Three out of four town/city councils surveyed recommend that Mainers who vote should vote against Howie Rich's so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, namely Farmington, Manchester and Brewer. Meanwhile, reporter Kim Fletcher of Maine's Lincoln County News publishes the very best exposition of TABOR composed by any journalist I've read to date, and I recommend it as highly as I recommend Edgar Allen Beem's column in the current edition of The Forecaster. You'll want to bring some aloe gel for afterward, though, to soothe the burn. Finally, from the West come words of wisdom from a retired justice of the Montana Supreme Court, caution from editors who see endless litigation already beginning, and a preview of things to come from a different tentacle of the Howie Rich network, now opening shop in North Dakota. Buckle up, constant reader; the runway is short.
So who was the fourth Maine town council, the one that voted to support Rich's TABOR this week? It's Litchfield, where town fathers telegraphed their, ahem, "support" for TABOR at arm's length, through a "prepared statement." Hmm. Who else communicates via "prepared statements"? O, yeah: hostages being videotaped by their jihadist captors. Don't know why that image springs to mind, but there it is.
And what did this "prepared statement" say? Reporter Betty Adams has it here http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/... "It is the feeling of the Litchfield Board of Selectmen that this is the best chance to put our state government back on track. We do not feel, as others do, that TABOR will dramatically affect Litchfield's ability to have effective local government. The residents will continue to determine what is best for Litchfield. If TABOR passes, the newly elected officials will be forced to listen to the voters."
Is it just me, or does anyone feel that the "prepared statement" sounded an awful lot like the talking points of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, especially that part about officials being "forced" to listen to voters? See, here's where I get confused: Don't voters elect their officials in the first place? Sorry, but I scored better in logic than in propaganda.
So, apparently, did the selectmen of Farmington. Reporter Betty Jesperson quotes Councilman Stephen Bunker here
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/... "(TABOR) smacks of not being democratic. I am very concerned because at a town meeting, it is one person, one vote and majority rules." Bunker adds that TABOR "sounds very simple and straightforward in its title and taxpayers may not take the time to plow through all the steps and sub-articles. But it is not the right solution. One size does not fit all."
Another selectman, Charles Murray, reminded Jesperson that "government is by Constitution -- not referendum," she notes. "This would put restrictions on towns that are always very frugal and could hurt the citizenry," he tells her.
The only criticism offered by Manchester Council Chairwoman Terri Watson was, "I just think that we should make the wording a bit more snappy and to-the-point," she said, before her council voted unanimously to approve it - and just before she announced that "she and Selectwoman Elaine Fuller will work together on either a flier or a newspaper editorial to be published that will articulate the reasons for the board's rejection of TABOR," writes reporter Christian Madore here http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/....
Selectman Don McLeod, meanwhile, predicted that the measure was headed for oblivion without help from the Manchester town council. Madore tells us McLeod "predicted the initiative will fail by a wide margin."
"I'll sign it, but I'll tell you: It's going to go down two-to-one," McLeod told his colleagues.
Your lips to God's ear, Selectman McLeod.
Now, not having seen today's Bangor Daily News, I'm going out on a limb - but doing it with confidence in the common sense of my brethren and sisters in Brewer, dear reader. Reporter Nok-Noi Hauger told us yesterday that the city council's Tuesday evening agenda included a vote that would likely approve the resolution against TABOR.
Hauger writes here http://www.bangornews.com/... that Councilor Manley DeBeck sponsored the resolution, which advises voters to oppose "this unnecessary, ill-conceived and destructive legislation." DeBeck's motion was bolstered by a memo from Brewer Finance Director Karen Fussell, which said, among other things, "TABOR ... caps overall expenditures and does not take into account potential new sources of non-tax funding."
DeBeck didn't anticipate any dissent. "It's so confusing - you have this formula and you have that formula," he told Hauger. "We need some tax reform, but this isn't it. It's not a viable tax reform. People need to think about the ramification of this."
The Lincoln County News reporter Kim Fletcher drills deeper into the birth, death and resurrection of TABOR than any reporter to date, and she approaches TABOR from the perspective of an objective researcher, looking evenly at both sides and taking no position. Of course, the rational reader is drawn to her analysis of TABOR's impact on Colorado, the only state that has yet enacted - and suffered under - the scheme.
She writes here http://www.mainelincolncountynews.com/... that control of the state's legislature changed parties in 2004. "Many saw this as a reaction against TABOR, and days after the election, Republican governor Bill Owens announced a plan to reform TABOR. In November of 2005, Coloradoans approved a ballot measure that loosened many of TABOR's restrictions. One of these changes allows the state to spend an amount equal to the highest amount of the last five years, not necessarily the last one year."
