1. What are your three top priorities?

a.  Encourage a strong economy and healthy business climate
b.  Reduce the overall tax burden
c.  Make health care and insurance more affordable

2. The past few years, Maine Housing Authority has utilized the HOME Fund (Housing Opportunities for Maine) to help finance fundamental programs as loans for first-time homebuyers, housing for people who are homeless, affordable rental housing, home repair, and housing for people with special needs. The Fund also helps finance programs that makes homes safer for children and makes homes accessible for people with disabilities. Over the last two years, the legislature has considered taking money from the HOME Fund in order to balance the budget. If elected, would you support the protection of the HOME fund? If so, what other ways would you suggest balancing the budget?

In order to balance the budget on an annual basis, we must do a better job at projecting revenues and expenses, responsibly and within our means.  We need to work with all legislators to come up with a tangible list of programs and services that are ranked by order of importance and necessity, and utilize that list when it is time to make funding decisions.

The HOME Fund provides important services and it should receive reasonable, committed funding without fear of losing promised funds.  However, it should also be evaluated and compared along with all other programs and services offered by government to insure it is the best use of funds based on the needs of our communities at that time.

3. A major concern among young people is the rising cost of health care. 17,000 more Mainers are now uninsured since HMOs first arrived in Maine.  State-funded health care programs like MaineCare is facing consistent cuts, while publicly financed heath insurance like Dirigo, has a current freeze on new applicants. Many First World countries have supported comprehensive health care systems that cover every person with health care. Within the United States, states like Massachusetts and Maine have taken steps towards universal, comprehensive health care coverage. Would you support state legislation for universal single payer health care in Maine?

No, I do not support universal single payer health care on the state level.

First, HMOs are not the cause of the current health care situation in Maine.  In 1993, Maine, one of only 7 remaining states to do so, passed Community Rating and Guaranteed Issuance laws regulating the health care industry.  These laws do not allow private health insurance companies the ability to accurately assess the risks they would assume by insuring a person.  When you do not know the risks involved, prices for insurance premiums are increased to cover the risk of increased, unknown liabilities. 

Secondly, since the regulations passed in 1993, many insurance companies that were doing business in the state have since left, leaving Anthem holding approximately 75% of private health insurance policies.  When any one company lacks significant competition, you can expect prices to increase at will.  We have seen this to fruition over the past two years where Anthem premiums have increased by more than 12% each year.  This obviously makes health insurance more expensive, less affordable to the general public and results in a decrease in participation.

Third, the state has continuously tacked on fees and taxes on health care premiums and insurance companies in order to fund its attempt at universal health care.  The indirect result is that the insurance companies pass along these expenses to the consumer, making rates increase and health insurance less affordable.

Lastly, the concept of having single payer health care system sounds like a good idea on its face.  It makes sense to pool needs and use the combined buying power to lower the cost of typical and commonly used services and products (much like Wal-Mart).  However, when you get in to the intricacies and details, it becomes much more unreasonable.  Using Dirigo as a model – we can begin to project the potential costs associated with a state run single payer system.  Right now, the state has 15 employees administrating the Dirigo program with a budget of $1.5 million per year.  Dirigo currently covers approximately 18,000 people.  If we now need to cover 1.3 million people in Maine – using simple math and the same ratios as above, projected numbers now look like this: $1,500,000/18,000= $83.33 per person – So if we now try to cover 1.3 million people, the cost translates to $108,329,000 for administration of a program that size.  This number of course could be manipulated a number of ways.  It also assumes that Dirigo is administered efficiently – which I believe is incorrect.  But the bottom line is that, without dealing with the additional costs such as benefits for employees, workspace, business equipment, etc., we would be looking at a minimum of a $100 million investment.  In order to make it worthwhile, the program would need to save more than $100 million in costs just to brake even – which says absolutely nothing to the fact that it is created to reduce the costs for our people, not keep it the same.  Perhaps this is a bit unorthodox – but let me ask a question – has anyone done a detailed study on this scenario?  How would you or anyone else propose paying for a program like this?

