Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Maine's New Two Year Budget

Always the centerpiece of any legislative session, the Maine legislature passed and the Governor has signed a new two-year budget which will govern state spending and impact many of the aspects of our lives -- including education, transportation, public safety, health and taxes.

There was no doubt that we started the budget discussions in a hole -- with an estimated budget shortfall of over $800 million dollars if we held all spending levels according to the Revenue Forecasting Committee. That did not even take into account the new needs and priorities that were emerging. To put that shortfall in context -- the final budget that was passed was $6.1 billion, so the estimated shortfall as we began the process was very significant.

At the same time, it was not only the state that was feeling the budget pinch -- all of Maine’s municipalities were being pressed too -- with rising costs, particularly for health care and energy. The result was that reductions on the state level would have a ripple effect for local government and for local taxpayers, too.

Against this backdrop, Governor LePage presented a budget that would make deep cuts in many programs -- particularly in health and human services and in sharing expenses with municipalities through general assistance, revenue sharing and school funding. At the same time, the Governor was proposing a significant tax cut for Maine’s wealthiest individuals and some Maine businesses.

The Appropriations Committee went to work against a backdrop of shifting proposals as additional shortfalls and expenses were identified and the Governor introduced a change package that included even deeper cuts and more changes to programs. Given the timing of the budget negotiations, it was necessary to pass the budget by a 2/3rds majority so it would take effect at the beginning of the fiscal year -- July 1st.

Since January, I have received dozens of phone calls and hundreds of emails from residents of District 92. The overwhelming majority of these contacts were from individuals asking me to oppose the budget. I continued to participate in the budget compromise process and engage with our neighbors to learn more about the potential impacts of this budget here at home in the River Valley and the rest of the district.

At the end of the process, many compromises were reached and some of the more drastic cuts in services were restored, but other important areas remained unfunded or underfunded. I had pledged to support a budget that did not shift more burdens to our local governments and local taxpayers -- while setting priorities in key areas including education, transportation and services for Maine’s most vulnerable citizens -- seniors, children and people with a disability.

Ultimately, I was not convinced that the budget proposed by the Committee would meet those goals. While the final product was a great improvement over the Governor’s original proposals, I did not think it provided enough protections for local governments and would result in hardships -- either cutbacks in local services or local property tax increases. As a result, I went against the leadership of my caucus and voted against the budget, because I believed we could have found a better balance.

I hope that this new budget does not end up shifting a greater responsibility to local governments for services, or place our most vulnerable citizens at greater risk. As the budget is implemented and programs are reconfigured, we will see the results of these new approaches. I am sure that the conversation will continue, as the Governor has already committed to coming back in the next session with new proposals that will further change Maine’s budget priorities.

I always enjoy hearing from you about issues, concerns, or ways that I can be of assistance. I am here to represent you -- and I do that best if I know what you are thinking. You can reach me by e-mail at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Thank you, Dick Austin

Thank you to Richard "Dick" Austin--a local legend and a national treasure for his world-record-breaking accomplishments in power lifting--for this wonderful Letter to the Editor that appeared in the Rumford Falls Times last week:

To the Editor:

If you have not read as yet the article in our local newspaper, written by our legislator, Matt Peterson, you are missing out on up front, in your face information that will positively impress you.

His stance is so rigid and sensible as to defy any negative criticism from any party member.

Presently taking on the state to recertify boxing once again is exciting and worthwhile, he has managed to gather details to an acceptable form for the state to consider that their rejection will certainly be questionable at best.

I just want to voice my appreciation to a man who is truly doing the job he was elected to do and as voters wee will be very mistaken if we don't keep him in office for the full term allowed by law.

My hat is off to you Matt. Keep up the good and useful work that benefits us all.

Richard G. Austin,

Rumford

http://www.rumfordfallstimes.com/opinion/story/05austinlte20

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

My Remarks on LD 83, "An Act To Legalize the Sale, Possession and Use of Fireworks"

We are currently debating LD 83, "An Act To Legalize The Sale, Possession and Use of Fireworks." I supported the passage of this bill and spoke in favor of the bill from the floor of the House of Representatives. The bill passed the House by a vote of 79-63. My remarks are reprinted below:
>
Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I want to add my voice in support of the current motion.

While this may not be the most important matter that we've considered this session -- especially now that we have the great Whoopee Pie / Blueberry Pie debate behind us -- I think our vote here sends a message....

Do we really need to continue to maintain laws that criminalize the use of fireworks? Our efforts at criminalization have not stopped fireworks from coming in to the state and being used. All we have done is make this illegal and force the use of fireworks into more furtive settings...

