Democrats will work for solutions for job creation in Maine, like investing in economic development, lowering energy costs, improving our roads and bridges, and linking business and education to prepare our workforce for the jobs of the future.

Since the Legislature adjourned in June, lawmakers have been meeting with people and businesses in our communities. The message across the state has been the same: stop the distractions and focus on getting Maine people back to work. From York to Aroostook, Maine people are tired of seeing politicians in Augusta ignore job creation.

Earlier this year, we saw the new Republican leadership try to roll back laws that keep toxic chemicals out of sippy cups; protect our natural resources; protect voting rights; and govern child labor.

None of these proposals had anything to do with getting our economy back on track. Where was the focus on jobs? Where was the focus on the economy?

Last winter the Governor was busy grabbing headlines for removing a mural from the state’s Department of Labor. Today, that same department reports that Maine has lost 4,800 jobs since his term started.

Even now, the Governor will work to force through his irresponsible and harmful budget proposal that will throw 65,000 Maine people off of health care and result in an additional 4,400 job losses in the state.

This is the wrong solution for Maine.

Maine people deserve a vision for long-term economic development. We need leaders that have a daily focus on the economy and plan for the future. You can’t cut your way to job creation.

Democrats are ready to roll up our sleeves and work with Republicans toward reasonable and common sense solutions for our state – solutions that are focused on improving the economy.

As the minority party, we often must define success by looking at the extreme policies we were able to moderate. Earlier this year, Democrats were able to stop some of the most devastating and extreme proposals from moving forward because we stood on the side of Maine people.

Next year the Governor and Republican leaders will continue to push extreme proposals, Democrats will stand up against them.

When Republicans advance bills that undermine worker’s rights and pose harm to the environment, Democrats will stand up for working families and our quality of place.

When the Republicans choose to undermine Maine’s Clean Elections system, Democrats will stand up and fight to limit the influence of special interests on our local campaigns.

When Republicans threaten successful energy efficiency and conservation programs, Democrats will stand up for the businesses and homeowners that save money using them.

While the Governor works to dismantle health care and anti-poverty programs in our state, Democrats will stand up for the many struggling families who have used them as a hand-up. We will offer realistic solutions that protect the safety net.

You can count on Democrats to be there pushing back on these extreme ideas. We will be asking the tough questions. We will keep our focus on improving the economy and growing the middle class in Maine. We won’t just be managing today’s crisis, but leading towards tomorrow’s opportunities.

We will stand up for you.

Thank you for listening. Have a Happy New Year!

A recent study from Chase Bank shows that during the deepest part of the near depression, Maine’s economic recession and unemployment rates were both far less severe compared to the rest of the country as a whole. This is due in large part because the foundation for Maine’s economy to progress out of the recession was firmly established with the Baldacci administration.

But the Chase Bank study shows that after LePage’s first session with the Legislature, Maine began to lag behind in the economic recovery. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the state had no bond issues on the ballot this past November, which would have immediately provided thousands of jobs for people in construction, research and development, public safety, and education. LePage and other conservatives flatly refused to discuss a bond package in 2010. According to the most recent Maine Department of Labor data, Maine has lost more than 4,800 jobs since January. And LePage’s proposed cuts would diminish the workforce further.

“The proposed state cuts to Medicaid in fiscal year 2012 will result in the loss of more than 4,400 jobs across all counties statewide,” said MECEP Executive Director Garrett Martin.

During the short time LePage has been in office, more jobs have been lost in Maine than created. But jobs have been created — in sectors where the economy is still growing and will continue to do so. These are the areas focused on by the Baldacci administration, working with the Legislature, for the state’s present and future economy. For example:

• Maine’s green economy: According to a Brookings Report, from 2003 to 2010, Maine added 2,914 “clean jobs,” growing by 4 percent annually. Between 2008 and 2009, the state rate overtook the national growth rate of 3.4 percent. The state set clean-energy goals, which has given companies confidence to invest in Maine. Renewable energy is projected to become a huge growth area for the U.S. economy, and Maine has been fostering wind, solar, natural gas, biofuels, and wood energy alternatives. Working with UMaine’s offshore wind development team, Maine could be exporting electrical energy captured on floating wind farms. This alone could create thousands of jobs and stimulate the economy, at the same time reducing people’s oil consumption, if they turn to electrical energy to heat. Businesses focused on weatherization and retro fitting buildings to use less oil are also becoming a mainstay business in Maine with the help of the Energy Efficiency Trust.

