(Op-Ed) Dirigo health meets the citizens' veto.

Dirigo health meets the citizens' veto.

By Rep. Kathy Chase

June 19, 2008 6:00 AM

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/OPINION/806190364

The campaign to force a citizens' veto on the new Dirigo tax is up and running, spearheaded by a coalition called Fed Up With Taxes.

If enough valid signatures are collected by July 17, the issue will go on the November ballot. Maine residents will then get a chance to kill this new tax — more than $50 million a year — that was instituted to prop up the failed experiment known as Dirigo Health.

Many political observers believe that if the citizens' veto accumulates enough signatures, the people who voted for this new tax (all except two who voted for it were Democrats — and I voted against it) will demand that the governor call the Legislature back for a special session.

They'll want to kill the tax themselves and remove it as an election issue. With opposition to this tax spreading like wildfire across the state, Augusta's big tax-and-spenders are running scared. A special session will cost the taxpayers about $40,000 a day in allowances and special session pay for legislators.

Eliminating the new taxes would not necessarily eliminate Dirigo itself. The program is the "signature" accomplishment of Gov. John Baldacci, and his Democratic allies in the Legislature would never let it perish while he is in office. Besides, as President Reagan once remarked, "The closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program."

If the taxes are removed by the citizens' veto or the Legislature, the Dirigo high command probably would revert to the unpopular but serviceable Savings Offset Payment to keep the program alive. Of course, if Dirigo were as critical as its proponents claim, the Legislature could finance it through the General Fund rather than pile the tax burden even higher on the overtaxed people of our state.

The citizens' veto is not an effort to kill Dirigo Health but to repeal the new tax on beer, wine and soft drinks, along with the 1.8 percent tax on so-called "paid claims" — essentially a tax on doctor's bills. The total damage to Maine people comes to between $50 million and $70 million a year.

My guess is that if the Fed Up With Taxes coalition can gather the necessary signatures to get on the ballot — some 55,000 — the people will pass it handily, because they really are fed up with taxes. They are not likely to be comforted by the way this tax came into being, either. The majority party sprang it as a surprise April 15, in the final days of the Legislature. That night, under the cover of darkness, they jammed it through the House and Senate on party line votes.
Worst of all, the Democrats did all this with complete disregard for legislative protocol. There was no public hearing or public input of any kind. This was a brazen, arrogant maneuver, and the Democrats deserve to have it blow up in their face. This is not how we do business in Maine.

The whole sorry episode might have been less odious if the new taxes were targeted to road repair or paying down Maine's $200-million debt to hospitals. But they are going to Dirigo Health, a program once hailed as "bold" and "historic," but which has turned into a stunning disappointment.

When the Legislature passed Dirigo in 2003, it was advertised as a self-funding program to provide affordable coverage to Maine's 138,000 uninsured residents. Five years later — and one year before the deadline to cover all the uninsured — the program enrolls just over 13,000 people, only 5,000 of whom were previously uninsured. We have poured more than $100 million into it, and now we'll pour in another $50 million to $70 million a year. That's a lot of money invested for a rather meager payoff.

Sadly, this all could have been avoided. The day before the majority party passed the Dirigo tax, it shot down on a party line vote a bill that could have lowered insurance premium costs across the board — including for Dirigo. That bill was LD 1047, titled "An Act to Lower the Cost of Health Insurance."

House Democrats attacked it during floor debate as "extreme," but it wasn't even controversial. It would have created in Maine the same kind of health insurance system already employed by the vast majority of states. In many states, people pay only a third to a half of what Mainers pay for the same insurance policies, often from the same companies.

Here are a few parting facts about Maine's broken insurance system to illustrate why we needed major reform. Maine families pay the second highest premiums in the country and carry deductibles seven times higher than the national average. Young people are leaving Maine because unaffordable group-insurance rates cause job loss. With LD 1047, premiums could be cut in half for individual coverage, and the chronically ill could get affordable coverage in a "risk pool." More insurance companies would have entered the Maine market, bringing stronger competition, more insurance options and lower premiums.

