During my tenure as Chair of the Legislature’s Committee of Energy, Senate Co-Chair Barry Hobbins and I led our committee to nearly 100% unanimous and bipartisan votes on some of Maine’s most complicated and important energy and infrastructure policies. In fact, only 4 of 110 pieces of Legislation did not receive the unanimous consent of the committee, none of which represented partisan divisions.

Perhaps the more telling side of the “dysfunction” in the United States Senate is the record number of filibusters used by Snowe and her Republican colleagues to derail economic recovery at a time when our nation desperately needs leadership. The fact is, Republicans in the United States Senate mounted more filibusters between 2009 and 2011 than there were in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s combined.

Snowe joined in 40% of these partisan filibusters, nearly voting against cloture motions 37 times on such issues as payroll tax cuts and qualified nominations for agency chiefs and judicial appointments.

Her actions are a far cry from the bipartisan efforts employed during the Bush Administration by the so-called “Gang of 14.” Snowe joined 13 of her Senate colleagues in pledging that the “signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”

We should expect more from our Senators who talk one way yet act another. Mainers would be better served by a United States Senator willing to initiate compromise on important issues instead of sitting back and releasing partisan rhetoric to the press.

What’s more concerning is Snowe’s willingness to blast a “minority” of Senators who she says blocked the FREEDOM Act. When will Snowe take responsibility for the multiple times she has joined minority partisan filibusters? When will Snowe go beyond her own “lip service” and simply work to achieve positive results in Washington, D.C.?

Snowe said last night, “the bottom line is, it is imperative we end the status quo in Washington so that we can produce results and create jobs.” I could not agree with her more, and that’s why Maine voters, in November, should end the 33 year status quo which she, perhaps more than any other Washington politician, embodies.

And, Mainers know what this means. It means that these corporate sponsors who fund high priced political campaigns buy a seat at the table and call the shots once their candidate is in office. It’s no wonder in our own state, with our own governor, that he is calling for less government oversight and accountability, and more tax giveaways for the rich—that’s what his big money funders are demanding.

Studies show—heck, talk to your neighbor—people are fed up with corporate greed and influence. Our leaders need to protect Maine from big out of state corporate interests coming in and inserting their big monied agenda in to our political landscape.

For more than a decade, Maine has led the nation as a model for how to keep money out of politics. Back in 1996, the citizens of Maine initiated campaign finance reform—and since then, the Maine Clean Elections Act has led campaign finance standards in Maine. It has truly been a bedrock for legislative and gubernatorial races by candidates of all political affiliations in Maine for fifteen years.

Incumbents and challengers alike, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, have all chosen to run as clean elections candidates. And, as a result of its resounding success, Maine Clean Elections, has mitigated many of the corrosive side-effects that come with big money and politics. However, the level playing field may be in jeopardy.

Last June, Maine Clean Elections took a major hit when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a provision of Arizona’s Clean Election law that allows candidates to receive additional “matching funds”. As a result of the Arizona case, Maine no longer allows “matching funds” to a clean elections candidate if he or she is politically outspent or attacked by a privately financed candidate.

If nothing is done to protect Maine’s Clean Elections then a well-connected, well-financed candidate would know just how much money to raise if he wanted to overpower and silence his clean elections challenger. Such a system would actually deter candidates from using Clean Elections and would instead, promote privately financed, higher priced campaigns.

Maine’s clean election system is vital to keeping special interest out of Maine politics.

It is key to allowing access to government and political office to regular Maine people—otherwise, political office might be reserved for only those who can afford it.

As the ranking Democrat on the Veterans and Legal Affairs committee, I can tell you that my Democratic colleagues and I are fighting every day to keep Clean Elections strong in Maine and make sure that we have a chance to lead once again. In the upcoming weeks, the legislature will have an opportunity to keep Maine clean elections alive by providing options and alternatives to the “matching funds” provision.