• Maine has some world-renowned scientific labs, like Bigelow and Jackson Laboratory. Some of their projects, along with other high-tech innovative companies, have been supported by new Maine Technology Institute grants introduced by Karen Mills.

• Maine has strong programs to support and nurture entrepreneurship, and because of this reality Blackstone just gave the state $3 million to expand these programs.

• Maine received federal funding for the Three Ring Binder, because of its leadership in broadband Internet access deployment to rural areas. The ConnectME program got all of this rolling. Broadband allows entrepreneurs to set up anywhere in the world, and more are choosing Maine for it’s quality of life.

• Maine’s quality of life was promoted and protected with bonds like the Land for Maine’s Future program managed by the State Planning Office. Another little-known SPO program, which started with a committee established by Gov. Baldacci, will interlink bike and walkable trails across the state, so people can travel the entire state on the “interstate bike highway.” Working with the Department of Transportation and various nonprofits, the SPO progressed this quality of life initiative and others that surely will bring environmental enthusiasts and people wanting a healthy lifestyle to the state. The SPO is now being dismantled, because of LePage.

• In eight years, the Pine Tree Tax Zone initiative brought business or expanded business in the sate — over 310 of them, creating thousands of jobs.

• Maine has a great community college system with low tuition. There has been a 76 percent increase in enrollment over the last eight years.

The thing is, none of these areas that have proven to grow the economy is the domain of a political party. The reason Gov. Baldacci got them established was because of his unwavering belief that we all can work together to progress the state of Maine for all its citizens. That’s how he made these initiatives happen. The majority of Democrats want to grow jobs using these successful initiatives, which businesses and nonprofits back. They want a comprehensive bond package. We need to return to a climate of collaboration and cooperation in Augusta, so jobs can be created.

Humility is part of thankfulness. To say “thank you” is to acknowledge that you need others to survive in what can be a challenging world. Perhaps this is why I have a special place in my heart for the late fall season and the time of Thanksgiving, when we turn our thoughts to appreciating what we have been given.

In addition to being a time of pumpkin pie, turkey and gravy, and deer hunting, the late fall is a season when the winds turn cold and ice makes its way back into our world, whether as a heavy coating on dying grass blades or a skim on calm waters. The cold, and all the harshness it brings, is, like thankfulness, intertwined with humility. Nature has a way of clarifying who is in charge when the skies grow gray, the mercury plummets, and a chill sinks into your bones. Nowhere is this clearer than in the wild, exposed places.

It’s no surprise that mountain tops, exposed shores, and expansive bogs have a great capacity to humble you, especially when the summer gives way to its less-welcoming neighbors, fall and winter. These places may be stunningly beautiful, but they also are rough places for both visitors and residents alike.

As a visitor to places such as the alpine ridge atop Mount Abraham, the coastal headlands at Quoddy Head State Park, one of the many islands on the Maine Island Trail, or the remote Number Five Bog adjacent to the Moose River Bow canoe trip, you can experience that you are part of an amazing world, but that the world is not here just to make you comfy and warm. For “permanent residents,” like the stunted mountain spruce able to grow small limbs only to the leeward side of their stems, or tough-leafed bog plants making due in acidic soils separated completely from nutrients and groundwater, these places are challenges that deter the vast majority of their fellow plants, let alone animals.

I feel very fortunate, very thankful, to have the opportunity to visit these wild places. They help sustain me spiritually. And though I’ve had this thankfulness for a long time, one recent event put a new spin on all I have to be thankful for.

I was contacted by the Maine Island Trail Association (MITA), a group I work with rather regularly on trail management, regarding a man who they had discovered was on a trail island and was well beyond the stay limit. MITA and my bureau, the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, had both winterized all their boats. With no quick means of accessing the man, who reportedly had stated he intended to stay on the island indefinitely, I turned to the Maine Marine Patrol.

With great professionalism, the Marine Patrol quickly assisted and determined that the man was a homeless veteran with few resources or family to help him out. With some quick phone calls and scurrying, we seemed to find some assistance for the man as the Marine Patrol delivered him back to the mainland.

While I never met that homeless veteran, the small incident keeps cycling in my consciousness. I’ve slept on rocks; I’ve had icicles hanging from my eyebrows; I’ve heard trees groaning and creaking at night as the sub-zero cold settles in; I’ve waded through deep, dank bogs till my feet wrinkled as if I had soaked too long in a bathtub..