"TABOR opponents argue that the lack of tax revenue has hurt Colorado in many ways. For instance, Colorado ranks 47th in the nation for higher education funding (per personal income level), which is the lowest in 40 years, representing a drop from 34th in 1992. In another example, Colorado now ranks 44th in what it spends to repair its roads. Opponents claim that it is because of this that the percentage of Colorado's roads in poor condition stands at 73 percent, declining dramatically since TABOR was enacted."
"Opponents also argue that Colorado's economic growth has largely been despite (not because of) TABOR, and is a result of changing societal desires for open spaces, outdoor sports opportunites, and other quality of life issues that are now hindered by Colorado's inability to provide expanding governmental services. They point out that almost 90% of state tax revenues are now already earmarked for various purposes, handicapping the state legislature and giving it very little flexibility."
TABOR hasn't gained traction anywhere else in the nation until this year, but not because TABORites weren't pressing their agenda where they could, she adds. "TABOR advocates were handed a setback when a similar proposition on the California ballot was overwhelmingly defeated on the same day as the liberal Democratic governor (Gray Davis) was being recalled by a large margin in 2003."
Fletcher identifies the guys in white hats, working to protect the interests of regular Mainers, their families, their parents and their children, not to mention their jobs: "the Maine Education Association, the Maine Center for Economic Policy (MECEP), and one of the most vocal, the Maine Municipal Association (MMA)."
Children are likely to suffer under TABOR, Fletcher finds in the MMA analysis: "among the hardest hit schools would be in SAD 77, which includes Cutler and East Machias... will have to cut its budget by 35 percent... The tiny Aroostook County village of Reed Plantation would see 19 percent cuts."
"At their site www.mecep.org, or www.NoTABOR.org, the Maine Center for Economic Policy cites a full and side-by-side issue comparison between Colorado's TABOR and Maine's proposed TABOR. If enacted, the Maine Municipal Association says TABOR would impact municipalities in four ways:
"-- By requiring that (a) increases in tax rates and (b) increases in fees must be adopted through an override process.
"--Separate from and in addition to the tax rate and fee increase restrictions, TABOR establishes a municipal spending limit equal to the most restrictive of two restriction formulas; increases above the limit must be adopted through the override process.
"--TABOR establishes a spending limit for school budgets equal to inflation adjusted by change in student enrollment.
"--Establishes the override process, which includes a two-thirds vote of the legislative body (selectmen, council or town meeting) and voter approval at a town-wide, city-wide or district-wide referendum. (Because any bond issue generates "revenue" as the Maine TABOR uses that term, municipal bond authorization would have to go through the TABOR override process.)"
If that's not enough, Fletcher finds that "TABOR, if enacted, would undo Maine's early progress toward meaningful state tax reform that would provide real tax relief to local property owners."
Mmm, mm, mm.
And then, "TABOR would abolish any functional relationship between the spending limits on Maine's school systems and the rational school allocation model developed to support Maine's Learning Results system, known as EPS."
After conveying to you all that fact data - and being relatively certain that you, constant reader, as a person of sound mind, see the common sense in it - I almost hesitate to share this next column. O, it's written tight as a drum, and its author has the soul - the sensibility, at least - of a man steeped in the fine tradition of Southern gothics. And a sharp tongue, to boot. I got a nasty paper cut when I printed out the thing, I aver to you, and that was before I read it. But gentle readers, it's the heat that will stick with you. Searing heat, the kind that plagues your palate long after you pick a fresh red pepper in August and bite into it foolishly, as a country boy is apt to do, the kind that isn't salved by leaping headlong into the creek, my friend. This piece of text is just that fiery, and I offer it with due warning, here http://www.theforecaster.net/....
"Incredibly, moderate Maine appears to be on the brink of going where the nation went in 2000 - down the toilet by turning control of government over to ultra-conservatives who want to dismantle government for personal gain and corporate profit," writes columnist Edgar Allen Beem.
He quotes Grover Norquist - y'all know who he is - thusly: "My ideal citizen is the self-employed, homeschooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed-carry permit, because that person doesn't need the god-damned government for anything."
Language, Grover. This is a family webpage. For one who prates of family values, you oughta do better.
Beem observes, "Spoken like a true un-American, but, OK, if you're a self-employed, homeschooling gun nut with a secure retirement, by all means vote for TABOR. The rest of us, however, cannot afford to allow the radical politics of self-interest to triumph over the American embrace of the common good."