The way to help more Mainer’s have access to health care is to make it more affordable.  We can do that by reducing regulations and increasing competition in the state.  This would also reduce the number of people relying on state subsidies or government run health care programs; thereby reducing the impact it has on our state budget (it could exceed $100 million in savings without having to spend $100 million in administration costs). 

4. It seems that every month there is another recall or concern about children's toys or consumer products.   The fact is that Maine families are exposed to hazardous toxic chemicals found in the consumer products that we use everyday. Toxic chemicals in the environment are among the causes of critical health problems that can be prevented. What would you do to help Maine ensure that hazardous chemicals in everyday consumer products are replaced with safer substitutes?

If I understand correctly, the LYV believes Maine should be involved at the state level when it comes to regulating consumer products.  If this is the case, it is not something I support.

We have departments at the federal level that monitor and regulate consumer products.  A state level program is a duplication of existing services already provided.  The cost of running a program of this magnitude would also require significant funding that is largely unavailable at this time. 

Inserting Maine into the already complicated and delicate international, federal, and state-to-state commerce regulatory environment would also be a mistake.  If Maine were to deem chemical X as “hazardous” in consumer products, would our business community (think local manufacturing) bear the brunt of the forced changes in the product.  Would they prefer to move their business out of state rather than comply?  If we don’t have reasonable answers to questions like these, and if we fail to fully understand the underlying impact of such a policy, we cannot pursue it without further, detailed studies.

I would propose that the Maine delegation, perhaps the Governor and other elected officials, work with our elected representatives on the federal level to insure that better monitoring and disclosures are made available to everyone in America, not just Maine.


5. The State of Maine is currently a participant in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an innovative project geared toward cutting global warming emissions by establishing a cap-and-trade system for power plant emissions.  Do you support Maine's participation in RGGI? Would you support the establishment of an economy-wide cap-and-trade program in Maine that would cut greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors (i.e. transportation, commercial and residential heating, etc.)?

Yes, I do support Maine’s efforts in the RGGI.  I consider myself to be a strong supporter of the environment and would work towards helping create programs to reduce emissions and I would work with the business community to encourage them to seek out alternative technologies to help reduce overall pollution.  I believe that incentives to businesses and consumers is always more desirable than imposed regulations – but I acknowledge that regulations are sometimes the only way to get some entities to comply with existing standards or to comply with the overall goal of creating a healthier environment.

I don’t know how a cap and trade program would work on a consumer level (i.e. transportation).  I would like to provide tax incentives for consumers that purchase Hybird vehicles and convert their homes to solar power and other energy efficient products.  One law that needs to be changed is the one that prohibits consumers with solar power to have battery packs.  Essentially this law requires all homeowners with solar power to tie into the existing CMP power lines and the house generates electricity for CMP.  The homeowner is given a maximum of $100 credit per month on their electric bill.  All electricity generated by the home is given to CMP to sell to other homeowners.  Not only are the consumers making a significant investment (minimum $10,000), they would not see any savings for approximately 10 years.  The bill was sponsored by John Brautigam (D – Portland) in 2004.  This amounts to nothing less than consumers doing the work of CMP while they profit from any extra energy created.  I see this as one of many examples of our elected officials here in Maine paying lip service to the “Green” movement, but doing absolutely nothing substantial to help us get closer to the goal of creating a healthier environment.

6. The Maine Department of Transportation estimates that it faces a shortfall of more than $2 billion to simply maintain the existing transportation infrastructure. What, if any, funding solution do you support: (yes or no)

a) LD 2019, An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Funding Passenger Rail, which would secure funding for transit by dedicating a portion of revenues from general fund sources like meals and lodging, sales tax, and car rental fees?

b) Using Maine Turnpike Authority funds, which are currently dedicated to highway maintenance and expansion, for all transportation projects, including transit?

c) Raising car rental fees to subsidize transit?