Every time, though, it has been my choice or perhaps part of a day’s work. I’m typically dressed in Gore-Tex or other technical fabrics, and I tend to have good gear – after all, this is my recreational passion. Never do I recall being cold, hungry, tired, or in danger because I did not have the resources to feed and clothe myself. I say that not to boast or disparage those less fortunate, but to give thanks.

Like most people nowadays, I see those who I assume do not have a home. I see those who make me wonder if they get enough to eat. It took this man on an island in Maine, however, to give me pause when I visit the wonderful wild places I seek. I’m quite sure the next time I feel the bite of ice particles blowing horizontally across a ridge top or feel the wet cold of the Atlantic spraying off rocky headlands, I will remember that I choose to face the cold and wet. I give thanks for that choice. I cherish the opportunity to be humbled by nature, but I now better appreciate that not all people have such a luxury.

I really hesitate to preach – and I hope I’m not – but it seems to me this is yet another reason for folks to venture forth into wild nature, whether in your backyard or a huge piece of conservation land, and to appreciate not only the wildness but also your ability to return with your memories to a warm home and a hot meal. Not all share this opportunity.

In June, Portland hosted the EnergyOcean International Conference with over 400 participants. The city benefited from the international exposure, as well as the income spent at restaurants and other venues. Maine’s Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) brought their tidal-energy machine to the city for the conference, where over 125 visitors took guided tours. The economic ripple effect of Maine’s venture into capturing electrical energy from the ocean is already translating into money for the state’s economy.

It wasn’t long ago that harnessing wind energy from floating wind turbines or from the tides was theoretical, in Maine. Taking a concept and turning it into a reality takes investment. It’s hard in the initial stage; that’s where the Maine Technology Institute (MTI) plays a vital role by granting companies startup funds, as awards or loans. Under Gov. John Baldacci, those awards were increased and became targeted to major “cluster” areas of growth. These MTI grants came from bond funding approved by voters. This major initiative helped UMaine take their floating wind-turbine theories and turn them into actual models for testing. And ORPC, by being awarded funds and a loan, was able to jumpstart their tidal turbine, working with UMaine researchers. Both efforts received substantial additional funding and investment, once the state had given them funds. MTI put their stamp of approval on the projects, which in turn gave investors the needed confidence.

Without those initial MTI investment grant funds, Maine would never have hosted this year’s EnergyOcean Conference, nor the one two years ago. Because of MTI’s initial grants, Maine is now known around the globe as a leader in ocean-energy technology. State government can make a difference, helping to create jobs and industry growth.

But this year, state government decided not to have a bond package. Meanwhile, there are many innovative projects in need of initial investment. Meanwhile, people are still searching for jobs.

This session the Legislature had to deal with many attacks on the ability of the workers of Maine. Under Gov. John Baldacci, 8,206 jobs were created from his Pine Tree Zone initiative. Most of those 310 business owners praised Maine’s workforce and were happy to get a competitive package of ten-year tax breaks. They said a key deciding factor in setting up in the state was Maine’s work ethic. These businesses represent a total investment of $873 million, with an annual payroll of $341 million.

Republican-proposed laws that could take away collective bargaining rights, combined with a budget that cuts into the pension plans of public servants, is a clear statement that this administration does not value Maine’s workforce. So is the administration’s attempt to roll back Medicaid coverage for hardworking people earning $30k to $40k. That was the most frightening element of this session. To see a governor who told the public that he would “put people before politics” and “create jobs” do exactly the opposite, while discrediting Maine’s stellar workforce.

From attacking the principles and history of Maine’s labor movement by taking down the Department of Labor’s mural, to attacking the integrity of Maine’s workers, Gov. LePage has not created jobs. In fact, he has Maine looking like we’ve closed the door to business.

But the spirit of the people of Maine continues to shine. Jobs are being created, despite an unresponsive administration in Augusta. Downtown communities are welcoming visitors, and Brunswick Landing announced the arrival of two new businesses. Belfast, this year, has had 34 new businesses open their doors, due to the shipyard being built, which received Pine Tree Zone status. That ripple effect means positive economic growth.

And the Legislature managed to work together to make the LePage budget workable. Years of bipartisan work helped to govern the results of LD 1 — regulatory reform, without adversely damaging Maine’s quality of life, keeping “Maine, Maine.”

“I believe the best work we do, we do together,” said Rep. Emily Cain, House minority leader.

That experienced bipartisan workmanship guided the Appropriations Committee to craft a budget that continued to protect the most vulnerable, maintaining the values of the common good. The end result did not resemble LePage’s dictated proposal. Tax breaks of $153 million targeted to help the wealthiest did pass, at the expense of state workers. Democrats strongly opposed unnecessary tax cuts.