"We also cannot afford to allow Chandler Woodcock to become our next governor. Chandler Woodcock is George Bush in a bow tie. He may look normal enough as a candidate, but there's no telling what sort of monster will emerge if he gets elected. Any candidate who argues, as Woodcock did at a Maine Development Foundation candidates night, that his health insurance rates shouldn't be effected by the cost of pregnancy care because he is never going to get pregnant simply should never be allowed anywhere near the levers of public policy."
"So, unless you are prepared to turn Maine over lock, stock and budget to a ruling oligarchy of businessmen, you have no choice but to vote against TABOR and Chandler Woodcock. And any woman who votes for either the measure or the man might just as well apply for an extra X chromosome and membership in the Good Ol' Boys Club of the Chamber of Commerce."
Mmm. Now that's feeling.
Reporter Deborah McDermott tells us that "support lags" for TABOR as the pro-Mainer side has organized and fund-raised to educate its populace. "Opponents of the controversial citizen's initiative, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, have received more than eight times the contributions of proponents, in the latest campaign finance report filed with the state of Maine," she writes here http://www.seacoastonline.com/.... Most of the large contributors are organizations whose Maine members have asked for help, she writes.
Clarke Canfield of the Associated Press reaches the same conclusions here http://www.boston.com/.... He quotes spokesman Dennis Bailey of Citizens United, saying that contributing organizations to the anti-TABOR campaign include "tens of thousands of members in Maine."
From Maine quickly to Montana, reader, where editors of the Billings Gazette view with distaste the river of litigation already springing from a polluted TABOR stream.
"Three weeks after opponents of CI-97 (state spending limit), CI-98 (recall judges) and I-154 (eminent domain and land-use rules) successfully challenged the legality of the signature-gathering process in Great Falls District Court, a previously unknown group calling itself Montanans for Equal Application of Initiative Laws filed suit in Great Falls seeking to disqualify signatures for I-151 (minimum-wage increase) and 1-153 (barring former public officials from becoming private lobbyists for 24 months after leaving office)," they write here http://www.billingsgazette.net/....
"Also last week, Montanans for Equal Application of Initiative Laws sued in Helena District Court claiming that CA-43 should be invalidated because it would change more than one part of the Montana Constitution. CA-43 is a relatively trivial measure the Montana Legislature put on the ballot to change the title of state auditor to insurance commissioner."
"Regardless of any possible merits of these last-minute lawsuits, it sure looks like they are retaliation for the lawsuits that invalidated the other initiatives. People involved in the new lawsuits are also defenders of the invalidated measures. The people's right to initiative and referendum was never intended to be a vehicle for revenge, nor a source of litigation."
Nor was it intended to be "riddled with fraud," writes former Montana Supreme Court Justice William Hunt here http://www.helenair.com/.... He refers to the case decided by District Court Justice Dirk Sandefur several weeks ago, with its finding of "fraud and deceptives practices" by petition circulators.
"Contrary to the simplistic misinformation touted by Mr. Balyeat and Mr. Butcher, the complaint and order were not about just nine voters who were deceived," Hunt explains. "Their stories were a part of the evidence that the signature gathering process was riddled with fraud -- from giving false addresses to bait and switch tactics. There was also the sworn testimony of a professional signature gatherer detailing the fraudulent practices that were the norm of the industry, and that were used in Montana."
"Judge Sandefur wrote: `In contrast, the Proponents presented no credible evidence to rebut Plaintiffs' showing of a pervasive and general pattern and practice of fraud and conscious circumvention of procedural safeguards. As the parties who commissioned the professional migrant signature gatherers, the Proponents should have been in the best position to contact their signature gatherers and bring a sufficient number of them into court to rebut the Plaintiffs' showing of fraud and irregularity. However, either because they were unwilling or themselves unable to locate them, Proponents failed to present any direct evidence from the best and most knowledgeable source to rebut Plaintiffs' showing.'
"The proponents had the choice to do it right, to follow the letter and spirit of Montana's initiative laws," Hunt declares, "they chose instead to utilize out of state signature gatherers of dubious character who flaunted and broke Montana's laws. Mr. Balyeat blames the judge that upheld the integrity of Montana's initiative process. The real culprits are the out-of-state money men who got what they paid (over $670,000) for as many signatures as possible, using any means, legal or not."
So Sandefur's decision was right, he concludes: "Judge Sandefur did what judges are supposed to do -- listen to all the evidence and apply the relevant law to the evidence. His decision is now before the Montana Supreme Court. In the meantime, CI-97, CI-98 and I-154 are still on the ballot. All three ballot measures deserve a NO vote. Each has a component that makes sense -- that's why they are already Montana law -- but in reality they're another bait and switch ploy."
It's crystal clear logic to me, Justice Hunt, and I thank you for offering it.