Each proposal has it’s own merit, and a combination of each should be considered to insure that we make a serious effort at bringing our aging infrastructure current.

It has become apparent that the state government has been negligent in future planning and maintenance of our transportation infrastructure.  Our budget should include a dedicated payment to fund future transportation needs and repairs.  I also believe that money collected by the MTA should be dedicated to all transportation projects.  Our tolls and fees should be based on infrastructure needs and the administration attached to those endeavors, nothing more or less.  If we get to a point where our transportation infrastructure is in good condition, fees should decrease, if we are in need of many repairs and expansion, fees for use of the highways and other transportation projects should increase to cover future repairs and replacements.

6a. Please detail other funding options you might propose or for which you might advocate:

Nothing additional to add at this time.

7. With the state facing a $200 million revenue shortfall in the current biennium (a projection that may change when April receipts are tallied).  Do you support increasing the sales tax in order to avoid balancing the budget entirely through program cuts? If you do not support a tax increase of any kind – and given that “enhanced government efficiencies” will provide only very modest savings if any at all -- which programs do you propose to cut and by how much?

At this point, the legislature has filled the budget gap.  They did this without raising the sales tax, something that I don’t support at this time.  However, if I could, I would propose eliminating income taxes for those people making less than $30,000/year.  If that plan were to take place, then I would strongly consider an increase in the sales tax.

The assertion that “enhanced government efficiencies” would provide modest savings at best is something that I don’t agree with.  We have many duplicative programs in our state government that we could consolidate to deliver essential services more efficiently and cost effectively.  I would always look for internal savings before raising our 2nd highest in the nation tax burden any further.

8. As municipalities continue to provide what are increasingly expensive public goods (like education, police and fire protection), what is your plan for controlling growth in property taxes while maintaining these fundamental government services?

The problem that we face right now with local property taxes is two fold.  First, our state government and elected officials have failed to fully fund the people’s mandate from 2004 to provide 55% of educational funding to the municipalities.  I strongly advocate that our state government comply with the people’s mandate and fully fund the 55% education level.  If we do provide full funding, the municipalities will have more money for their budgets and thus there would be less pressure on the local property tax burden.

The second part of this problem is caused at the local level.  School enrollments are in decline in Portland and the budget increases have been outpacing current levels of funding.  This year alone, more than 2/3 of the proposed school budget increase will be going to teachers’ salaries and benefits.  Part of this is attributed to increases in health care benefits (see solution in #3).  However, the bulk of the increase can be attributed to the “lane” pay increase structure.  Teachers are given pay increases for further education courses taken and completed.  The argument that the smarter the teacher, the better the students will be sounds good, however, in practice, it really is just an easier way for teachers to receive additional pay.  On the practical level, what type of additional education does a 3rd grade math teacher or a 6th grade history teacher really need to teach the same material year after year?  As in the business community, additional educational courses in your field are encouraged and sometimes paid for by the business, however, the completion of such a course hardly ever translates into immediate raises of thousands of dollars and it should not be so for our teachers either.

I am hopeful that the local pressure the school board has been receiving for their fiscal mismanagement of last year will encourage greater long term planning and a more oversight of the financial workings of the school system.  Thus alleviating the additional stresses on the local tax burden.

9. The Opportunity Maine program will allow students who graduate from any Maine college or University, and continues to live, work and pay taxes here, to be reimbursed for student loan payments through a state income tax credit or an employer tax credit.
Projections show that in ten years, this strategy could cost the state as much as $55 million annually, but the return on that investment is conservatively estimated at $75 million in new state and local tax revenues and decreased social expenditures. If elected, will you commit yourself to protecting this long-term economic development strategy, without any reduction in the credit’s size or availability?

The purpose of the incentive is to keep Maine’s youth here in the state of Maine and to make college more affordable – both admirable goals.  However, the problem should be addressed at its root – the lack of good paying jobs and a lackluster state and local economy. 