“These tax cuts are unfunded — benefiting the top ten percent disproportionally. In the next biennium budget, we will have a $400 million hole from these tax cuts, that we will have to fill,” said Senator Justin Alfond. “Essential programs that create the infrastructure and confidence for businesses to invest in Maine will have to be trimmed for tax cuts that mean no more than a $100 for the middle class.”

Tax cuts sound great for political campaigns, but for state government they could take away from the future revenues that support core programs that keep citizens healthy, communities safe, and offer educational opportunities. Right now the federal government is dealing with a real debt-deficit problem that has happened, in large part, because of Bush tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

Without any bonds to fund research and development projects, transportation projects, educational needs this time around, state government’s hands have been tied. While Democrats would have embraced the opportunity to create jobs with a comprehensive jobs bond, they were denied the opportunity.

“Not having a bond package of 2011 means we are leaving hundreds of jobs on the table. No bonding is like moving backwards by standing still,” said Cain.

During Gov. Baldacci’s last legislative session, over 2,000 transportation jobs were created, some of the roadwork you see out there now is still a part of that bond package. Funds for a new branch of Southern Maine Community College (SMCC) were approved and classes this fall at SMCC’s new Brunswick Landing location are filled. The great expansion of the Community College System all took place during the Baldacci administration, and plans on how to continue to move forward were in place. But while the federal government is moving forward to expand the scope of community colleges to train the workforce for jobs that have vacancies now, Maine has been forced to put the breaks on.

LePage promised to create job opportunities and training to fill those jobs. Another promise unfulfilled.

The people of Maine are resilient, creative, innovative entrepreneurs who care deeply for their communities. The Legislature reflects the people who elected them to office. Democrats and Republicans joined together to preserve Maine’s environment.

If LePage had managed to ramrod his original budget proposal through the Legislature, we would be loosing jobs; local communities would be forced to raise taxes to serve people thrown off welfare, and our environment would be open to any developer to destroy. That prospect was grim. The ability of Maine’s lawmakers to work together to make the best of a bad budget proposal deserves praise; it’s the Maine way.

It’s also the Maine way to bounce back with vigor and determination — that indeed is what Democratic lawmakers have done in the uncomfortable position of being in the minority. Democrats fought hard for all the people of Maine in one of the most challenging legislative sessions in recent memory.

The economic world we live in today is dominated by corporations. Huge corporations that boast massive profits and span continents. But corporations also wield political power and are lobbying heavily to be free from any and all government regulations that would make them responsible and liable. Republicans have been defending corporations since the late 1800′s and have literally gone on a history revising crusade to show that even the founding fathers supported corporations. But is this the case? What did the founders really think about corporations?

The origin of modern corporations can be traced all the way back to 17th century England when Queen Elizabeth I created the East India Trading Company. At first, corporations were small, quasi government institutions that were chartered by the crown for a specific purpose. If corporations stepped out of line, the crown did not hesitate to revoke their charters. Corporations generated so much revenue that they even began taking on increased political power. Corporations were also organized to finance large projects such as exploration, which leads us to the American colonies.

To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.

But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founders supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of America’s corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.

For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founders themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Jefferson wasn’t the only founding father to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.

“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”

These statements make it pretty clear that corporations were not trusted by the founders. The founders knew that huge corporations only preyed upon the people. But as the founding generation began to fade away, corporations began using their power to gain political favor and eventually that political favor would turn into political power. And corporations would take advantage of a war to do it. As the Civil War raged across the land, corporations made an effort to take advantage of the situation, selling products at high prices, especially to the government. Corporations even sold to both sides throughout the war. Basically, corporations proved even then that they had no allegiance to any country when great profits were at stake. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be President also had plenty to say about corporations…

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”

And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s suspicions were anything but groundless. They were in fact, prophetic. After the Civil War, corporations began aligning themselves with Republican politicians, who proved themselves to be up to the task of helping corporations gain more power. Corporations had free reign and total power over its workforce and could sell virtually anything they wanted even if the product was a bad one. Corporations treated workers like slaves. Wages were extremely low. Workers received no benefits, no vacation days, no health insurance, no workers compensation. President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,

“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”

To put it bluntly, corporations didn’t care about its workers or the people who bought their products. The only rule of the game was to make as much profit as possible, no matter what. As the 19th century ended and the 20th century began, corporations were getting bigger and bigger. Many began buying up smaller companies, becoming monopolies that controlled whole industries. This practice eliminated competition and as a result, prices had skyrocketed and no one could challenge them. That was, until Theodore Roosevelt became the President. Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that,

“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”

And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”

To that end he fought for corporate regulation, he fought for fair wages for workers, he fought for safe and healthy work environments, and he fought to protect consumers. And the people loved him for it. Roosevelt’s policies toward corporations were immensely popular. He busted up so many giant corporations that he became known as a “trust buster”. The busting up of these corporations created a lot more competition for customers and for employees, resulting in higher wages and lower prices and more jobs. And you know what? Corporate profits did just fine.

