minded liberals are in an uproar.

     I believe that there was a large measure of Maine residents that never knew this mural even existed until after they heard about it being removed from a public building.After it was removed,this measure of Maine residents are left wondering.Why was it displayed in a public building in the first place ?

    I hope that this lawsuit does endup in front of a jury,because then this issue can finally be put to rest. The state of Maine can put this God awfull, repulsive piece of communist trash where it belongs. In cuba or maybe north korea.

  • Anonymous

    Prediction: Any sitting Gov can move State-owned “art” around as they see fit.

    Governor Cutler would certainly move a bust of LePage out of the Hall of Flags when the time comes.

    Gee, didn’t the OMAN remove the bust of Churchill from federal property? His poligamist daddie thought Ol’ Winston was too harsh when the Brits controlled Kenya. He was wrong to do it… but perfectly legal.

    • Anonymous

      The bust of Churchill was on loan from the British government. It had been loaned to G W Bush in 2001. Obama returned it to its rightful owners and replace it with one of Abraham Lincoln. The attempt to claim that Obama removed US property is just more right wing fantasy.

      • Anonymous

        Like your left wing fantasy that the funding source for the labor mural was not the federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds when in fact it was?

        • Anonymous

          Just google “Churchill bust”. Not only was it the property of the British government, but there was a group of British citizens demanding its return. Possibly Obama returned it in order to avoid any further conflict within the British government or with its citizens. That is only a guess though.
          In regards to your other rants about the letter; You do not accept the authority of the US Department of Labor. That is fine. Just sue them. Otherwise the ruling stands. You may twist and turn it every which way, but as far as the Department of Labor is concerned, the use of the money was given specifically for that mural, as stated in the letter.

          • Anonymous

            Did I say anything about the Sir Churchill Bust other than AGREEING with you that it wasn’t the property of the U.S. Government?

            Now, the only one twisting and turning things every which way is you ademain.

            First you said the funds used to pay for the mural was not from the federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund when it fact they were.

            Then you say that no Unemployment Insurance funds were used when the Reed Act specifically states that the funds come from the federal Unemployment insurance Trust Fund.

            Then when asked which permissible use of federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds allowed under the Reed Act did the $60,000.00 fit into you say well, there’s a letter from the Department of Labor saying it is “OK”.

            Your continued justification of using federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds to paint a mural is mind boggling. The funds never fit into any of the permissible uses as outlined in the Reed Act and could have been used for a purpose that would have really helped the unemployed. Unless you really believe that a mural some how helps the unemployed.

          • Anonymous

             If you read that letter, in the paragraph beginning with “We Understand…” you will see reference to the fact that the mural is considered as an administrative expense. Again, if you do not agree, then sue the DOL. That is their decision, and until the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court rules otherwise, that is the law whether you like it or not.

          • Anonymous

            Just so I am clear in the position you are taking let me ask you one more question.

            You have no problem with money paid into the federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund by employers paying for something that does not help those who are unemployed?

          • Anonymous

            Just as is the case with the way a lot of money is spent by government, I have no say in the matter except to lobby my representatives, or file a lawsuit. Otherwise it does not really matter whether or not I like the policy. It also does not matter whether or not I like the mural, agree with the message, artist, or any other aspect.

          • Anonymous

            Do you support OWS?

            Do you support “The 99%”?

            Did you support the tents and tarps in Peirce Park in Bangor?

            Do you believe that the state government wasted money on making the Whoppie Pie the state “dessert”?

            Do you believe that the federal government wasted money on a “bridge to nowhere” or $600.00 hammers for the military?

            Because if you do support or believe any of these questions asked of you, you should be screaming at the top of your lungs that to spend Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund money on ANYTHING that does not directly HELP the unemployed is not just wrong but if this was funded during a Republican administration you would be calling it evil.

            In your heart of hearts you know that it was wrong to spend that money (regardless of letters between department, etc…) on something that did nothing for the unemployed but you just cannot admit it because it would undermine your left wing position.