Instead of rolling the dice on an experimental program like Dirigo, and now taxing Maine citizens to pay for it, we could have had a superb system based on proven results. Unfortunately for all of us, the majority party said no.

State Rep. Kathy Chase (R-Wells) serves on the Legislature's Taxation Committee.

Maine's madcap licensing policy comes to an end

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/OPINION/805080363/-1/ARCHIVE

Maine's madcap licensing policy comes to an end.

By Rep. Kathy Chase, York County Coast Star, May 08, 2008

One of the landmark achievements of the last legislative session was the enactment of LD 2309 — "An Act to Enhance the Security of State Credentials."

At long last, after years of carelessness, we have tightened the requirements to get a Maine driver's license. You will now have to show proof of residency in Maine and proof of legal status in the United States to qualify for a license.

A driver's license is more than a plastic card that says you know how to drive. A license has become essentially a national ID card, good for everything from cashing checks and buying firearms to boarding airline flights. It bestows legitimacy.

A state-issued driver's license is so valuable, in fact, that it has been called "the key to the kingdom."

One of the untold stories about this bill is that it very nearly failed. On April 16, in the first roll call vote in the House, 72 Democrats voted to kill the bill outright. Those voting to defeat it included the Speaker of the House, Glenn Cummings, and the leader of the House Democrats, Hannah Pingree.

All Republicans voted to keep the bill alive, of course. They were joined by two Independents and 16 Democrats to muster the 73 votes needed to prevail. The final 73-72 vote was so shocking to Democrats that an audible gasp could be heard in the House chamber when the tally was announced.

Republicans remained united for license security as the vast majority of Democrats battled us every step of the way. They held one roll call vote after another, hoping to see the bill go down if one of the proponents was not in his or her seat at the time of the vote. It was that close.

This victory for common sense was a longtime coming. For years, Republicans have offered bills to strengthen Maine's lax and lenient licensing procedures. Maine was one of only four or five states that freely issued licenses to illegal aliens. We know that the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 had more than 60 valid licenses between them, from a combination of states. Nine of these were actually registered to vote, thanks to the Motor Voter Act. Driver's licenses enabled them to board their flights on that fateful day.

In the wake of that horrendous terrorist attack, almost all states that were issuing licenses to illegal aliens stopped the practice. But not Maine, where the liberal majority party rules supreme. The Maine Civil Liberties Union actually favors giving Maine licenses to people who don't even live in this state. They say it's a matter of "human rights."

Our reckless policy was reinforced in 2004, when Gov. John Baldacci quietly signed an executive order making Maine the nation's only "sanctuary state" for illegal aliens, a place where they could obtain licenses and also receive welfare benefits.

Word spread quickly through the illegal alien grapevine that Maine was the place to go for a license. With reciprocity agreements between states, a foreigner with a Maine license can exchange it for a license from their "home" state. At the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles, staffers were not allowed to challenge people when they told obvious lies about where they lived.
Licenses were issued to foreigners claiming that their Maine residence was aboard the Scotia Prince cruise ship. Others said they lived at the State House or at seasonal campgrounds.

Nor did it matter that these same people lacked Social Security numbers. All they needed was a form from the Social Security Administration stating that they were not entitled to an SSN. From 1976 to 1997, a total of 46 licenses were issued to such people, usually foreign exchange students. But as the governor's "sanctuary state" policy kicked in, the number soared, reaching 1,112 in 2006 and 1,329 last year.

One illegal alien had 10 different Maine licenses from 10 different BMV offices, complete with fake names. What's more, many of the Social Security forms submitted to the BMV turned out to be forgeries.

Maine's approach to handing out licenses would still be rolling merrily along without two things happening.

First, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine, Paula Silsby, began prosecuting individuals for running vanloads of illegals into Maine to get licenses — a felony under federal law.
State officials could no longer pretend their policy was harmless.

Next, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security began to notice that Maine had become a kind of rogue state. In communications with Gov. Baldacci, DHS officials said Maine licenses had been so deeply compromised that the federal government would no longer recognize them.

That meant that Mainers could not board flights using Maine licenses as their ID starting in mid-May. Envisioning turmoil and outrage at Maine airports as tourist season began, the governor had no choice but to submit to DHS directives. The only way to avoid the penalty, DHS officials said, was to tighten Maine law substantially to make sure that licenses were given only to people in the country legally.

