Image from The Forecaster

Today’s Question: Do think funding for extra-curricular sports is more important than funding for arts curricula, and would you support cutting all funding for such sports before you cut classes in the arts?

Bruce Poliquin:

Again, I would respect local control of school districts.  I played sports all through high school and college.  My son Sam is a talented artist.  So I see how both improve the educational experience for students.  Our educational funding problems will not be fixed by cutting this or that program.  It must be addressed in a comprehensive way.

Matt Jacobson:

The answer is in the question: classes within the school curricula have a priority over activities that are extra-curricular.  Music, Drama, Art, Shop classes, multiple Foreign Language offerings and similar subjects should not be competing with sports and other extra-curricular activities for funding, but that is not to say that are unimportant.  It’s not a matter of cutting all funding from one to keep another either.

The reason this is even being discussed right now is because the state pulled back the funds they promised to local schools, and some towns are facing cuts in the middle of the school year.  This is no way to run a school system or for the state to “help” local schools!  Having clear priorities in spending and keeping budget promises are the only way to lead in Augusta – and it’s how I will do it as Governor.

Steve Abbott:

First, school funding is a local issue that should be decided by local school boards.  That said, arts and sports should not be a zero sum game where one is funded at the expense of the other – and such “us v them” attitudes do little to advance the discussion about the benefits of both.

I am a product of organized athletics. I strongly believe that the training, discipline, team-building and individual achievements that come with involvement in sports can be of immeasurable benefit throughout life.  I also believe those same benefits can be achieved through the arts.

We need to understand that there are different ways for students to excel and find their strengths. If we want to fully educate our children and give them every advantage to become complete, well-rounded citizens, we need to ensure they have exposure to both sports and physical education as well as a grounding arts and culture.

Les Otten:

The discussions and decisions made around curricula and levels of funding needs not to be micro managed by the State House.  It is not a “same size fits all” for the diverse communities throughout our state.  Those decisions must be made on the local level.

This also leads into a discussion about keeping our health care costs down in Maine.  In a Les Otten administration, reducing health care costs will focus on encouraging Mainers to take personal responsibility for their health. It is estimated that preventable illnesses make up 60% of medical costs in the United States. We need to eat better; exercise; get our children outside; and promote wellness programs through our schools and partner with organizations such as the YMCAs to encourage good habits from childhood on.

Peter Mills:

This is an issue customarily left for local districts to decide.  It is my own view that a good physical education program need not be expensive.  Although football costs a lot, cross-country and track do not..  No matter how tight budgets get, it is usually possible to manage a sports program at some level.  As between arts and sports, I think a strong arts program is more important, but a phys ed regimen can still be maintained at minimal expense.

Paul LePage:

Here we go again with the “One size fits all approach!” I do not believe it is the Governor’s responsibility to choose what gets added or cut in school curricula.  My intention is to find the best able, qualified, and competent professional whose major priority will be to educate our children in a state of the art educational venue.  The decision to add to cut curricula must be left to the school boards and local professional who operate within established standard.  As Governor, I would not micro manage to this level.  The established standards will be designed to allow for choice by school districts.

Bill Beardsley:

Maine Learning Results (through omission) clearly has a bias against sports, experiential learning, entrepreneurship and numerous ways of learning, and the state wants all students to get a post-secondary liberal arts education, a questionable goal.  In fact, sports and “the curriculum” are not at odds at all: qualities and character formation through sports is invaluable towards successful adult contributions to society.  Sports helps students be motivated to succeed and to learn to set goals and develop the discipline to reach those goals, and to learn to work together.  Art and music are equally important and are another form of experiential learning that develops other parts of the brain and other important skills valuable to society and the individual.  In short, Sport, Art and Music are of great value.  I believe local school boards, with as much information as possible, should set budget priorities rather than a self-selected group of special interests.
As an aside, the wording of the question suggests a bias against sports just as Maine Learning Results suggests a bias toward liberal arts and against vocational/technical and entrepreneurial learning.  The problem here is that questions about education are too often framed by individuals who have academic, not personal interests in the issue. In sports and free enterprise jargon, they have no “skin in the game. I’d lock a bunch of parents in a room and let them fight it out and then frame the real questions.

Image from Jerry Daliege/For the Pioneer Press

Today’s Question: Do think funding for extra-curricular sports is more important than funding for arts curricula, and would you support cutting all funding for such sports before you cut classes in the arts?

Rosa Scarcelli:I think both are vitally important options for our children to have. How can one be more important than another? My oldest child is passionate about the arts and my youngest is equally passionate about sports. There are so many important lessons that kids learn in both pursuits I don’t believe they can objectively be ranked. I understand the reality that many schools in Maine today simply can’t afford both, and are being forced to choose between them across the state. But when I read that the Maine school system now has more administration staff than teachers and yet we’re talking about which of our kid’s activities are better to cut to pay for them, it tells me that we’re not asking the right question.