Teddy never stopped fighting for workers and consumers even after his presidency when he said this as the Progressive Party candidate for President in 1912,

“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”

Roosevelt didn’t win the presidency in 1912, although he most certainly would have if the Republican ticket hadn’t been split. But Woodrow Wilson would continue the fight for workers and consumers. As America entered the 1920′s, corporations began to gain political favors once again as business minded Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. Regulations were being stripped away and banks as large entities were on the rise. These banks and corporations abused the stock market which would lead to the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. Corporate profits had surged throughout the decade and unfair speculation had caused economic bubbles that had to burst.
Corporate bosses also flexed their muscles over America’s legal system, spending great deals of money to get away with nearly anything. In a statement of sarcasm that speaks to this despicable practice, Senator George Norris, after an industrialist was acquitted of charges of corruption, said that “We ought to pass a law that no man worth $100,000,000 should be tried for a crime.”

The Franklin Roosevelt era would bring new calls for corporate regulation and corporate tax hikes. These new regulations once again kept corporations honest and protected consumers. Workers also benefited from these new regulations, getting fair wages, pensions, and safe working conditions. Corporations were taxed at a rate of 91% and even with all of that, corporations still made huge profits. Life changed dramatically for the middle class. People had jobs with livable wages and promise for the future. Corporations once again served a purpose as consumers were treated fairly and the economy soared. Unemployment was also very low. But these trends did not last long as corporate greed would once again fuel another grab for political power. Corporations began aligning themselves more and more with the Republican Party, and as this relationship grew, corporations found a way to make record profits. Throughout the 1980′s up to today, corporations have outsourced millions of American jobs to cheap labor overseas. As a result of this, corporate profits have broke record after record, while the unemployment rate has jumped higher and higher. Corporate tax rates began getting lower and lower, while more tax loopholes were created to help corporations evade most of them altogether. When the Republican Party took control of government in 2001, they went on a crusade on behalf of corporations (how could they refuse, they were on the payroll), to blame workers for economic downturns and outsourcing. Corporations also decided to take advantage of a national tragedy. After 9/11, there was an understandable push to go to war against terrorists hiding in Afghanistan. But corporations, as in other times of war and tragedy, began pushing for a war against Iraq. And they got their wish. Corporations have since made billions in war profits off of the War in Iraq and have proven once again that profit is far more important than the lives of soldiers. Lincoln was right. This is yet another reason why corporations need to be put in their place. As Henry Ford once said, “Do you want to know the cause of war? It is capitalism, greed, the dirty hunger for dollars. Take away the capitalist and you will sweep war from the earth.”

Republicans are now on the verge of stripping away all corporate regulations and worker’s rights. But it was the 2010 Citizens United decision that really made corporations into political powers. Not only were corporations declared to be people but corporations also now have the power to buy elections at will. The problem with this Supreme Court decision is that it goes against everything the founding fathers believed in. In the Constitution, it says “We the people…”, not “We the corporations…”. The founding fathers never addressed corporations in the Constitution because it never occurred to them that corporations would be perceived as people. And why would they have? Corporations don’t eat, they don’t breathe, they don’t vote, they don’t fight battles in wars. Remember all the limitations the founders placed on corporations mentioned earlier? In the Constitution, the founders speak only of the people. The founders did not limit lifetimes of people, nor did they outlaw a persons right to donate to political campaigns. They also did not limit people to specific life goals like they did with corporations. This should make it absolutely clear that the founders never intended for corporations to be people. The decision by the clearly activist, conservative majority of the court is an abomination that can never be Constitutionally justified. Now it is our duty to call on Congress to bring forward a Constitutional Amendment that bans corporate personhood and bans corporations from interfering with government and legal elections that only real people have the right to donate to and vote in. Because whatever these greedy, arrogant CEO’s and Republicans think, its the opinion of the founding generation that matters most. Corporations are not people. People are people.