The governor's team scrambled and presented their bill to the Legislature during its waning hours. It passed the House and Senate on April 17 and was signed into law the same day.
Getting a Maine driver's license is not a right. It is an earned and qualified privilege. One can earn it by passing a driving test and qualify for it by residing in Maine — and the United States — legally.

That is the way it should be, and now, finally, that's the way it is. It should have happened long ago.

State Rep. Kathy Chase (R-Wells) serves on the Legislature's Taxation Committee.

Tax Reform - Maine Townsman, July 2007

Tax Reform - Maine Townsman, July 2007
Written by Geoff Herman, Director of State & Federal Relations, MMA.

Reprinted with permission from the Maine Townsman.

Comprehensive tax reform is like Charlie Brown’s football. Lucy sets the ball in a perfect position for Charlie Brown’s field goal only to snatch it away at the last minute every time. This year was going to be different, though. This year a special process was going to be used to develop the tax reform plan…a process so deliberate, open, careful and genuine that if the Taxation Committee was actually able to develop a comprehensive tax reform proposal using that process, snatching the football away at the last minute would be cruel and unfair and inappropriate.

The process was used and the process worked, but inappropriate or not, Lucy snatched the football away yet again.

The Process. The hero of what has become a biennial Greek tragedy is the Taxation Committee.
Anyone who may need to write a Master’s or Doctoral thesis should consider transcribing the tax panel’s efforts over the last six months. The thesis would become an instruction manual for any governmental committee – federal, state, regional or local – charged with tackling a controversial project of wide ranging impact. The members of the Taxation Committee, spread across the entire political spectrum from one edge to the other, accomplished a great deal more than simply fulfilling their charge, although they did that in spades. They worked tirelessly on their task. They produced an extremely thoughtful, detailed, researched, coherent, balanced and comprehensive tax reform product. They transcended partisan ideologies in a manner rarely seen in the State House, particularly with respect to the issue of taxation. And they vigorously reached out to all interested parties throughout the five-month development stage. This was not a tax reform plan that flew into the Committee room from another corner of the State House all lubricated with some sort of partisan or political juju; it was a plan that was developed genuinely and authentically by the Committee itself on the basis of a set of principles developed and published by the Committee in January (see sidebar).

(Sidebar comments available in the Maine Townsman, July 2007)

In February, that set of principles was widely praised throughout the Capitol Building as the appropriate foundation for reform, even by those who would be loading the torpedoes in June.

The product. There is no special magic with respect to the fundamentals of reform. The income tax rate is too high, the sales tax base is too narrow, and property taxes are too burdensome, particularly for Maine residents with limited income in communities undergoing rapid valuation increases. When done carefully, moving the tax burden away from income and onto consumption (i.e., the sales tax) provides an indisputable benefit to Maine residents and resident businesses, who pay all the income taxes but do not pay all the sales taxes. Similarly, by carefully using tax revenue from “exportable” tax sources, such as the lodging tax and real estate transfer tax, real property tax relief can be delivered to Maine residents. Municipal officials have been seriously pushing for a modernization of the state’s tax code for well over a decade. The building blocks of reform are staring us all in the face.

If the building blocks are common knowledge, the special value the Taxation Committee added to this reform proposal was a relentless fine-tuning of the product to make sure that it would deliver the promised relief to Maine residents equitably across all income categories and to both residents and resident-businesses. That task was not easy. Because of its multiple moving parts, all of which impart different impacts on the taxpaying community, fine-tuning the tax reform engine was both tedious, time consuming, and tear-your-hair-out frustrating. Any tax reform proposal is difficult to nurture and easy to kill, and a weaker Committee would have bailed out on the task and had a thousand good excuses to do so.

But to its credit, the Committee persevered, and in early June LD 1925, An Act to Cut Taxes on Maine Residents by over $140,000,000, finally came into full balance and was printed with its companion constitutional amendments (LD 1819) in tow.