Steve Rowe: All extra-curricular activities are important because they are a continuation of our children*s educational development. We should not prioritize our children*s interests for them. We should inspire and encourage them to find their passions and pursue them. Whether playing on an athletic team, being a part of the school band or debate team these activities are all important to the development of our children.

Donna Dion: I know as the Chair of the Biddeford School Committee for 6 years is not making a choice between either or. Our choices are how we continue to provide a well rounded education for all students. Some students do we because they are motivated to participate in sports and apply themselves to maintain good grades. Some other students do well because of the ability to apply themselves in the arts, such as music, drama. It not a choice it is a challenge but both provide equal opportunity for different students.

Libby Mitchell: Maine’s Learning Results standards contain the eight content areas that Maine citizens believe encompass a well-rounded and high quality K-12 education.  As Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, I supported Maine’s Learning Results and as Governor, I will continue to support such standards.  I will, however, work to provide adequate state support so that communities do not face a false choice-sports and physical activities or arts.  Both are important.

Pat McGowan: Agreed to participate, did not respond in time.

Today’s question is: School funding flowing from the state to local communities is now unpredictable and inconsistent. Substantial declines in state appropriated levels and curtailment orders have hampered the ability of local communities to make reliable long range program plans and forced deep unexpected reactive cuts. This situation has shifted funding reliability away from broad based state funding to placing greater emphasis on regressive property taxing which in turn often leads to further reductions in education funding to avoid local tax increases. Would you act to stabilize the predictability of education funding from the state and by what means and to what degree? If you would not undertake action to stabilize the predictability of education funding from the state, please explain why not and/or any alternative approaches that you would offer.

Peter Mills:

In the last two years, there has been nothing predictable about anything in our nation’s economy.  It is the worst and possibly the longest economic downturn since 1933.

The question asks whether state tax payers are obliged to hold public schools harmless from the impact of state revenue losses.  The truth is that K-12 education has suffered no worse than other state supported programs, like human services and corrections.

Even if it were within the state’s power to exempt education from economic pressures, it would be inappropriate to do so.  There is much room in K-12 budgets for cost reduction.  Maine spends about $2000 more per year on each child than the rest of the nation.  Although school populations are shrinking, Maine has more school administrators than ever.  Maine has the second lowest student-teacher ratio in the U.S. (11 to 1).  We have one of the highest levels of special ed designation in the U.S. (almost 1 child in 5).

There is clearly room to do better in controlling the costs of local education.  Since school budgets are managed by local school boards, they should not be exempt from the financial pressures that everyone else must work under.

Bill Beardsley:

The State should honor its 55% local funding obligation. I would propose changing basic funding methodologies over time and the federal and state control over K-12 local public school education should be minimized.  The state and federal government are effective collectors of tax revenues, to be dispersed back to towns. This was never meant to impose state and federal control over curriculum, the relationship of towns to teachers and administrators and imposition of ever more regulations above and beyond safety.  To the extent that students in poor towns receive more state and federal funding than students in wealthier towns, there is a general public interest that the receiving towns use the funds in their students’ interest and hence minimal accountability and reporting should be carried out, but only in net receiving towns.  Needless to say, a state cannot control federal strings short of the bully pulpit, congressional delegations, and refusal to accept select federal funds and mandates.

Accordingly, a Beardsley administration would set out to honor the state’s commitment to reimburse municipalities with 55% of their “core academic needs” plus 100% of all (funded) additional mandates.  Net receiving towns (alone) would have minimal accountability and reporting obligations to the state.  The result will be a major incentive for the state to streamline or eliminate non-essential mandates if it is unwilling or unable to fund such mandates.  Such a move would greatly increase the predictability of reimbursements to towns, ladder extra or fewer mandates with accompanying funding and give local school boards the opportunity to live within their limited funds or to self fund extra self imposed and self funded mandates and services.

Philosophically, I believe property and use taxes should relate primarily to property services (e.g. police, fire, roads and bridges) while “people” taxes should relate to “people” services (e.g. education, health and welfare).  I believe that if local towns can trust their levels of revenue from state and federal sources with more reliability and if they have more control over how such funds are spent, they will lower their mill rates on property.

Les Otten:

The next Governor must stabilize the predictability of education funding from the state.  While the state’s share of local funding hovers near 42%, we will not reach the promised threshold of 55% for one large and obvious reason – the state is broke.  The new Governor will face a billion dollar deficit in our state budget, maybe more.