And finally tonight, from a completely different corner of the nation, news comes that the amorphous Rich network, operating under its Americans for Prosperity banner, appears to have designs on North Dakota. Reporter Dale Wetzel tells us here http://www.bismarcktribune.com/... that North Dakota is suffering from the happiest of ailments: a budget surplus expected to approach a half-billion dollars by next June. That is, predictably, a half-billion dollars more economic growth than Rich and his friends believe North Dakota should enjoy.
Enter Americans for Prosperity, the Washington, D.C.-based committee co-founded by one of Rich's oldest friends, David Koch, executive vice president of Koch Industries, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, writes Wetzel. AFP has "enlisted former GOP Gov. Ed Schafer to promote a series of public meetings on how to handle the North Dakota treasury's budget surplus," he explains. "Americans for Prosperity, a national organization based in Washington, D.C., is coordinating the public forums."
What is AFP proposing? How many guesses do you need?
"Americans for Prosperity has advocated a `taxpayers' bill of rights' constitutional amendment in a number of states, which would limit government spending growth and require voter approval of tax increases," Wetzel reports. "The TABOR, as it is called, would allow budget surpluses to be set aside in reserve funds or returned to taxpayers through tax cuts." Mmhm. Heard they loved that in Colorado, by the way, all the way up until last year's election, when voters deep-sixed the idea.
I know what you're thinking, constant reader. You're thinking, but they're getting started pretty late for this year's election. In fact, dear reader, they may well be getting started pretty early for NEXT year's election, hmm? AFP's public forums began Tuesday in Fargo and Grand Forks, Wetzel says, and a dozen more are set during October, including ones in Grafton, Devils Lake, Valley City, Jamestown, Wahpeton, Lisbon, Williston, Dickinson, Minot and Bismarck.
In the faux pas of the week, AFP left someone off the memo distribution list: North Dakota's current governor, John Hoeven, who already "has proposed a number of budget initiatives for the next Legislature, including $116 million for local property tax cuts, at least $60 million in higher spending for local schools, and a new round of economic development grants for colleges."
Uh-oh.
"We think we have the right balance," Hoeven said. "But I respect anybody and everybody who's out there who has some ideas. We look for good ideas wherever they come from."
And others, of course, see the surplus as the answer to the prayers of thousand previous rainy days: "School districts want Hoeven to go well beyond his $60 million promise to raise state aid to local schools. North Dakota's university system is seeking at increase of at least $63 million. State corrections officials are pushing a $42 million remodeling and construction project at the main state prison in Bismarck," Wetzel says. And "a state employee compensation advisory board recently forwarded a pay recommendation that would boost workers' salaries by 5 percent next year and 4 percent in 2008, along with providing $8 million to remedy pay disparities among state jobs. The price tag: $29 million."
You can see where this is headed.
And one last brief note, out of left field. Google is like the neighbor's cat, and occasionally it brings to the porch a gift that defies an easy category. Likewise, one of my Google alerts brought to my attention the weblog of Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, a woman who once participated in the National Libertarian Party as a leader in Southern California, which is where and how she came to know Howie Rich of New York City and those of his associates who travel in interlocking orbits. In the late 1980s, she left the Libertarians and became a Republican. She may be better known in public life as a woman whose daughter engaged in an ultimately damaging affair - to put it mildly - with Wall Street Journal editorialist John Fund, twenty years after Pillsbury-Foster herself was linked with the man. But it is her personal recollection of days with Rich that I found compelling, and I offer the link for your review as well: http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com/.
Credit where it's due, readers:
MAINE
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/...
Reporter Betty Jesperson, "Selectmen vote to oppose TABOR"
http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/...
Reporter Betty Adams, "TABOR backed"
http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/...
Reporter Christian Madore, "Town says no to TABOR"
http://www.seacoastonline.com/...
Reporter Deborah McDermott, "Taxpayer bill support lags"
http://www.mainelincolncountynews.com/...
Reporter Kim Fletcher, "What is TABOR and Who Favors, Opposes it?"
http://www.theforecaster.net/...
Columnist Edgar Allen Beem, "As Maine goes, so went the nation in 2000"
http://www.boston.com/...
Reporter Clarke Canfield, "Maine TABOR opponents raise more than $1 million"
http://www.bangornews.com/...
Reporter Nok-Noi Hauger, "Council to sign resolve opposing TABOR tonight"
MONTANA
http://www.helenair.com/...
Retired Justice William Hunt, "Signature gathering was riddled with fraud"
http://www.billingsgazette.net/...
Editors, "Initiative litigation proliferating"
NATIONAL
http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com/
Weblog of Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
NORTH DAKOTA
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/...
Reporter Dale Wetzel, "Schafer enlisted to seek brakes on proposed spending"