This issue is not a republican or democratic issue—it’s an issue of great importance to Maine people. It’s an issue that keeps special interest and out-of-state money out of our political system and it’s an issue that encourages transparency and honest dialogue during campaigns. It is imperative that we work together toward a solution that keeps Maine’s elections clean and free from big money influence.

WordPress has reported to me a response to one of my earlier blogs, which was about the Bonus Army of 1932, a forerunner of the current Occupy Wall Street movement, and how on this occasion several thousand World War I veterans were dispersed from their tent city in Washington D.C. by orders to the U.S. Army from President Herbert Hoover.

The person who commented, citing this blog, was an Angelita Fisher and she appears to be connected with an Internet operation called INTEL HUB, which is heavy on support for Congressman Ron Paul and dedicated to opposing “globalism,” whatever that means.

The first part of her response, which is actually unconnected to my blog, seemed somewhat mystifying, asking me to “Examine U.S. military policy during the Cold War from 1946-1989” discussing “policy development, military strategy, nuclear weapons and targeting” and a host of other such esoteric subjects. Her final words, though, still unconnected, were more concrete and within my capability to respond. Ms. Fisher stated: “Despite fighting the Korean War to stalemate and suffering defeat in Vietnam, the U.S. emerged victorious in its four decade long conflict with the Soviet Union. Why?”

I’m glad she asked. It has long been an article of faith in American right wing circles that President Reagan forced the USSR to its knees by ramping up our military spending and thus bankrupting the Soviets when they tried to compete.

I beg to differ. And Ms. Fisher’s question allows me to say why I think so, based on three trips I’ve taken to the entity we today call Russia, two of them while it was still the Soviet Union and one soon after it no longer was.

In 1977, during the height of the Brezhnev era and three years before Ronald Reagan was elected, I spent 32 days in the Soviet Union travelling as a tourist with my wife and youngest daughter Danielle, then six years old. It was my wife’s idea to bring Dany along and at first I thought it was a nutty thing to do. However, it really made our trip. Russians love children and they showered our cute little American darling with all kinds of gifts and attention. Also, it may well have lessened their usual paranoia about Americans being spies. The Iron Curtain had opened a crack by then – at least to the extent that tourists were welcomed, albeit closely watched.

In a sense, though, we were unofficial spies – that is, I was. My goal in going to the Soviet Union then was essentially to see what it was like and especially to see what it was like in the non-Russian areas. I was not working for anyone, only for satisfying my own curiosity. Our itinerary was an extensive one. Within today’s Russia, we were in Moscow and Leningrad [not yet reverted to its old name of St. Petersburg] plus historic places like Novgorod, Vladimir and Suzdal. Other areas we visited, which are now independent nations, were the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Georgia, Armenia and Latvia.

The overall impression in 1977 when the Soviet empire was at its height of power was that the place was a basket case. Nothing worked, because the Communist structure had been built on a false premise. Relying on Karl Marx’s notion that if the workers and peasants seized the means of production (i.e., took it away from the rampant capitalism of the Industrial Revolution), a nirvana on earth could be created. Instead, what happened was that a society was created in the USSR in which bureaucrats, not workers and peasants, totally ran the show. I’ve called it a burocy. An elite of bureaucrats developed that controlled all power and possibility of advancement. Moreover, its economic emphasis was exclusively centered upon production. You were judged by how well you fulfilled arbitrarily set quotas for goods and services. Consumer acceptance was utterly ignored. This worked well in creating military hardware but created a society in which most people felt they had no stake.

If you went to a food store or any retail establishment, the lines were horrific and the merchandise horrendous. You said a prayer if you entered an elevator. More than once, in hotels, we heard people pounding from within against doors that wouldn’t open. Nets hung from buildings to keep roof tiles from falling onto pedestrians below. Quality meant nothing. Quantity was everything.

Outside of geographic Russia, what I had anticipated was evident. The Soviet empire was merely another version of age-old Russian imperialism. The subject people hated their Russian overlords. You could tell even then in 1977 that such a situation couldn’t last much longer.

The party’s propaganda effort telling people how good they had it was relentless, but ultimately completely ineffectual. We westerners, particularly Americans, by our very presence, gave a lie to their false political advertising.