But that large and obvious reason doesn’t mean we can’t improve our education system by doing one simple thing – by allowing more local control over what money does flow from the state to the municipalities. Our school superintendents have all the responsibility for the success of our schools but not nearly enough authority to ensure that result. Maine must give towns, school superintendents and principals the authority to hire and fire staff, so long as it is based on demonstrated fair criteria such as clear performance, test results and use of technology. Tenure is the biggest detriment to public education.

We need to link promotion with performance in a fair manner.

Another issue that we must look at is the fact that Maine is building multi–million dollar school buildings, putting money in bricks and mortar – we must address especially that part of the state funding formula immediately

Paul LePage:

Yes – I believe the next Governor will face the challenge of stabilizing education funding to ensure long range education planning.  Fundamental problems in funding education at the state level are the economy along with the state’s propensity to overspend in all areas of government. As your Governor, I would audit all programs currently active in state government; eliminate those who cannot show effective and acceptable performance levels.  Further, it is necessary that we prioritize state spending.  Education is top on my list of priorities. Frankly, the future of our state is dependent on preparing future generations of Mainers.  My education program for stabilizing the cost of education and in improving the education structure is long and complex. In sound bite form, I support home-schooling and charter schools. We need an enhanced technique for evaluating teacher performance; seniority alone is failing our children. I oppose teaching to assessment tests; it robs valuable teaching and mentoring time from our students. We need to increase the student to teacher ratio to an average of 18 students per teacher and I favor a school day beginning at 8:00am until 3:30 pm. Finally, and critically important is a prioritized focus on teaching reading, writing and math skills.

Steve Abbott:

We need to get a handle on our per pupil spending and our school funding formula. High spending – among the highest in the country – is driving the instability. Maine spends $9,300 per pupil – nearly twice that of Utah ($4,800) yet our fourth grade reading and math scores are not as good. We are spending too much on administration and not enough dollars are ending up in the classroom where they directly impact student learning. Administration is an area where costs can be brought down and stabilized but a one size model will not work for this.

Matt Jacobson:

The people of Maine voted for the state to support local schools, and the state is obligated to do this.  The budget games of the last several years, as Governor Baldacci and lawmakers struggled every few months to close new gaps between their overspending and tax collections, has left Maine citizens confused, angry and cynical.  Our leaders refused to make serious cuts in wasteful programs, refused to negotiate realistic contracts, but decided one easy way out was to cut their obligated funding to schools – and shift the responsibility back to the towns.   The subject is complicated by differing definitions of the state’s 55% share of school funding*, but balancing the state’s budget by last-minute cuts to local schools, sometimes in the middle of a fiscal year, is unacceptable and will not happen when I am Governor.

*Here is a paper that describes the Essential Programs and Services (EPS) model designed to appropriate state dollars to town school systems: http://www.mainepolicy.org/resources/media/171_53430599.pdf

Bruce Poliquin:

Maine has lost substantial amounts of state revenue because Augusta so poorly manages state finances.  Education funding usually takes some of the hardest hits because it represents nearly half our budget.  State cuts in education funding put incredible pressure on local budgets to make up the difference, find their own reductions, or, worse, increase taxes.

At the state level the solution is not to make promises to increase education funding that we know we can’t keep.  The truth is that we need to grow our economy so that we have the necessary resources to put into the classroom.  That starts with, first, getting our spending under control in all levels of government.  Once we become a state that only spends what we take in, then we can reduce taxes in a meaningful way to help our struggling families, and create incentives for businesses to move to Maine.  That will grow the economic pie, build up our private sector, and create new jobs and new long-term revenue sources.   We need to fundamentally address the cost and complexity of doing business here, before we can put additional revenue into education, or any other worthwhile priority.  Otherwise, we’re just continuing decades of fiscal mismanagement that overspends, overtaxes, and irresponsibly borrows our way to economic failure.

Today’s question is: School funding flowing from the state to local communities is now unpredictable and inconsistent. Substantial declines in state appropriated levels andcurtailment orders have hampered the ability of local communities to make reliable long range program plans and forced deep unexpected reactive cuts. This situation has shifted funding reliability away from broad based state funding to placing greater emphasis on regressive property taxing which in turn often leads to further reductions in education funding to avoid local tax increases. Would you act to stabilize the predictability of education funding from the state and by what means and to what degree? If you would not undertake action to stabilize the predictability of education funding from the state, please explain why not and/or any alternative approaches that you would offer.

Steve Rowe: Agreed to participate, did not respond in time.

Rosa Scarcelli: I would absolutely act to stabilize not just the predictability of funding for education, but the stability of our entire state revenue system. In fact, this is one of the centerpieces of my plan to Reboot Augusta. The reason why is simple: we cannot continue to manage from crisis to crisis. It’s unsustainable and has left the state with no choice but to fall well short of its obligations to our children. With such important responsibilities at its feet, it’s unconscionable that state government doesn’t measure or evaluate the effectiveness of its programs. We should be finding savings from budget items that aren’t working or producing the expected results so that we can make sure our highest priorities have adequate and stable funding. In addition to ensuring that every penny of taxpayer money is well-spent, Maine needs to reform fundamentally its revenue system to make sure it is up to date, fair and not subject to wild swings. The recent tax reform bill, now facing a referendum vote in June, is an important step in the right direction.

