When you go to the polls next Tuesday, cast your ballot in favor of Questions 2, 3, 4 and 5. These bonds will create jobs for construction workers, carpenters, contractors, engineers, equipment dealers, tourism businesses, farmers, loggers and commercial fishing families. These are not jobs for nameless, faceless strangers but for your friends, neighbors and family members.
Even while other states are starting to climb out of the recession, Maine lags behind the rest of the nation in new job growth and continues to face an uncertain economic future. With more than 50,000 Mainers looking for jobs, these bonds could greatly reduce the number of people not collecting a paycheck. An analysis by the Maine Center for Economic Policy shows the bonds will create up to 3,000 jobs.
In addition, the federal government and private sector share in the investment to create these jobs. The four bonds, totaling $75 million, makes Maine eligible for at least $150 million more in matching funds. Think about that in terms of your own budget. If you needed $3,000 to repair your leaking roof, and the bank was willing to loan you half and pay for the other half, interest-free, would you take it? Especially when interest rates are at their lowest and your good credit gives you an even better rate?
Maine’s credit rating is good. Interest rates are low. And these investments will put people to work.
Not only would more Mainers have money in their pockets to support their families and spend at local businesses, the bonds will also contribute to long-term prosperity. They will give us safer roads and bridges causing less wear and tear on our cars. We also will have cleaner drinking water, high-quality university research capacity and lands to conserve our farming, forestry and fishing communities.
Question 2 asks voters to invest $11.3 million in new equipment and improvements for the University of Maine, Maine Community College System and Maine Maritime System. The bulk of this would go for a new biologically safe laboratory at the University of Maine. We need up-to-date equipment and science to combat new and ever-more-dangerous outbreaks of food and animal contamination such as E. coli, bird flu and West Nile virus. University-trained scientists will attract research dollars and create jobs here in Maine.
Question 3 asks voters to approve $5 million for the Land for Maine’s Future program. Funds will buy easements to conserve working farmlands, for example. Where rolling fields of hay or apple trees or pastures for dairy cows used to dot Maine’s landscape, we now often see housing developments. In 2002, an American Farmland Trust study showed that the United States was losing two acres of farmland every minute to development. In Maine the rapid loss of farmland puts farmers out of business and hurts our local economies.
Question 4 asks voters for $51.5 million to improve roads, bridges, airports and seaports. We all know how bad our roads are. A recent national transportation report proves it to us. Thirty-three percent of Maine’s roads are in poor or mediocre condition, costing the average Maine motorist $299 a year in tire wear, increased fuel use, repair costs and accelerated vehicle depreciation ($301 million annually for all of us combined). More sobering is that of the 169 highway accident fatalities in Maine each year, one-third — or 56 deaths — can be attributed to poor road infrastructure, such as narrow lanes and shoulders, unsafe intersections and lack of guardrails and medians.
Question 5 asks voters to invest $7.9 million for systems to clean up our drinking water. In Maine, more than half of us get our water from public water systems. We all want to be assured that the water we drink is safe. Encroaching development can sometimes contaminate groundwater. These funds will allow public water utilities to buy land around their wells and make other improvements to protect groundwater and wellheads. It will also allow communities to treat wastewater and test water quality.
Investing in our roads, research laboratories, drinking water systems and conservation lands directly and quickly puts people to work. These workers then have paychecks to pay for food, gasoline, car repairs and mortgages that support small businesses and help our communities prosper.
The decision is simple. Invest wisely. Create jobs.
Jody Harris is a policy analyst with the Maine Center for Economic Policy.
Sounds good. Expecting to hear from the Rs/Tpers who are always crying for more jobs.
Are we creating jobs or merely funding positions with taxpayer dollars. How much of the matching funds used here to support the initiatives will be borrowed from China. Based on the logic employed in the article, perhaps we should borrow a couple of 100 million and all our job worries will disappear. Liberal answer to all problems is SPEND whether you have the money or not.
Like the former ads for an auto lubrication shop used to say, “You can pay me now or you can pay me later”. Governments (and companies) have had to borrow funds for centuries. Smooths out the inevitable hills and valleys in funding. The bonds make good investments too, “Munis” for government bonds, Commercial Paper for companies. Not a “liberal” answer, but good business (and that’s who Rs and TPers are supposed for, right?).
Lots of folks on the left begrudge business holding onto money and not investing in their business creating jobs. Have you ever considered where that money is? No not in the Caymans. :) It is sitting in safe government debt issues funding all this government spending.
But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. ~~~~~ JFK 14 December 1962
So, where is the private spending to fund these necessary projects?
Your post made comment on the use of private money to fund government bonds. I was merely mentioning that it already was and in fact as JFK indicated was removing it from use to create private sector jobs.
I’m always amused when people talk about borrowing from China. You make it sound like China owns most of the U.S. debt when it fact it only owns between 12-15% of it. The vast majority of debt is owned by Americans. Anyway when I see people saying things like this I know they have no idea what they are talking about.
The percentage is still large enough that China could call the shots on anything if they chose, from our trade policy, foreign policy to human rights.