The Punch Out. There are a number of ways to kill legislation. When it is good legislation, it generally falls to the lobbyists to accomplish that task, along with some back-stage legislative assistance.

The legislators’ task is to hang the legislation up on a firing range for awhile so the lobbyists can take a good crack at it, and then ultimately smother the bill with kindness. After receiving a strong initial vote of endorsement in the House, LD 1925 was stalled in the Senate for a week, allowing plenty of time for the lobbyists to work it over.

The lobby-ist’s tool is sophistry, which is the art of refram-ing something so that it appears to be either something it is not or something it should not be. It is probably the case that every contract lobbyist in Augusta was hired in some capacity to kill tax reform. They used four basic sophistical arguments:

1) Blame reform for being exactly what it is. Although the tax reform package was expressly designed to be “revenue neutral”, and even though the principle of “revenue neutrality” was widely praised by both lawmakers and lobbyists in January and February, the lobbyists’ disdain in June was that the reform plan is “nothing more than a shift”. Believing the adage to be remarkably clever, they would say: “This reform does nothing more than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.” In truth, the tax reform package included a proposed constitutional amendment that would have limited the ability of the Legislature to increase state tax rates, but approving the constitutional amendment was of necessity a separate legislative decision. The stated goal of the reform package itself was revenue neutrality, which it delivered.

2) Disparage reform for being imperfect. This old stand-by is a first-cousin to the strategy of blaming legislation for being exactly what it is. The idea is to frame a proposal by that which it fails to do, regardless of what it actually accomplishes. In this case, the tax reform plan was roundly faulted for two categories of imperfection. First, the expansion of the sales tax base could not possibly be perfectly executed and would therefore have to be subsequently modified to address any unintended consequences. Second, the reform plan failed to impose an enforceable spending limitation procedure on the Legislature short of a constitutional amendment, which turns out to be something of a Herculean task.

3) Illuminate reform with just the dark side of the moon. Like any municipal revaluation, which is local government’s political equivalent of tax reform, there are winners and losers associated with the effort. The beneficiaries quietly enjoy their winnings; we hear loudly from the losers. Only in Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average, would tax reform make winners of us all. LD 1925 provided significant positive benefits to the vast majority of Maine’s residents and businesses in the form of reduced income tax rates, reduc-ed capital gains taxes, repealing the “alternative minimum tax”, conform-ing to “Sect-ion 179” of the federal tax code with respect to accelerated depreciation, direct property tax relief for primary residents, a fully open property tax deferral program for all elderly residents, and more. Those benefits were covered by a long overdue expansion of Maine’s sales tax base to recognize the nature of retail transaction in 2007 rather than 1953, when the sales tax was adopted. The proponents of tax reform fully acknowledged both sides of the tax reform equation in the belief that the benefits of the package outweighed in many dimensions the natural resistance to expanding the sales tax base. The opponents of reform excluded from all analysis the positive side of the tax reform package.

4) Act dazed and confused. Feigning an unfamiliarity with the proposal that has been openly developed over a 5-month period, posing questions in the last days of the session that might have constructively been asked in March or April or May, begging for time to more fully understand, implying that business expansions would be threatened, portraying the package as “way too complicated at this 11 th hour”…these are all lobbying postures designed to rationalize a legislative decision to delay action on tax reform until the following (election) year. When it comes to comprehensive tax reform, a delay into an election year is a decision widely recognized as the equivalent of “indefinite postponement”.

Because of the process the Taxation Committee adopted in January, none of these sophistical arguments pass the straight-face test, which is not to say they didn’t work to accomplish the defeat of tax reform. The legislative process itself ensures that the odds are always against a legislative enactment of any consequence. It is probably most often the case that the failure of the Legislature to enact important legislation can be attributed to various mistakes that are made in the development and advancement of the legislation through the process, mistake that can be identified with hindsight.

In other cases, however, the Leg-islature’s failure to enact the legislation speaks for itself, and this is one of those circumstances. The process could not have been executed more professionally, the product could not have been more thoughtfully created.

The job simply does not get done any better than this Taxation Committee did it. There’s no sugar-coating it. Acting as consciously as it may ever act, the Legislature said “no” to tax reform.