Libby Mitchell: Yes. As Governor, I will continue working to increase the State’s investment in our K-12 public schools until we achieve 55% state funding as approved by Maine voters in a statewide citizens’ referendum in 2004. Prior to the current economic recession, I worked to secure bipartisan support for significant increases in K-12 education funding. As Senate President during one of the worst economic recessions in recent history, I worked to maintain our State’s investments in our public schools and I will continue to lead such efforts in order to reduce the financial pressures on local communities and local property taxpayers and to insure that Maine’s public schools are among the best in the country.

Pat McGowan: Yes, I would act to stabilize the predictability of education funding. In 2004, Maine citizens approved a ballot initiative for the state to provide 55% of the total costs of K-12 public education. The citizens of Maine have entrusted us as elected officials to do everything we can to make sure that happens. Nationally and regionally we are undergoing significant economic challenges, but one of the most important investments that we can make is in our youth * both in K-12 education and higher education. We need to ensure that we do everything possible to see to it that we meet the 55% funding of K-12 public education, and that more resources go into the classroom and to the teachers who we entrust with the education of our children.

Donna Dion: Citizens of Maine have clearly indicated their mandate that education should be funded at the 55%, but what does that mean in dollars and cents for each community? I know currently that some communities with a higher tax base receive less State assistance and is that fair? I believe we should worked with communities on a plan that would established an educational funding plan directly related to education. In reviewing current surveys on [State Funding formula http://education.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/laws/legislative_committee/agenda_items_09_1014/silvernail_maine_overview_k12_funding_formula.pdf], it is clearly noted that the teaching portion, not the inventory of buildings or the administration of the school system, is considered the essential programs and services covered in the formula. Special education in Maine is inclusive of behavioral problems considered a disability, which is not necessarily considered special education in many States. We carry a high expense in special education and we should evaluating how we can achieve an equitable funding for both special education and full school funding within the 55% and guarantee each child the ability for success. We could possibly fund each student a set level and secure the funding for each community.

John Richardson: The first act I undertook as Speaker of the House in 2004 was to negotiate the agreement on school funding, and I still believe in it. Currently, the promise to fund 55% has been broken. However, we need to look at school budgets overall, and recognize that we must look for ways to be efficient, but not at the expense of our greatest investment, our people. In order for Maine to support citizens who have the necessary 21st century skills, our state government needs to stop looking for ways to patch up our present system and begin re-engineering a system that not only reflects the latest research on how the human brain learns but also how we can apply a model of continuous improvement in our schools.

LD1666 grants tax credits to venture capitalists and non-profit organizations, regardless of their status as taxpayers. The appropriations committee declined LD1666, but that is of little consequence since the ability to provide tax credits to venture capitalists and non-profit organizations is granted by the latitude extended in LD1. The bill allows for loans procured by the newly created “Fund of Funds” to be secured by “tax credits” but the lenders need not be qualified Maine State taxpayers. LD 1 includes an assertion that the tax credit used to secure the loans is not a security but fails to provide substantiation for that claim. Given our lawmakers level of awareness of the Maine State Constitution, is it justified to accept their claims about whether the “tax credit” is, or is not, a “security” without any further input from outside opinions?

The legislation repeatedly inter-mixes the words “security” and “tax credit” in the definition of other terms

5. Lender. “Lender” means an entity that lends capital to the fund in exchange for a return on the lender’s investment that conforms to the conditions of certificates issued as security for the debt.

2. Certificate. “Certificate” means a document executed by the board extending the State’s guarantee to a lender by means of a refundable tax credit.

6. Refundable tax credit. “Refundable tax credit” means the credit authorized by Title 36, section 5219-DD that the State shall redeem for cash if the holder has no tax liability against which to apply the credit. A refundable tax credit may be owned and redeemed by the system. ( Title 36,section 5219-DD is a credit applicable to dentists practicing in underserved areas. It is perplexing how the same statute is transposed to the venture capitalist investor, who, by the parameters stated in the legislation can invests anywhere in the world using the Fund of Funds as a conduit. The tax credit issued to dentists is not refundable)

§ 399.  Refundable tax credits

The board may issue to one or more lenders certificates for up to $80,000,000 in refundable tax credits as provided by Title 36, section 5219-DD (The tax credit in Title 36,section 5219-DD , issued to individual dentists is not to exceed $15,000 )