Three years ago, during the Baldacci administration we asked the state for some financial assistance to move one of our companies into a larger facility to expand from a 12-employee business to a 50-employee business. While there were strings attached (such as the need to prove that we added new, incremental, high-paying jobs), the financial assistance was provided to us from the Department of Economic and Community Development, and it was critical to our expansion.

In spite of the economic downturn, we have maintained a 50-person work force over the past three years. With the economy now recovering, we want to expand again and set ourselves up to add up to 50 more employees.

When I recently inquired to DECD about support, I was told that no funds now exist. You know, the governor has new austerity priorities. But isn’t our governor pro-business, with his highest priority to create new well-paying manufacturing jobs in Maine?

Well, not through DECD, since everyone knows that private sector jobs aren’t created by government programs, so no funds are now available.Funny, the governor is willing to give income tax cuts to the wealthiest people in Maine. I’ll be one of those who receive a big tax cut and like most others who receive this new-found money, I will save it.

To create Maine jobs with tax cuts, the wealthy would either need to spend the money locally or add an employee to a local company — something that almost never happens when you give tax cuts to the wealthiest.

There is not a shred of proof that giving tax cuts to the wealthy creates jobs. If it did, then we’d be at full employment right now after 10 years of Bush’s tax cuts for the elite…If you did not give the wealthy the tax cut and instead used the money to fund DECD for “targeted support” for private sector job creation, I would use the money to create up to 50 new high-paying manufacturing jobs right here in Maine.

Conservatives by nature only accept data that support their political agenda…What we all need to understand is that tax cuts to the wealthy are proven to be extremely inefficient at creating jobs, and government programs that are targeted correctly will be very efficient at creating new jobs right here in Maine.

by Andy Wright a successful businessman wrote this in the PPH

The laws are being passed in the name of preventing “voter fraud.” But study after study has shown that fraud by voters is not a major problem — and is less of a problem than how hard many states make it for people to vote in the first place. Some of the new laws, notably those limiting the number of days for early voting, have little plausible connection to battling fraud.

These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.

Again, think of what this would look like to a dispassionate observer. A party wins an election, as the GOP did in 2010. Then it changes the election laws in ways that benefit itself. In a democracy, the electorate is supposed to pick the politicians. With these laws, politicians are shaping their electorates.

Paradoxically, the rank partisanship of these measures is discouraging the media from reporting plainly on what’s going on. Voter suppression so clearly benefits the Republicans that the media typically report this through a partisan lens, knowing that accounts making clear whom these laws disenfranchise would be labeled as biased by the right. But the media should not fear telling the truth or standing up for the rights of the poor or the young.

The laws in question include requiring voter identification cards at the polls, limiting the time of early voting, ending same-day registration and making it difficult for groups to register new voters.

Sometimes the partisan motivation is so clear that if Stephen Colbert reported on what’s transpiring, his audience would assume he was making it up. In Texas, for example, the law allows concealed handgun licenses as identification but not student IDs. And guess what? Nationwide exit polls show that John McCain carried households in which someone owned a gun by 25 percentage points but lost voters in households without a gun by 32 points.

Besides Texas, states that enacted voter ID laws this year include Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Tennessee. Indiana and Georgia already had such requirements. The Maine Legislature voted to end same-day voter registration. Florida seems determined to go back to the chaos of the 2000 election. It shortened the early voting period, effectively ended the ability of registered voters to correct their address at the polls and imposed onerous restrictions on organized voter-registration drives.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, by 6 to 3, upheld Indiana’s voter ID statute. So seeking judicial relief may be difficult. Nonetheless, the Justice Department should vigorously challenge these laws, particularly in states covered by the Voting Rights Act. And the court should be asked to review the issue again in light of new evidence that these laws have a real impact in restricting the rights of particular voter groups.

“This requirement is just a poll tax by another name,” state Sen. Wendy Davis declared when Texas was debating its ID law early this year. In the bad old days, poll taxes, now outlawed by the 24th Amendment, were used to keep African Americans from voting. Even if the Supreme Court didn’t see things her way, Davis is right. This is the civil rights issue of our moment.

In part because of a surge of voters who had not cast ballots before, the United States elected its first African American president in 2008. Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?

Whether or not these laws can be rolled back, their existence should unleash a great civic campaign akin to the voter-registration drives of the civil rights years. The poor, the young and people of color should get their IDs, flock to the polls and insist on their right to vote in 2012.

If voter suppression is to occur, let it happen for all to see. The whole world, which watched us with admiration and respect in 2008, will be watching again.