In my corner of the state, western Maine, fireworks have a rich tradition. Our community display in Rumford was known statewide at one time before budget constraints forced its discontinuation. When the town stopped formally putting on a display, folks individually began a holiday tradition--like in many other parts of the state--of driving into New Hampshire to pick up fireworks for private celebrations with family and friends. A few weeks from now, these informal fireworks displays will light the skies in the River Valley and elsewhere in the state. Why do we make this illegal?

By passing this bill we accomplish two things. First we send a message to our citizens that we think they can be responsible in acquiring and using fireworks -- and we can be very specific about the kinds of fireworks that we deem safer for use. We allow people to acquire and use things that are much more dangerous than fireworks – things like snowmobiling and ATV’ing -- so why can’t we trust our citizens to use fireworks responsibly?

In fact, data from other states indicates that legalizing and regulating fireworks actually ends up being safer for citizens. According to the Indiana Department of Health, over the four years since fireworks were legalized there in 2006, fireworks-related injuries have actually decreased every year. And nationally, according to the American Pyrotechnics Association, while consumption of consumer fireworks has gone up, injuries are down. This data shows that with legalization comes education, awareness and more responsible use.

Second -- we create opportunities for new businesses, or new profitable lines of trade at existing businesses, when fireworks can be legally sold by licensed vendors. We spend a lot of time in this body talking about New Hampshire’s competitive advantages on certain taxes. We are at an even greater disadvantage when it comes to fireworks – Mainers cross the border everyday to New Hampshire to buy fireworks, and tourists heading to Maine stop off and buy fireworks in New Hampshire when they should be buying them here.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense legislation -- and I’ll be HAPPY to invite all of you to Roxbury Pond to see the fireworks after we have made it a legal activity here in Maine... Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Concluding the Budget Debate

While every legislative session deals with countless policy issues among the hundreds of bills it considers (almost 1600 and counting), there is no place that sets state policy more clearly than the two-year budget. Today the Legislature will begin considering the biennial budget that has received unanimous approval by the Joint Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs and was printed over the weekend.

This budget compromise was developed after hundreds of hours of public testimony and even more hours of negotiations involving administration officials, advocates, lobbyists and members of the legislature. The new budget must take effect on July 1st and therefore must receive support from 2/3rds of the members of the Maine Legislature. Maine’s constitution directs that laws become effective 90 days after adjournment, unless they are passed as emergency measures with a 2/3rds vote. That requirement virtually insures that all state budgets are bi-partisan in nature because they must either meet the 2/3rds test or be completed by March 31st -- a deadline that is very difficult to meet given the complexity of the budget process.

The Governor uses his budget proposal to reflect his priorities and occasionally to send a message to people he views as hostile to his interests (like proposing to cut state subsidies to Maine Public Broadcasting). The legislature works through these budget proposals -- which are constantly evolving as the Governor introduces “Change Packages.” The budget process reminds me of my recent experience having some renovations done to my house to make it more accessible. The state budget -- like that building project -- contained a number of surprises once we got into it, took longer to complete and cost more than anticipated. But just like my renovation project -- I couldn’t spend more on it than I had -- so I had to make some choices and make do in some areas. Sound familiar?

Every budget debate that I have observed, both as a legislator and as an advocate, concludes with all sides claiming victory. Expect the same to happen this year. The Governor likely will claim that he has fundamentally changed the direction of state spending and set us on a new path of sustainable government, including a reduction of the tax rate for Maine’s highest tax bracket. Others will claim that they have fought to retain the “safety net” even though it is a bit more frayed than it was in previous years.

Others will claim that the budget went too far in cutting this or that, while some will argue that the reductions or tax cuts did not go far enough. This is as predictable as the plots on many prime time television shows.

There are important questions that must be answered by this budget, and these are the areas where I will focus my attention during the debates.

First, have we just shifted the tax burden from the state income tax and sales tax to the local property tax? Known among advocates for municipal issues in Augusta as “shift and shaft” have we just reduced funding for state initiatives or mandates and left them for municipalities to fund? The property tax burden in the River Valley is already an issue for many of our residents living on a fixed income or struggling with the economic fallout from the recession. Our local leaders have worked hard to balance local budgets and keep the property tax burden as low as possible. Reductions in state subsidies -- for education, general assistance, or revenue sharing -- can create additional burdens for our municipalities.
If this budget merely shifts the burden for paying for services from the state to the municipalities -- I will not support it.