Redemption. Refundable tax credits may be redeemed only as necessary to offset a shortfall in scheduled payments on debt incurred to capitalize the fund. The rate of return, whether fixed or variable, must be determined by a formula stipulated in the certificate used as security. Refundable tax credits may not be redeemed for any default occurring after December 31, 2031. No more than $10,000,000 of refundable tax credits may be redeemed per calendar year.(The credit issued to dentists in Title 36,section 5219-DD, is not refundable. In the declined LD1666, The Tax credit for venture capitalists and non-profit organizations was capped at 60% )

4. Not securities. The refundable tax credits allowed or transferred pursuant to this section are not securities under Title 32, chapter 135. (You can read that definition by clicking on the link and judge for your self )

LD1, now enacted into law, is a far-reaching peice of legislation, expanding outward to partake in the limitless opportunities existing beyond Maine’s borders and backing up investments with tax payers dollars in the form of a guaranteed refundable State of Maine tax credit.  The creation of “the Fund of Funds” is arguably in violation of Article IV. — Part Three. Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution, which states:

Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created    by special Acts of the Legislature, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained; and, however formed, they shall forever be subject to the general laws of the State

One need only to measure the rules, regulations, and guidelines presented in this bill against any standard definition of a corporation to judge for one’s self whether the words, “the fund of funds”, used in the legislation are cloaking the reality that the bill is in fact a charter for a new corporation. Even if one could argue exceptions to the rule which prohibits the creation of a corporation, through a special act of legislation, there is no general law in this state that grants corporations the right to back up investments with taxpayer dollars.

LD1 identifies the preferred lender as “the system” and defines the “system”, for the purposes of the legislation as “the Maine Public Employees Retirement System”. It states that the purpose of the “fund of funds” is to make a profit for the lender. It identifies the board as the Small Enterprise Growth Fund and at the same time it reduces the requirements that the funds be invested in the Maine Economy to a required token investment.

Were it not for the fact that mutual funds offer no guarantees, LD 1 reads like the creation of a mutual fund by the government and for the government. To confirm this for your self, read LDI side by side with the definition of a Mutual Fund.

Lawmakers and citizens of Maine should be familiar with Article IX, Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution, which begins with the following words:

Section 14. Authority and procedure for issuance of bonds. The credit of the State shall not be directly or indirectly loaned in any case, except as provided in sections 14-A, 14-B, 14-C and 14-D. The Legislature shall not create any debt or debts, liability or liabilities, on behalf of the State, which shall singly, or in the aggregate, with previous debts and liabilities hereafter incurred at any one time, exceed $2,000,000, except to suppress insurrection, to repel invasion, or for purposes of war, and except for temporary loans to be paid out of money raised by taxation during the fiscal year in which they are made

LD 1 places the limit at not exceeding $10,000,000.00 in a single year.

In the charter creating “The Fund” and “The Fund of Funds”, it is stipulated that the administration costs are to be derived from the funds themselves. In the case of The Small Enterprise growth Fund, there is a 10% taxpayer investment for which any profits derived always roll over to re-invest in the fund. It is arguable that the legislative charter that created The Small Enterprise Growth Fund enables the administration costs to be paid by the taxpayer. If the annual report were publicly accessible one would be able to make a comparison between administration costs and the 10% roll-over tax payer investment.  The SEGF website is not a government website, and so it is reasonable to conclude that the SEGF is legally structured as a separate private economy entity.

“The Fund of Funds” does not rely on a 10% investment from the taxpayer. Instead It uses the taxpayer to provide security for that which, by another name, is a mutual fund.

The words of Elliot Spitzer, former  Attorney General of New York, you cannot “socialize the risk and privatize the gain”, but this is exactly what the “Fund of Funds” achieves.

The charter (Ld 1) creating the “Fund of Funds” extends the reach of The Small Enterprise Growth Fund, while LD 1659 directly applies this expansion to include The Small Enterprise Growth Fund, authorizing it to invest in a “side” fund for which there are no defining parameters. It also permits the side funds to be structured as a “revolving fund”, which is the structure used for taxpayer investments in The Small Enterprise Growth Fund. The charter also permits side funds to be structured as “as a fund in which the investor will have funds drawn and returned over an agreed time period.” in other words to have an “exit strategy” which is a demand placed on “the fund” by the unidentified venture capitalists who account for the other 90% of The Small Enterprise Growth Fund’s resources.

“The Fund” and the “Fund of Funds’ is justified by it’s creators with the end of attracting capitalization for the Maine economy, and focuses special attention on investments in technology. This is an “end justifies the means” validation for the betrayal of sworn oaths to uphold the Maine State and United States constitutions. The founding fathers of the United States Constitution had the wisdom to consider the spectrum of human character in creating a constitutional system of checks and balances. The charter establishing the “Fund of Funds”, at best, assumes that only the best of human character will ever administer this fund, while it leaves the door wide open for exploitation and corruption.

