This week, ClickBack asked editorial page readers on what red tape to cut in Maine government’s regulatory process, sex offender laws and the state’s biggest political contributor, R. Donald Sussman.
What red tape would you cut?
Eliminate the Maine DEP. They are nothing but another hurdle to jump for business that might wish to set up operations in Maine. Their regulations are pulled directly from the federal EPA rules and requirements, chich also have to be followed by any potential business.
If you were given a choice, which would you choose? A state that isn’t duplicating regulations that you have already satisfied or one with only one agency to deal with?
Maine people want businesses that add value, that contribute to society and are responsible for all of their own environmental and labor costs. How on Earth does cutting through the barrier to externalizing these costs onto taxpayers through wage-subsidizing welfare and staggering environmental restoration promote businesses that are good for Maine?
Get rid of all DEP and Education and law enforcement and welfare and the DOT and the legislature should be cut in half as well as the senate. Then close down the bridges and turnpike! This is for starters under Republican leadership.
How should Maine craft sex offender laws?
Just because a predator prefers to victimize his own family doesn’t confer any protection on other people. If the predator or his victims move away or the victims grow up, his perverted tendencies won’t disappear. He’ll just choose new victims.
Perhaps Maine’s sex offender registry shouldn’t have more lax requirements than surrounding states. This might encourage unwanted migration into the state.
The single most important precaution is the vigilance of the parents.
When caught, sex offenders need to be classified, realistically, as to the potential for re-offending. Those deemed to be predators, with a high risk of repeating their practices need to be put in permanent, secure, housing, where they are kept from the rest of society.
What do you make of R. Donald Sussman?
Mr. Sussman, along with the rest of America’s ultra wealthy, are seriously influencing our elections as they are entitled under the 1st Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. The logical method to counteract this undue influence while at the same time easing a little of our current financial crisis is the tax code. All political contributions should be taxed at a steep rate — 90 percent would be effectual.
Is Mr. Sussman giving his own money or that of his investors? If he is acting on his own and using his personal money and a U.S. citizen, I see no problem with him donating to the causes he supports.
I do, however, have deep concerns when corporations who are controlled by the stockholders (who could be from any country on earth) using their stockholders money to finance campaigns or run campaigns on their own.
Mr. Sussman has been very generous with his personal wealth and given to many causes that go unnoticed to the general population. It doesn’t tell the whole story to just have the political side of his contributions in the news.
It seems that one of his guiding principles is to contribute where it helps the most people, such as a hospital and a care center where politics and candidates don’t matter. He has been very generous in ways that have helped some of Maine’s fishing communities and doesn’t hesitate to help even at the individual level.
I thank him for including Maine in his contribution portfolio.