            Have a great evening but I need to move on. I have wasted enough time on someone that puts party politics ahead of the unemployed.

          • Anonymous

            Our posts are crossing  each other so I need to repeat my last one. The funds for the mural were transferred TO, not FROM, the Unemployment trust fund in accordance with some provision of the Social Security regulations, which I have not yet read. It was transferred TO the trust fund specifically for the mural under administrative expenditures, not for unemployment compensation. There is no evidence that I have seen that the money was diverted from unemployment compensation payments to fund the mural. The fact that the state was able to use provisions of the Reed Act to satisfy Maine law (One Percent For Art) in no way indicates it was unemployment compensation money depriving some one of benefits, or that it was money paid into the fund by some employers.

          • Anonymous

            Before you choose to respond again, please read the following.

            Unemployment insurance taxes, which are required for most employers, have two components – a state unemployment tax (SUTA) and a federal unemployment tax (FUTA).

            Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund
            Under federal law, the state portion goes directly into the unemployment-insurance trust fund. The state trust fund and interest on deposits can be used only to pay benefits; the state has no flexibility on its use.

            The Reed Act
            The state also has access to federal unemployment-insurance funds through the Reed Act Account, which allows some flexibility and can be used for expenses other than benefits, provided the use is legislatively appropriated.

            Reed Act distributions
            Historically, when the statutory caps were close to being reached, the caps were simply increased by Congress in order to keep the funds in the federal accounts, making the federal deficit appear to be smaller.

            In 2002, the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act (TEUCA) directed a $8 billion Reed Act distribution to the states (double what would have been warranted under normal circumstances). The Washington State allocation was $167 million and was transferred to the state’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund.

            Permissible uses of Reed Act money
            The state legislature must appropriate Reed Act funds. The states have some latitude in the use of a Reed Act distribution, with limited federal oversight. The funds can be used to pay unemployment benefits, to cover unemployment-insurance or employment-service administrative costs and, in some circumstances, can be used as a revolving fund for major infrastructure investments, such as data-processing installations. Reed Act expenditures for qualifying infrastructure investments can be amortized through federal grants, without interest. These amortization payments are re-deposited into the state’s Reed Act account and restore a balance that can then be used again.

            To Review

            1) Unemployment insurance taxes have two components

            2) State unemployment tax may be used only for unemployment benefits

            3) Excess federal unemployment taxes go into Reed Act Account, which has more flexibility

            The funds used CAME FROM EXCESS FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS AND WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WHERE THEY WERE USED TO PAY FOR A PIECE OF ART.

            And that Dear ademain is, as they say “the rest of the story”.

          • Anonymous

            While I have not read the section of the Social Security Act referred to in the letter, it should be noted that the funds were transferred TO the Maine unemployment compensation funds FOR administrative purposes, the commissioning of the mural in this particular case. The funds were not transferred FROM the Maine unemployment fund. So saying that it was funds to help the unemployed is not based on available written material. The Social Security Act referred to may or may not have anything to do with unemployment compensation to the unemployed. Since I have downloaded the pdf of the letter I will at some time look up the reference, but not today.

  • Anonymous

    These Tea Freaks like to wave flags and talk about the Constitution, but evidently they believe they can ignore due process and the honoring of valid contracts.There are laws in place to protect the citizenry (even misguided ideologues) from overzealous rule.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, and when the OMAN shafted GM’s bond holders and non-union employees who lost most of their retirement with thab bailout was called what?

  • poormaniac

    I happen to think that once an article is paid for it no longer belongs to the individual who created it.  Consider this for instance : I buy a house and tear down a portion or all of it to make it more to my liking , am I wrong to not consult the original builder to see if it’s OK.  I consider every house I ever built to be a work of art. Art by the hands of many artists. I really do think the new owner can do what he wants with it ! Do you see the foolishness of the free speech suit ?

    • Anonymous

       IF you signed a contract with those terms, yes, your are wrong. Try remodeling a house on the historic register. The new owner was not LePage, it was the people of Maine.

      • poormaniac

        I don’t believe the people of Maine were contacted when this painting was erected !

Similar Articles