Second, does the budget provide adequate funding for infrastructure investments -- maintaining our roads and bridges as a key example? Such investments are important on many levels. The quality of our roads means additional safety in all our travels -- especially when the weather creates challenging conditions. Just as important, infrastructure projects create quality construction jobs that cannot be “exported.” I have met many people in the River Valley who made a transition from work at the mill to work in heavy construction -- like roads, bridges or public utilities. These are quality jobs that allow people to maintain their standard of living, even as employment in the mill has become more limited.

An infrastructure investment in transportation resources insures that we can maintain a diverse economy that includes tourist visits. Those visits contribute to our area as well. It is not just the direct jobs, either. Ask anyone who owns a convenience store near a road construction project and you’ll likely hear about some very good months of business. We all benefit from investments in infrastructure and if this state budget does not make room for such investments, I won’t support it.

Finally, the state has a responsibility to provide for folks who cannot adequately provide for themselves. Our seniors, children, people with a severe disability, or those with debilitating medical conditions, deserve our support so they can maintain themselves with dignity and remain a part of our community. Health care providers, facilities such as hospitals and nursing homes, as well as community based service providers should receive the resources they need to continue to serve all our citizens. If the safety net has been undermined, I will not support the budget.

This week will tell the tale. I will be listening carefully to the debate on the floor and all the information I can get from my colleagues and other experts. The three big areas of concern I have described above will inform my decisions as the budget is discussed. As always, I welcome you input and feedback as well. Contact me by e-mail at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.

In next week’s column I will give more details about the final shape of the budget.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Update From Augusta

One of the most interesting discussions of the week was a floor debate on amending the Maine Constitution to reduce the size of the Maine House of Representatives. As you may imagine, the debate was heated and extensive as views were freely exchanged. It’s never easy for a room full of politicians to agree, but especially if they are talking about possible changes to their own status. Reducing the number of representatives looks like a big game of musical chairs to some of my colleagues.

After listening to the debate, I decided to support this initiative. Unfortunately, the measure failed and voters will not get the opportunity to consider such a constitutional amendment. However, that was the argument that convinced me. One speaker in favor of the measure pointed out that it had been over 100 years since the people of Maine had the opportunity to vote on the size of the House of Representatives.

A lot has changed in the last 100 years, and it certainly seemed reasonable to me to get the voters of Maine directly involved in the discussion about the institutions -- like the Maine House of Representatives -- that make or execute our laws. I could be convinced either way -- to shrink the House, or leave it the same size. The most important consideration is the people’s voice. Hearing from voters every 100 years does not seem excessive to me, so I would have welcomed the opportunity to have this public debate and involve more citizens. Perhaps some time in the future.

During that floor debate, one of my colleagues from southern Maine made a very thoughtful observation about the increasingly larger role that lobbyists are playing in shaping our laws. As a freshman legislator, she expressed strong and legitimate concerns about the influence these paid lobbyists have on the shape of legislation.

Her concerns are important and go to the heart of the quality of our government. Since we instituted term limits the dynamics at the State House have changed. Every electoral system has advantages and disadvantages. The trade-off with term limits is complex. The positive benefits of fresh ideas and more even distribution of power outside of a system based on seniority are tremendous. On the other side however, there is diminished “institutional knowledge” as members tenure is reduced -- and that makes the knowledge of lobbyists more influential in the decision-making process.

Every legislator wants to make informed choices in representing the people that they serve. We hold extensive public hearings, receive numerous telephone calls, countless e-mails, and an endless stream of face-to-face conversations and discussions. Lobbyists are a resource in those discussions and deliberations. The best situation is when opposing views are both ably represented by advocates. This is a short-cut to understanding the arguments, having access to third-party information, and finally -- deciding on a vote. On highly technical issues this information can be very important to a quality outcome.

Unfortunately, there is also a darker side to the lobbying industry in Augusta -- and it is an industry. This week, I had an unpleasant encounter with a lobbyist who, instead of having direct communications, was spreading a good bit of misinformation. Our exchange was civil and courteous, and ultimately the facts won out over the disinformation, but the situation highlighted the impacts that lobbyists have on the process.

That brings me back around to hearing the voice of the citizens. It is essential to our democracy. When appropriate, I think people should be able to weigh in at the polls -- expressing their opinions directly. Just as important, I value the contacts I get from constituents. Just as an example, a contact from this time last year by a maple syrup producer in the far end of District 92 resulted in legislation signed by Governor LePage last week that will strengthen the Maine maple industry.

Your ideas, your opinions and your concerns shape my work in Augusta. I am always happy to hear from you about issues, concerns, or ways that I can be of assistance. You can reach me by e-mail at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.