No it isn’t high enough. Not even close to being high enough. And yes we’ve noticed how China calls the shots on our trade policy, and foreign policy and human rights. Sure they could. Ever wonder why China buys U.S. Bonds? It’s because it’s a good SAFE investment, that’s why.
They do all those things you know. The Chinese would never have charged into the South China Sea and taken the Spratley Islands a decade ago if they didn’t hold the levers they do now.
Now they are building city there that will strengthen their claim to the Sea routes as their national waters, not to mention gravely challenge competing claims from the Philippines, Vietnam Malaysia Indonesia….
http://www.spratlyisland.com/china-starts-building-infrastructure-in-south-china-sea-city
I know there are any number of people, including strategic policy wonks, that argue the conventional wisdom that China buying our bonds are stabilizing relations. There is however a growing number who think otherwise.
http://www.realclearworld.com/2012/10/26/the_us-china_cyber_trade_war_141573.html
I have a number of recent Asian immigrant friends I socialize with. They have kind of an inside joke. “China and the US are on a tetter-totter. Right now China holds up America with her weight and all that China needs to do is get off.”
The Chinese have not taken over the Spratly Islands. They have taken SOME of the islands and they lay claim to islands along with the Phillipines, Vietnam, Korea and others.
And yes let’s listen to the small, right-wing minority that says China buying our bonds is bad for us especially since China buys so many, yeah, right.
Oh and certainly let’s not forget those insightful Asian friends who know all about and are the experts on U.S.-Chinese relations.
The Chinese claim the entire South China Sea as their territorial waters. The new “city” solidifies their claim. These are real concerns and a flashpoint in relations dismissing them as the product of a right-wing minority misses what is really happening.
http://img.chinasmack.com/www/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/disputed-claims-in-the-south-china-sea-map.jpg
LOL..ah yes. Seems some of us always have to have an enemy. Guess now it’s the “Chinese horde”, or “Yellow Peril”.
The time is now for these bonds and the low interest rates.
“The four bonds, totaling $75 million, makes Maine eligible for at least
$150 million more in matching funds. Think about that in terms of your
own budget. If you needed $3,000 to repair your leaking roof, and the
bank was willing to loan you half and pay for the other half,
interest-free, would you take it?”
Yes I would. If it was from the bank. This isn’t. Its from the Feds. Metaphorically its my other pocket and perhaps we can fool ourselves for a moment but we will have to pay that back too. Just sayin’.
To be precise, Maine taxpayers would ‘net’ about $45 million on that federal money, so these bonds add $180 million to Mainers’ future expenses. Spending $180 million to get $225 million may still be a good deal, but is it good enough to justify giving up our ability to spend that $180 million for something else we may need badly in the future?
True, though if we don’t use it, it will go to another state that will. The feds aren’t going to be “giving it back”, regardless of who is in congress or the white house.
While 2 and 3 seem to me as at least worthy of debate, infrastructure (4+5) is an investment in the future – necessity, not luxury. Pay now, or pay later, at a higher premium. Either way, it’s going to have to be done.
Here is another idea to create jobs. Convert every public building in the state of Maine to wood boilers. It makes no sense to be surrounded by trees and send millions and millions off to Saudi Arabia every winter. That money would employ a lot of Mainers cutting the wood, working the wood up, and stoking the wood boilers. Or, we could just keep sending our raw wood to Canada to be processed and keep sending our hard earned tax dollars to the middle east.
Actually we get most of our oil from Canada, at least here in Maine.
Also as a note – the US has the 2nd largest (after the Saudis) oil reserves in the world. Speaks for itself….
You may not as far off the mark as some might think you are since Millinocket’s bio-coal plant is suppossed to come on line next summer. If Europe can burn bio-coal then there is no reason we can’t. Might there be a retrofitting needed of the current boiler system’s ? Probably but then there’s another job creator being made. And the money Maine spends on fuel oil might be used for other thing’s, like maybe bringing the dam’s back so we can get off the Quebec Hydro merry-go-round and again generate our own power. Anyway you look at it Voice, you have made the obvious, and badly needed, point for all to see.
Take the LFMF out of the bond package and I might vote for it.. Who are these people who want to buy land to preserve and maintain. Using taxpayer dollars.. I will have to come up with an idea of a pet project claiming it’s for the people and somehow getting the taxpayer to fund it… Lands for Maines Future won’t let me drive my ATV’s on Maine property. This outfit wants to control everything about it.. I want to harvest trees on LFMF and give the firewood to the poor.. Why should 100 Maine hikers decide what can be done on Maines land.. ATV’s should be allowed to travel any trail that hikers use..
No to the bonds. No Compromise.
Hint: They are separate questions, you can vote yes on one, and no on another.
The State of Maine owes 14 billion dollars right now.. Most due to Angus and John selling revenue generators off to balance their budjet.. Angus sc-wrd the students by selling off student loans and John sold off liquor for balancing the budjet.. Over half of Maines yearly budget is to pay off debt and pensions and people want to borrow more… this is a lose/lose. Just say no. 3000 temp jobs then the unemployent cost after the jobs are gone..