When I returned 12 years later, this time with a People-to-People exchange group of bi-partisan State legislators and officials, the internal changes were palpable. The Soviet powers-that-be had lost their totalitarian control. In Leningrad, I heard one party official sigh and tell us it was a bad time to be a Communist in the Soviet Union. In Uzbekistan, the Uzbeks seemed to have taken over. There were billboards warning that without reform, the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics would fall apart.

A spot-on prediction. The demise of the Soviet Union was brought on by its own inner contradictions, not outside pressure.

Ironically, talking about contradictions, Marx had insisted that Capitalism would succumb because of its inner contradictions. He was wrong – so far, anyway. But the return to the excesses that brought on the Great Depression and now the Great Recession may yet bring a crippling, even fatal, crisis to the system we call Capitalism.

I will have more to say about this phenomenon in future blogs.

My last trip to the land presently called just plain Russia was in 1992, about three years after the Soviet collapse. It was like being in the wild west, everything topsy-turvy amid the turnover of government property and industry to a primitive privatization of tooth and claw Capitalism reminiscent of the Robber Baron days in the U.S. In one case, I myself, was approached in a veterans hospital (I had come with a group looking at medical facilities) by a man who had been the commander of the Soviet paratroopers and who headed their veterans organization. He and his friends were trying to sell the formerly top secret naval base of Kronstadt near St. Petersburg for an industrial park and he wanted me to contact a man in San Francisco who was acting as their agent. [I did phone him when I got home, but he never returned my call]. Such audacious switches of public resources into privileged hands was commonplace at the time.

There is one final point I would make in answering Ms. Angelita Fisher’s query of why did the Soviet Union not last. For me, it is an intangible factor in the impact of the U.S.A. on the hard core Russian imperialism behind the Iron Curtain. This thought was indelibly impressed upon me by Olga, our guide and translator, during my second trip in 1989 with that delegation of State legislators and officials. Despite our political differences – we ranged from extreme left to extreme right and everything in between – we bonded together as Americans so spontaneously do, and our bus rides were often filled with merriment as we joked and sang and carried on. Olga, who was rumored to be a KGB agent, told us in unusual candor at the end of our trip as we bid her good-bye. “You Americans should know that it is not your wealth we envy. It is your ability to laugh.”

Angelita, I strongly believe this unconscious spirit of ours also helped bring down the Evil Empire.

For more of Neil’s blogs click here

I need to tell you something: I started this petition because I knew how devastating Governor LePage’s proposed cuts would be for Mainers all across the state, and I felt powerless. Now, two and a half weeks and 8732+ signatures later, I feel my hope restored.

We live in a participatory democracy. We have power when we gather our voices together. And anybody can start a petition. Anybody. You.

Because of the sheer size of our petition, this story attracted the attention of reporters. Look for it in today’s Bangor Daily News (http://bangordailynews.com/2012/01/11/health/9000-sign-petition-opposing-mainecare-cuts/) and the Portland Press Herald (http://www.pressherald.com/news/state-house-dust-up_2012-01-12.html). It also made mention last night on Maine Public Radio: http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/19749/Default.aspx.

When I delivered our petition to Representative Flood, I also handed him a letter. In it, I wrote, “These 8732 signatures add up to 917 pages. I see these as 917 pages of compassionate citizen engagement, and it gives me hope.” I don’t know how all of this will come out. But I can now say with confidence that your signatures, your thoughts, and your stories made a difference.

Thank you.

The plan presents the goals, outcomes and activities that the council will pursue in its continuing efforts to maintain and enhance environmental quality in the Gulf of Maine and its watersheds to allow for sustainable resource use. 

New Brunswick Environment Minister, and 2011-12 Chair of the Gulf of Maine Council, Margaret-Ann Blaney, unveiled the plan at the New Brunswick Museum, along with Dr. Don Hudson, council member and president emeritus of Chewonki Foundation in Maine.