We have heard of similar investment strategies in recent history. Iceland, Harvard University and Bernie Maddoff come to mind. Like our lawmakers, the investors in these “financial vehicles” believed in the assured wisdom of their investment strategies.

There are no parameters within the legislative charters that limit the scope of investments outside of the Maine state economy. Given this lack of definition, an investment or lender in China is authorized. Investments in China and third world economies are attractive to high growth investors due to nearly, absent labor rights laws and minimal environmental regulations making it substantially less expensive to do business in those economies than in the United States.

The charter that created the Small Enterprise Growth Fund, included “public good” mandates. The new legislation deregulates the fund from the original parameters and so negates the “public good” used to justify the creation of the SEGF.

Whenever a loan is guaranteed by a refundable tax credit, Maine taxpayers carry the risk, but there are no benefits for the general taxpayer to compensate for their contribution and/or the risk, other than the vaguely defined phrase that it “benefits the economy”- but so do those funds if they are retained by the original creators of the underlying wealth through lower taxes and the latter option does not violate our constitution.

.

No legislative activity is more demanding than the discussions surrounding the passing of the state’s budget.  It is a particularly thankless task in a year such as this one, when adjustments must be made and programs must be reduced or eliminated to produce a balanced budget against the backdrop of declining revenues as a result of the national economic downturn.

The good news is — this year the Legislature produced such an austerity budget by making the difficult choices of program reductions rather than resulting to tax increases or budget gimmicks.  Legislators from both parties worked together, using the blueprint provided by Governor Baldacci to produce a final state budget that will be approximately $2.69 billion.  To put that in context, the budget ten years earlier was $2.65 billion.  The rate of inflation over those ten years exceeded 20% — and many elements of the state budget — such as energy costs or health insurance increased at an even faster rate.

This year’s budget contains some hard choices — but they mirror the difficult choices and priorities that almost every Maine family has been making for the last few years.  Having served on the Health and Human Services Committee, one of the areas that took the largest cuts to the budget, I understood in detail what the choices meant for some of Maine’s most vulnerable citizens.  At that same time, the ongoing conversations with neighbors in the River Valley kept me focused on the need to manage this budget shortfall without raising taxes or fees.

In the end, the budget was an opportunity for the Legislature to come together.  It was supported by strong bi-partisan majorities — 110 to 35 in the House of Representatives and 31 to 2 in the State Senate.  There were a few people who felt the proposals went too far, or not far enough, but overall the package was balanced and supported by the leadership of both chambers and both political parties.

Moments such as the passage of the budget are hopeful ones — because they suggest we are not bound to partisan bickering and political game-playing.  If there is one thing I hear over and over from the people of District 92 it is this message — get the job done and don’t play politics.  It is easy to stand on the sidelines and complain or second-guess.  It is easy to criticize “Augusta” without offering realistic alternatives.  However, at the end of the day, the Maine Legislature is full of serious people — committed men and women who want to serve their communities and do so with the best intentions and information that is available.  This budget process was an example of the best of our system — working.

No one decided to obstruct the process or say “No” just for the sake of saying “No.”  Members worked thousands of hours, together, to find the best possible alternatives and approaches that would balance the needs of our state and its citizens against the realities of our economic conditions.  I was honored to join with so many of my colleagues to support this budget.  It was not perfect, it did not do everything that I wanted to see, but it is a practical and workable solution to our current situation.

One major challenge resolved — and only a few more until we adjourn in a matter of days.  However, the work for next year is already beginning because we will be facing a similar budget shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars, and we must maintain the balance of fiscal discipline and targeted services for Maine citizens.

Over the next few months, I will once again be calling on my neighbors in the River Valley, listening to your concerns and trying to learn how I can best serve you should I be fortunate enough to continue to earn your vote and your confidence.  You can be sure that I will continue to work on initiatives that will keep our state’s finances strong, our taxes low, and our money producing real value in the areas of education, health and safety.

RSU 19 (Dixmont, Etna, Newport, Palmyra, and others) are short $1.8 million.  One money saving solution is to close the Palmyra Consolidated School.  The school serves 77 students K-4.  The Palmyra school is in need of costly repairs.  Closing the school would save the district $400,000. “No one wants to close a school in their town; the school is a focal point in the community for many things and nobody wants to take that away,” School Board Chairman Dan Costain, of Plymouth said. “I wish there were another way around it.”  The school board, which would need a two-thirds vote to close the school, will decide the issue April 1st.