Chase reflects on tax reform failure - Learning experience in legislative process.

Reprinted with permission by the York County Coast Star

July 05, 2007 6:00 AM. By Jim Kanak. jkanak@seacoastonline.com

Chase reflects on tax reform failure - Learning experience in legislative process.

WELLS — When State Rep. Kathy Chase (R-Wells) got elected to the Dist. 147 seat in November 2006, she said her first choice of committee assignments was the Joint Committee on Taxation. Despite being a first-term representative, Chase got her wish. It was the work of that committee, most notably the tax reform package that died in the final hours of the legislative session, that framed her experience over the nearly seven months of the term.

"It was highly interesting and dynamic," she said. "That committee is second only to Appropriations in terms of authority. We started outlining the tax reform bill in the first couple of weeks. We began by setting out ground rules and principles."

During the course of the session, Chase said the committee received a lot of bills from legislators, including her own, that dealt with tax reform. All of these had to be considered. "From the beginning, everything was on the table," Chase said. "We agreed we'd slowly work things out."

One of the criticisms leveled at this legislature was that it did not adequately address tax relief. Chase said her committee only had jurisdiction over tax reform, not spending cuts. "We looked at redistributing the load," she said. "The Taxation Committee has no jurisdiction over reducing spending. We tried to get that message out but couldn't."

The committee early on agreed that property tax and income tax were the two areas that citizens demanded be reformed. "To shift the load from income and property tax we had to shift it to the ones we were light on," Chase said. "Those were the sales tax and exportability, that is, shifting the load to [non-residents].

"We kept the overall sales tax at 5 percent, but expanded it [to non-taxed services]. None of us were comfortable with that but it was the only way to make things more balanced. One of the benefits of broadening it was it was fairer to have outsiders share in the burden. Then we took all the anticipated revenue to reduce the income and property tax."

Among the most controversial proposals were increases to the meals and lodging tax from 7 to 8 percent. "That's the same as in New Hampshire," said Chase. "Tourists who come here pay more for both in their own states."

Chase said the argument that the committee eliminated mortgage deductions was not entirely correct. "We got rid of deductions but included tax credits," she said. "That reduces the amount of taxes people pay. In the end, they'd end up paying less tax. The revenue from broadening and shifting the burden would directly benefit Maine residents. Tax credits could only apply to Mainers."

Other features of the committee's package, Chase said, included a doubling of the Homestead Exemption while allowing towns to not participate if they chose, expansion of the circuit breaker program for low income people, creation of a tax payment deferment program for elders, and allowing towns to keep 10 percent of "natural sales tax growth" beginning in 2009.

"There would have been a reduction of $140 million to Maine residents," Chase said. "90 percent [of residents] would have benefited."

To forge a full agreement of the package, Republican and Democratic committee members developed a compromise. "For the Republicans, tax reform was coupled with a constitutional [amendment] piece," said Chase. "It had three parts. First, any increase or decrease in sales, excise, or income taxes need a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature.

"Second, there was an opt out [for towns] for homestead exemptions. And third, we would allow a local options sales tax. Voters would have voted on each [amendment] individually."
Chase said the agreement was that Republicans would support the reform package if Democrats would support the constitutional changes, and vice versa.

So, why did the package ultimately fail? Basically, Chase said, things started to unravel when the full individual chambers got involved. There was disagreement on whether all three of the constitutional amendments would be approved. Ultimately, Chase said, the two bodies couldn't agree.

Ultimately, the Senate voted the tax reform piece down and the House killed the constitutional amendment proposal, ending things.

Reprinted with permission by the York County Coast Star

July 05, 2007 6:00 AM. By Jim Kanak. jkanak@seacoastonline.com

New Laws to Affect Maine Drivers:

New laws were enacted that will affect drivers on Maine’s highways and roadways this fall. One will prohibit drivers who are younger than 18 years old from using a mobile phone or hand-held device while operating a motor vehicle. A $50 fine will be levied for a first offense and a $250 fine will be issued for subsequent offenses.