“Every five years, the Gulf of Maine Council renews its engagement and commitment to working together in addressing the Gulf’s most pressing issues that require a unified, regional response,” said Blaney.

“New Brunswick is proud to be a partner, and this new Action Plan will allow the council to focus on the issues that are most in need of intervention to protect the Gulf ‘s fragile ecosystems for future generations so that they too can understand and appreciate our natural environment,” she added.

“I see the great work this organization does on an annual basis, even in these times with the economic challenges” said Hudson. “I see the impact of this action planning, things actually getting done.”

Among those issues considered a priority of the council, over the next five years: are climate change adaptation; water quality protection, and habitat restoration and conservation.

Through the action plan, the council will work toward three long-range goals:

Goal 1: Restored and Conserved Habitats

Habitats in the ocean and along the coast, including the rivers that flow to the ocean, are healthy, productive, and resilient. They support rich aquatic life, vibrant coastal communities, and ocean economies.

Goals 2: Environmental and Human Health

Environmental conditions support the health of people and the ecosystems of the Gulf of Maine.

Goal 3: Sustainable Communities

People who live and work in communities around the Gulf of Maine have information needed to adapt to the changing environment.

The Action Plan contains a list of initiatives that the Council intends to pursue during the next five years. Some of the initiatives include:

- Providing Gulf of Maine Habitat Restoration Grants and technical assistance that result in restored coastal ecosystems;
- Supporting the region-wide exchange of information on observed and predicted effects of climate change on the people living in the region and its coastal and marine habitats;
- Identifying and assessing new and emerging environmental issues in the Gulf of Maine via the publication of the State of the Gulf Report series of theme papers;
- Providing municipal adaptation grants and technical assistance that result in more resilient coastal communities;
- Publishing the Gulf of Maine Times, an unbiased news source about research and management activities happening in the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy;
- Continuing to improve the Council’s long-standing Gulfwatch contaminants monitoring program and integrating it with other monitoring initiatives;
- Creating the Ecosystem Indicator Partnership Program (ESIP), which provides an online Ecosystem Indicator Reporting Tool and Ecosystem Monitoring Map, and theme-oriented indicator fact sheets, as well as delivering training workshops and disseminating information about the health of the ecosystem;
- Advancing the bi-national acquisition and use of seafloor mapping products and services for resource and management decisions.

“The Gulf of Maine is one of the world’s most productive marine ecosystems and the economic prosperity and quality of life of millions of people are tied directly and indirectly to this fragile environment,” said Hudson. “The council understands the environmental challenges that are specific to this region, as well as the measures that must be taken to ensure its protection and its sustainability. This is the Council’s fifth action plan and it will help us and our many partners to continue our collaborative work to deliver on priorities and actions that will benefit existing and future generations.”

The GOMC was established in 1989 by the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts to foster cooperative actions within the Gulf of Maine watershed, which includes the Bay of Fundy.

Today, the Council is comprised of federal, state, and provincial government agencies, non-government organizations, and business interests which exchange information, engage in long-term planning, and facilitate on-the-ground initiatives and programs aimed at protecting and enhancing the Gulf of Maine, its watersheds and associated ecosystems. On an annual rotating basis, one of the five states and provinces serves as the Secretariat and coordinates the council’s work. New Brunswick has been tasked with leading the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment for 2011-2012.

The 2012–2017 Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Action Plan is available on the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment website www.gulfofmaine.org as well as via the New Brunswick Department of the Environment website www.gnb.ca.

We also know that, much like last session, we will be presented with issues that not only threaten the very core of our Maine values but will also distract from what matters most, the economy and jobs.

As expected the budget is already dominating the headlines.

Earlier this week, Democrats made a conscious decision to not sign the governor’s DHHS budget proposal. While many consider signing the budget proposal as customary, Democrats strongly believe that a signature is an endorsement. As Democrats, we have taken a stand against a current proposal that is reckless and irresponsible.