Winslow, facing a lack of $1.12 million, proposed nearly everything except school closings.  Not replacing retiring teachers, cutting some staff and teachers, reducing spending on textbooks and technology, and lowering the athletics budget 10% were just a few of the proposed solutions.  Not everyone at the budget hearing agreed with the cuts.  Some, throwing their own personal safety aside, suggested larger reductions to athletics or a “pay-for-play” arrangement.  Alternate District 92 Superintendent Eric Haley stated opposition to the idea.  Tinkering with athletic programs would likely face strong opposition in most districts, so it is no surprise Haley isn’t behind pay-for-play.

In Bath, nearly 200 parents turned up at Morse High School to hear the proposed RSU 1 budget reduction of $633,000.  Some teacher positions are on the chopping block.  Parents argue to save teachers’ jobs at all costs, but Superintendent William Shuttleworth believed that was unlikely.  “We have bid out audits, paper products, anything you can imagine that we have tried to save a buck, we have tried to save a buck,” Shuttleworth said.

Students in Augusta pleaded with the Board of Education to save programs like the multimedia program at Capital Area Technical Center and the elementary French program.  Some students said the multimedia program was integral in keeping them in school.  Despite the pleas, the Board stated there was just no funding for the program.  The next budget for the district is $500,000 less than the current budget.  Even with the cuts, a 3.4% property tax increase will be needed to make ends meet.  As these stories continue to illustrate, there is just no money, leaving little room to maneuver.  One board member agreed.  “I wish we could go to the City Council and say we want it all,” said board member Nathanael Rende.  “But I’m afraid they’d make us come back and make these same tough choices again.”  District residents will vote on the budget June 8th.

Further south in Falmouth a new budget of $24.5 million will be open to public comment March 31st.  The budget cuts teacher and support staff positions, text book purchases and implements pay-for-play, like Winslow was considering.  Falmouth’s pay-for-play scheme will likely cost $25 per student for extracurricular after school activities, while athletics will cost between $125 and $250 per student.  Falmouth did not make arbitrary cuts.  “Some cuts were tied to enrollment. We are choosing not to replace in a couple of situations. We’re using staff in a creative way,” Superintendent Barbara Powers said.  Falmouth schools will remain with their class-size policy and there will be no tax increase for residents.

Stay with us for more school budget updates as they come in.  Chin up, stay positive, keep your head, and we’ll get through this better than before.

Even before the economic collapse of 2008, Maine wrestled with private sector job loss, revenue shortfalls, and a sagging economy. The general response by Augusta has been a mix of across-the-board cuts, budget gimmicks, furlough days, and looting funds meant for other purposes.

Since the recession, this kind of fiscal mismanagement has exacerbated Maine’s economic problems. Our deficit crept up to as much as $438 million earlier this year.

This should be a fiscal wake-up call. Those in charge of our state budget should see this as an opportunity to reassess the status quo, set priorities, and forge a new sustainable direction for our economy. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Instead, our state government behaves much like a poor football team that doesn’t understand the basics of how to play the game. Rather than learning how to block and tackle, Maine throws a fiscal Hail Mary each year – a budgeting prayer that will save us at the last minute.

Last year, our elected officials balanced the books with hundreds of millions of dollars from Washington, D.C. In prior years, they raided funds for roads and bridges to pump money into bloated and wasteful state programs. The Governor’s budget “fix” pulls $70 million out of the state retirees’ health plan and again relies on so-called stimulus money from Washington. In the real world, this dangerous and irresponsible behavior is called “management by hope”.

Maine can no longer afford such careless fiscal mismanagement. Our citizens are taxed to death as a result. We cannot make targeted spending reductions because our state government has no evaluation system to measure the effectiveness of its programs. Our state agencies are not held accountable for how tax dollars are wasted.

In order to bring prosperity back to our state we need to elect a competent manager as our next Governor. A skilled manager can help the state in ways that a career politician from Augusta or Washington cannot.

A good manager audits departments, agencies, and programs to eliminate waste and redundancy, and institutes measurable goals and evaluation systems to gauge success or failure. If a program is not working, an experienced manager responds quickly. In Maine’s case, a lack of management skills has lead to across-the-board cuts that don’t work because they leave poorly performing programs in place.

Our next Governor must appoint professional managers to run our departments and agencies. These important positions should not go to political friends, donors, career bureaucrats, or campaign workers. We need knowledgeable and experienced people managing every level of government.

Only a skilled manager from the private sector can provide the leadership and long-term vision to build a prosperous and sustainable economy.

My entire professional life has been in the private sector, successfully starting, managing, and investing in companies that have created good work for hundreds of Mainers and injected millions of dollars into our economy. My background in finance and business management gives me the experience to address our ongoing budget crisis. I have painfully navigated the state’s complex web of regulations and bureaucracy. I know how tough it is to start and manage a business here, and will work to help Maine become more business friendly.