It doesn’t make financial sense for someone not committed to staying in Maine to choose to stay here in Maine when you can easily make more than $4,000 per year in salary in New Hampshire and not pay income taxes.  Right now, I am willing to commit to trying the program out for a few years to see what the results truly are.  If it is working, I would offer my full support of the program, however, if the results are not favorable, I would not support extending it beyond the first few years.

After all, it is a personal choice to pursue higher education, and the costs associated with it are known and should be borne by the individual, not the collective taxpayers of Maine.

10. Portland schools are seeing less funding from the state due, in part, to increasing value of residential and commercial property.
Although property valuation is a measure of taxable resources, it is not necessarily a good indicator of the ability of taxpayers to meet the funding needs of our schools. What are your thoughts on how to balance local and state contributions to school costs?

Portland schools, like most other school systems across the state are seeing less funding because the state is choosing to fund other non-education based projects and services.  It is not because the value of residential and commercial property has increased (if the value increases, so does the amount of taxes collected on it – assuming the mil rates remain the same).

As I mentioned previously, the state should make it the #1 or #2 priority to fully fund the school system at the 55% mandated level.  This will most certainly help the school systems.

11. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the state's new school district consolidation law, particularly as it affects Portland?

The school consolidation law does not really affect Portland.  My understanding is that they are exempted from the law because of the size of the school district.

The only effect I can foresee is if savings are realized in other districts by consolidation and more money becomes available for Portland (or less if no savings realized).

12. Given Mainers’ struggle to balance work with family care responsibilities would you support: (yes or no)

a)  Paid sick days to full and part-time workers
b)  Paid family and medical leave
c) Legislation that allows workers to request flexible work schedules without employer retaliation

A) Yes – however, Paid Time Off hours are more effective (combining sick and vacation time under one set of hours available for you to miss work – no excuses necessary)
B) Not enough info – For how long?  Under what circumstances?, etc.  Right now, I feel existing laws are sufficient.
C) No – I fully support Maine’s employee-at-will policy.  No private business should ever be dictated to by an employee when they will work.  Business owners need to run their businesses as they see fit, not the employees that don’t see or care about the overall health of that business.

13. Do you support current Maine law (22 M.R.S.A. § 1502), which allows minors to consent on their own behalf for health care including contraceptive counseling, mental health care and substance abuse treatment?

No.  Do you support giving a driver’s license or selling beer to a 14 year old?  There’s a fundamental reason we don’t allow these types of decisions to be made by children – because they are children and they need the support and guidance of their parents when dealing with the social, cultural and personal pressures they face as they mature.  Excluding parents from these types of decisions should only occur in rare circumstances such as abuse, neglect, etc.

14. Currently seventeen states fund abortion care for poor women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services in their state-run Medicaid program.  Maine’s Medicaid program only covers abortion care when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk or she is the victim of rape or incest. Would you support funding abortion care for women covered by Medicaid in Maine?

No.  I believe that the state should stay out of the bedroom.  I also believe that this includes paying for the “results” of what occurred in the bedroom with taxpayer money.

15. There is a significant move in Europe, Alaska, and Southeast Asia toward the independent certification of fisheries as sustainably-harvested.  In effect, consumer demand for sustainable fisheries is moving faster than regulatory bodies to save fisheries from overfishing. New England is behind the rest of the world in this regard; Maine has no independently certified fishery. Would you support a similar move toward independent certification in Maine?

No.  I will not support funding a state program that is essential duplicative of a program that already exists on the federal level.  We would be better served to work with our elected officials on the federal level to help with these regulations.

16. What do you see as the biggest challenge for Maine fisheries over the next five years? Biggest opportunity?

The biggest opportunity and the biggest challenge are one in the same.  To create a working, sustainable system whereby our marine heritage, our economy and our concern for our environment and those species endangered by over-harvesting can all be represented fairly in a regulatory environment that works for all those involved.

17. Do you favor creating a path of citizenship that allows undocumented immigrants to come forward and begin the process of permanent residency and then legal citizenship?  (yes or no)

Yes.