Democrats, like our colleagues across the aisle, want a balanced budget. But we must have a budget that is truthful, legal, and compassionate. The current proposal is none of these things. The approach is wrong. And the solution is one that will only create more problems and harm for Maine people.

Lawmakers are being asked to consider supporting a proposal that has been a moving target. For weeks, lawmakers have asked for an explanation for the shortfall and verification of the math. To date, sufficient answers have not been provided. Furthermore, with each passing week, the numbers in the budget keep changing. How can anyone, lawmakers or public alike, have any confidence in what is being proposed? And, to make matters worse, the governor has paraded a litany of false accusations for why Maine’s safetynet is the cause of the state’s financial woes.

Plainly, Democrats are asking for a proposal that is truthful with numbers that are real. We want a proposal that complies with state and federal regulations—not one that violates our state’s mental health consent decree or violates federal law. And most importantly, we need a plan for the thousands of Mainers who may be kicked off anti-poverty programs.

The governor and DHHS Commissioner must be accountable for their proposal and the impact it will have on more than 60,000 Maine people’s lives and their families. We must act responsibly, not hastily or with political motivation, when searching for a solution to our state’s budget issues.

Democrats are confident and are ready to work but first we must have valid numbers and a real explanation for the shortfall—not excuses based in partisan ideology or political maneuvering. We must know where we are to understand where we’re going.

While the governor has publicly promised to push the legislature harder, it is the hope of my Democratic colleagues and I, that this administration will begin to set a tone of collaboration—not bullying and posturing. Democrats know that tough decisions will have to be made. And, we’re ready to make them. It’s time to get to work, come up with sustainable solutions that work for Maine people and strengthen our state’s future.

My pharmacists said she has had to tell at least 20 different people today that they too didn’t have coverage anymore. She added, “good luck getting through to them, I heard they had over 300 calls yesterday.”

Without giving notice – beside political posturing did LePage give us fair notice? He just set tens of thousands of Maine residents adrift without a life vest, not a oar or even pointing which direct to go for survival.

For me I know I have only about 3 days to receive my medication before it is completely out of my system. What to do? Go to doctor appointments anyway where by federal law they MUST provide service without payment? That seems wrong, doesn’t it? Do I cancel my 4 therapies a week and my daughter’s 2 appointments a week? How do I afford my required monthly lab work, I do the first week of every month?

My voice is tiny, my problems quite small in comparison to so many others but if I’m taken aback with worry, magnify that 49,999 more times.

LePage was wrong in how he handled this. This is not good business, this is not how you treat the people of Maine.

I Donna B. say: Shame on you Governor LePage for what you are doing to my family and all the others MaineCare recipients, who no longer have healthcare!

UPDATE:

I was able to get samples to tied me over. I was told by the Maine Center for Integrated Rehab “that MaineCare has a problem they are now aware of regarding processing. They hope to have it resolved by
6th (today) or the 9th”. I wonder could this have been a test run? How many Maine residents were told just as I was, you no longer have insurance or were not able to get their medications? How many might not
know where to ask for help to stay on medications? Six to Nine days without medication is terrible enough but what if they don’t even know to try again on the 10th?

I don’t know if we will get the insurance back when they fix the problem, I certainly know I hope to the sample supply my provider gave me is only for one week.

While I was writing this a medical provider’s billing department sent her the following regarding my daughter Karen’s medication, the provider forwarded it to me =

“In the production of the monthly eligibility file, some member’s eligibility ended without a new January eligibility opening. Many of the members identified should have remained opened for the new month. We
have identified the members affected by this issue, and we are in the process of correcting the eligibilities. Over the next couple of days, the files should be corrected and the eligibility information will be updated. Once this is done, we expect that the claims that are currently rejecting can be reprocessed and submitted for payment. Pharmacies currently processing prescriptions and receiving messaging from GHS stating “filled after coverage expired” or “no coverage on date of service” can call the MaineCare Pharmacy Helpdesk at 1-866-796-2463 if they want to confirm eligibility.”

Funny that LePage or MaineCare hasn’t contacted local media to get the work out, after all this started six days ago.