Good management won’t come from career politicians concerned about the next election. Maine must move past the politicians and elect a competent manager with successful private sector experience. We need someone who has the courage to confront these challenges head on, but also has the background and proven management skills to get it done.

Bruce Poliquin is a business owner and manager, and a Republican candidate for Governor. For more information about Bruce, please visit www.BruceForMe.com

Governor Baldacci praised the bipartisan effort in finding budget solutions.  Baldacci assured Mainers he would continue to find money saving efficiencies and again vowed not to raise taxes.  “Maine families and businesses cannot afford a greater burden,” said Baldacci.  A plan from Baldacci focusing on job creation will be unveiled next week.  “We have an opportunity to put people back to work, to create jobs and grow our economy,” Governor Baldacci said.  Since government can only create government jobs, it will be interesting to see where this investment plan is targeted and what impact it will have.

Republicans were pleased by the budget adjustments, manly because the budget changes alleviate the need for local property tax hikes.  Education Commissioner Susan Gendron was pleased by the changes as well.  “They asked the governor to put all of whatever he could do for general purpose aid in FY ’11 to help them prepare for a significant clip that we’re projecting in FY ’12, which is where I think we will see the most significant changes,” Gendron said.

Others are still unhappy with the budget.  Lizzy Reinholt of Maine Can Do Better believes the government should take a a look at revenues (ie. raising taxes) along side cuts to balance the budget.  Maine Education Association President, Chris Galgay, told WCSH6 he is, “happy to see that the Governor will move heaven and earth to save [the sardine cannery workers] jobs, but we’d like to see him put a little more effort into saving dedicated educators’ jobs in this state.

As we have stated many times, there is no money.  Somehow the state continues to find hidden blood in the turnip.  Once federal money dries up, any spending based on those funds will need to be cut as well.  If economic times were actually rosey, raising taxes to fill budget holes might be a viable option – or not needed at all.  In this relatively poor state and in this economic climate, the political will to raise taxes is nearly non-existent.  For the time being, this is the way things are.  Governor Baldacci is dealing with the issue as best as he can.  Those looking for even a greater reduction in cuts will likely go wanting, despite the impact of less funds.

So does employing teachers.

Teachers are in the business of making people less stupid. Therefore, amount of stupidity in a society is inversely proportional to the number of teachers per capita.  In other words, more teachers = less stupidity.

Image Courtesy "Life gets in the way..."

Are you following me? Or was your k-12 education underfunded?

As newspapers begin to deliver tales of school budget catastrophe, keep in mind some of the following examples of colossal stupidity that could have been averted if only there were more teachers.

1) The Maine Dairy and Nutrition Council is airing ads encouraging parents to give their children chocolate milk, claiming that it’s “healthy.”

Okay, we ought to make sure kids get enough protein and calcium. But aren’t these essential nutrients available in something that doesn’t contain 30 or 40 grams of sugar per serving?

The main ingredient in chocolate milk is high fructose corn syrup (you know what that is because of your amazing high school health class).

The good news: once your child has diabetes, you can sue the Maine Dairy and Nutrition Council for false advertising.

2) The University of Maine has decided to go entirely smoke-free by 2012.

On the surface, this looks like a great way to promote public health and get rid of some of those pesky tenured journalism and philosophy professors. But five seconds of deep thought reveal how lame this initiative really is.

First of all, the enforcement method for this policy — an army of omniscient fairies carrying little fire extinguishers — will not come cheaply.

Secondly, alcohol abuse threatens public health on campus much more ominously, as nary a weekend goes by when someone isn’t busted for OUI, raped in a drunken stupor, or hauled off in an ambulance with alcohol poisoning. Let’s see the university get serious about underage alcohol possession first before they go inventing new draconian rules.

Of course, they’ll never do that, because the students would freak out, protest, and transfer to someplace more tolerant. After all, drinking is an integral part of the college experience, particularly if you’re stupid.

3) Lots of people are calling Central Falls, Rhode Island school Supt. Frances Gallo a hero for standing up to the teachers’ union.

Give me a break.

She wanted high school teachers to spend more time with students by extending the school day and adding more lunch duties. Fine.

The teachers said they wanted to be paid for this extra time on the job. Such an outlandish demand left Gallo no choice but to fire the entire faculty.

Now she gets to hire a bunch of new teachers who are willing to work more hours for less money (read: rookies, plus maybe some people who didn’t make it through the probationary period at their last job). Now watch those test scores soar!

That’s right, Junior. You live in one of the poorest communities in the state, but your school rates low because your teachers all stink.

Now, finish your chocolate milk and Lucky Charms so you won’t be late for the bus.

Chuck McKay is a Maine freelance writer, teacher, and nutritionist. His email is chuckrates@gmail.com.

Cross Posted @ Tongue-In-Cheek