Another will make the failure to wear a seat belt a primary offense. This means that a law enforcement officer will be able to stop and cite a driver solely for failure to wear a seat belt. Currently, drivers can only be fined for a seat belt infraction if they are stopped for another offense. This new law will keep the current fine structure of $50 for a first offense, $125 for the second offense and $250 for subsequent offenses.

The Legislature also authorized a new specialty license plate. The “We Support our Troops” plate will feature those words and a yellow ribbon. Money raised from the specialty plate will benefit the families of troops serving overseas.

An unpopular law has been repealed that required insurers to notify the State when a motorist’s insurance policy had lapsed or was canceled, resulting in a suspension of the motorist’s registration. Often people who merely changed insurers had their registration suspended until they notified the State that they had a new policy.

Kathy ChaseDistrict #147

"Jessica's law" testimony I delivered in favor of LD 46 to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

I would like to share the testimony I delivered in favor of LD 46 to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

LD 46 - An Act To Create Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Persons Convicted of Certain Sex Offenses against Victims under 12 Years of Age.

summary - This bill changes the sentence for gross sexual assault against a victim who is under 12 years of age to a period of imprisonment of 25 years, none of which may be suspended. If the defendant had previously been convicted and sentenced for committing gross sexual assault, rape or gross sexual misconduct against a person who is under 12 years of age, the court must impose a sentence of life imprisonment, none of which may be suspended.

Good morning Senator Diamond, Representative Gerzofsky, and members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. My name Kathy Chase and I represent House District #147, which is most of Wells. I am a co-sponsor of LD 46 and I am testifying in favor of this bill.

Sexual assault against a victim who is under the age of twelve has become a frighteningly growing crime across the nation and unfortunately for us, Maine is no exception.

While taxes, jobs, business growth, education, healthcare—and other concerns
we may deal with as legislators occupy many hours of our work here in Augusta, I believe we can all agree that it is the safety of our young that is most important to all of us.

It is an issue that is especially dear to my heart as we have 6 grandchildren living here in Maine, all under the age of twelve.

There are those who prey on children. That fact is chilling, devastating and all too real. I want to know that if someone sexually abuses a child here in Maine, they are punished and punished harshly.

Currently, hundreds of these predators are living in this state. An article in the March 29th edition of the Waterville Morning Sentinel entitled “Sex Offenders: Still a BIG Problem in Maine” quoted Police Chief John Morris as stating: “Today as we sit, there are 72 registered sex offenders in this city. We are investigating another 10 right now, who are new registrants. Every one of the 82 are people who have sexually violated young children.”

In that one town—not that far from where we’re standing this morning—is just one group of predators that has scarred the lives of more kids than there are in my grandson’s entire second grade. They’ve been convicted, served some sentence—and they are back out in our society. Statistically they repeat their crimes.

In the same Waterville Morning Sentinel article discussed previously, Chief Morris goes on to say: “There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that some registered child sex offenders will re-offend.” If just one of them does, it is one too many. If just one of them does, which one of your children, or grandchildren could be the victim.

Last year the legislature had the opportunity to pass this bill – or one very similar to it.

What eventually passed was slightly better than previous existing law. When it comes to the safety of our children, slightly better is not strong enough.

LD 46 says if you are convicted of a gross sexual assault against a child under the age of twelve years, you will serve a mandatory 25 year sentence. If you are convicted of a gross sexual assault against a child under the age of 12 and you have previously been convicted and sentenced for committing gross sexual assault, rape or gross sexual misconduct against a child who is under the age of twelve, you will be sentenced to life imprisonment.

Other states have already passed laws similar to LD 46, and even more are in the process of doing so. If we do not, my fear is that Maine will be viewed as an easy state for those who commit these crimes.

As legislators we are in the unique position here in our state to create and pass laws that can protect our children from these real monsters. No one other than us can do it. It is our responsibility—no one else’s.

We need to prevent crimes against our children by being known as a tough state for those who would harm our young. LD 46 must be passed and not weakened this time.

The rest of the country and the predators within this state need to know that if you sexually assault a child in Maine and you are convicted, you will go to prison for 25 years. Period.

Thank you for allowing me to testify.

Kathy Chase
House District #147

Regarding the article from the Sunday Maine Telegram – Portland Press Herald, June 3, 2007 - Tax-cut plan rides on tale of two parties.