” Over half of Maines yearly budget is to pay off debt and pensions and people want to borrow more.” Hope you can back that up with some real figures. Bet you can’t,
I am curious where your data comes from.
The State Treasurer currently shows Maine’s debt as being just over $1 billion.
http://www.maine.gov/treasurer/debts_bonds/debt_summary.html
Me also. This is the best I can find and it isn’t broken down.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-maine-debt-clock.html
No New Taxes. Please.
No new borrowing…We can’t afford it…
Yes, let’s wait until interest rates are much higher before we borrow. We wouldn’t want the banks and investors to loan us money at such paltry rates as exist now. Of course, by then the cost of materials and labor will be so much higher so we will have to borrow even more money to accomplish the same goal.
Whoops… Sorry, I was reading from the republicant playbook.
Long term bonds have a floating interest rate. It is hard to say what the interest rate will be in 5 years.
Believe it or not this is one case we do agree. Long term bond’s need, now, to have their interest rate’s locked in before they are voted on. But unfortunately this arguement is useless since LePage has already made his position on ANY bond very clear. And that’s going to cost Maine a lot over the next 10 year’s.
Except bonds are not necessarily “locked in” like your house mortgage. Often they “float”, usually off some standard like the current “prime” rate. At least that is my understanding. I m not certain if these are fixed or float and more often they float as this is more equitable to the purchaser and she may not purchase them otherwise. Example: A low fixed rate may not gain purchasers as if inflation were to take off the purchaser may be loosing money at a fixed rate.
Let just patch roads an lower the speed limit an then the police can crack down on speeders the state could make a lot of money that way
LOL bonds are a joke. When my taxes go DOWN I will support them. All a bond is a payday loan only we pay the interest!
Even if the bond issues pass, which they all should, will LePage actually permit them to be used or will he do as he’s done in the past and refuse to issue them? I think a lot of people are unaware of just how much income, hence taxes, bonds create. It’s not just the money for what ever the bond is to be used for but there is a large “trickle-down” if you will. Employers hire more people, who buy more goods that results in new manufactures resulting in more hiring, more buying. It’s good for the economy and good for the State. Obviously there are limits but I don’t know what they are and I doubt any of the other commentors on here do.
From the article:
“With more than 50,000 Mainers looking for jobs, these bonds could greatly reduce the number of people not collecting a paycheck. An analysis by the Maine Center for Economic Policy shows the bonds will create up to 3,000 jobs.”
I suggest that we pony-up here folks. Let’s scale this puppy up and get all the jobs at once out of the same voting booth. If 75 million will buy 3,000 jobs lets go for 17 times more. That’s a mere 1.275 B. While that may sound like real money just think of the results it will bring! Everyone who wants a job will have one, or two even. Utopia here we come.
BONDS ARE NOTHING BUT LOANS! Loans that must be paid back with interest!
Why not save the money in an interest bearing account for these future expenditures?
I will vote against all bonds!
How far would you suggest we let the roads decay before we act? It’s not a “future” need, it’s a need for today.
When it comes to infrastructure, it is much cheaper in the long term to be proactive than it is to be reactive. The same holds true for an analogy about a home or a car.
Think it through – your “plan” would not save money in the long term, it would lose it.
Road maintenance in my opinion should be part of a normal budget. If not why not bond issue snowplowing and lawn mowing? Bridges I can see as you are talking every 25-30 years or so. But road maintenance that you know you will need next year?
If repair or replacement (vs patching and coating) was to be included with road and sewer budgets then taxes would need to be raised, wouldn’t they?
Either way, it’s not an avoidable cost as some seem to suggest. It’s a necessity. By all means we should try to do it as efficiently as possible and save taxpayers as much as possible, though the “don’t spend anything on nothing” crowd, such as Bill here, need to start thinking realistically and propose something constructive (hur!) for a change.
Just for my information how often are roads…. “replaced” as opposed to “patch & coat”? 10 years…. 15?
I claim no expertise, though wear and tear, weather and original foundation are all factors, so the catch all “it depends” certainly applies.
It’s snarky (and Cecil is far from un-biased), though this was a pretty good summary, regardless of source:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2974/why-cant-they-make-highways-last-forever
Up here in The County the road’s are repaved, not replaced (We wish !) just about every 3 years. Problem is that the road’s were never built properly, for the load’s they carry, and just keep getting band-aid maintenance. The only road that does get proper maintenance is -95, and that’s paid for mostly by the Fed’s, who, by way of Susie Collins, also now have raised the weight limit’s. From seeing what’s running on The County’s road’s, that removal of weight restriction’s hasn’t done much since there are even more 80k + rig’s running on Rt’s 1, 2, 2A and 11 not to mention the local cross road connector’s.
Question 4 is the only one I would like to see passed in our present economy. We all benefit from such improved infrastructure in a real and concrete way (pardon the pun). I am less sure about the absolute necessity of the other bonds.