Regarding the article from the Sunday Maine Telegram – Portland Press Herald, June 3, 2007 - By Paul Carrier.

“Tax-cut plan rides on tale of two parties. The proposal comes in two parts, and the major parties divide over their backing for each.”

“A complex plan to cut Mainers' taxes by redesigning the state's tax system faces an uncertain fate in the Legislature. That's because the hotly debated package may not get the bipartisan support it needs.”

I read the article and it is accurate. It is a very tough choice we are faced with between the constitutional piece which includes 3 parts that the legislature will be voting on as one constitutional bill:....

1) That it will require a 2/3's vote of both houses to raise the sales, excise or income tax rates.

2) That the Legislature will allow municipalities to levy a local option sales tax

3) That the legislature will allow (by a vote of the town’s people) a municipality to "opt out" of the towns matching homestead funds. In other words (under the new tax reform package) the Homestead exemption is $26,000 with the state paying half & the municipality paying half. This proposed change would allow the towns NOT to pay their half of the Homestead, but the state will continue to pay the $13,000.

If passed as a group by the legislature, each of the three parts will be voted on separately by the people in referendum. It was purposely grouped to help it pass in the legislature.

.... and the Tax reform package which is contingent on passing with the result of the passing of the constitutional piece:
Tax Reform package (still in draft mode as of 6-2-07) would:

1) Provide a more stable tax base by shifting the current heavier tax burden on income tax and property tax to be more equitably shared by sales tax. (the goal of tax reform)

2) as a result of broadening (and therefore raising) the sales tax base, Maine's income sources are less impacted by economic swings

3) as a result of lowering the income tax to a flat 6% Maine will be a better place for small businesses (the backbone of Maine's economy) to invest and grow, thus stimulating our economy

4) provide more property tax relief by increasing Homestead, expanding the Tax and Rent Refund Program, and bring back the Elderly Tax Deferral program

5) allow municipalities to be returned 10% of the future growth of sales tax revenues

6) provide that 15% of the raised tax revenue be used for future and ongoing tax reform and tax relief

7) be revenue neutral- meaning the amount of taxes raised in tax reform would be used to reduce taxes in tax reform

8) not be a way to raise more taxes, but a way to make the taxes raised
fairer, more equitable and more beneficial to Maine residents.

The Republicans are reluctant to sign on to a Tax Reform package that is NOT restricted somehow (specifically with the 2/3's requirement to raise future tax rates) from being easily raised in the next session-- by the Democrats.

The Republicans feel that broadening the sales tax might provide a too
inviting base that the Democrats could not help themselves from raising up to a 6% sales tax rate, with huge rewards.

Or, after broadening the sales tax base to LOWER the income tax as our Tax Reform package does, that the Democrats will seize the opportunity to jack it back up, thus not only gaining the broadened sales tax but raising the income tax back up as well.

The Democrats are against giving up their simple majority rule since they have been the simple majority for the last 30+ years and see it as a foolish move to change what they perceive is a "good" thing for their party.

Their "official" statements are that the simple majority IS the Democratic way and the "super majority" sets up the scenario that a "minority" can stop what the "majority" may want. The Democrats also state that History of raising tax rates in the legislature does NOT demonstrate that the Democrats are prone to raising tax rates as the Republicans are always declaring.

SO..... therein lies the conflicts. If the Constitutional piece fails, do we then vote against the Tax Reform package? Or if the Tax Reform package is a good thing for Maine, do we believe it enough to vote FOR the Constitutional package?

If the Republicans vote against the Tax Reform because the Constitutional piece failed, will the Democrats (who clearly
have the simple majority) still vote for the Tax Reform package, without the shared responsibility of it being "bipartisan"?

According to all who have been there for many years, this is the closest (if not the best) we have come to providing a good, solid tax reform package. That is a good thing. But creating it and PASSING it are two VERY different issues.

The intelligence, hard work, commitment and bipartisanship that was so
evident in our committee's effort to put the Tax Reform Package together, is evolving into skittish politics.

Sincerely,
Rep Kathy Chase
Dist #147 Wells