Feed aggregator

This week on the Beacon Podcast, Esther, Ben, and Cate discuss the end of the legislative session. They reflect on some of the wins from the session, including $18 million for rent relief, funding for more recovery community centers, and a bill that will create options for development of offshore wind power in Maine. They also lament some of the big frustrations, such as Gov. Mills’ veto of a wage increase for farmworkers, who are currently exempt from minimum wage.

Ask a question or leave a comment for a future show at (207) 619-3182.

Subscribe to the podcast feed using any podcasting app or subscribe on Apple Podcasts.

The post Podcast: The thrill of (legislative) victory, the agony of (legislative) defeat… first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Gov. Janet Mills has again vetoed a bill that would have improved working conditions and wages for farmworkers, though this one was proposed by her own administration.

LD 2273 would have made farmworkers eligible to earn the minimum wage, which is $14.15 per hour. Farmworkers in Maine currently make a sub-minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Mills issued the veto Tuesday, saying “the Legislature’s changes to the bill leave me no choice.” As originally drafted by Mills, the bill wouldn’t have allowed farmworkers to bring private lawsuits against their employer. Instead they would have had to go through the Department of Labor. 

However, that provision was removed in committee. In her veto message, Mills said she doesn’t think “it is appropriate to authorize a private right of action carte blanche, particularly in the case of farms, because I am deeply concerned that doing so would result in litigation that would simply sap farmers of financial resources and cause them to fail.”

In a statement, the Maine Center for Economic Policy said Mills vetoed the bill “simply because it ensured farmworkers have the same access to the courts that all other workers enjoy.” 

On Tuesday, Mills also vetoed LD 525, which would have allowed farmworkers to talk to one another and their employers about their working conditions without the fear of being fired. 

Thom Harnett, a legal advocate for farmworkers and a former lawmaker who previously introduced farmworker legislation vetoed by Mills, said this week’s two vetoes uphold “the systemic and institutional racism that has been embedded in state and federal law for centuries.”

“This marks the fourth time in a span of 27 months that Maine’s governor has vetoed bills that would have improved the lives of the people who put food on our tables,” Harnett said. “The fourth time that she has said with her actions, ‘I don’t see you and I don’t care about you.’”  

LD 2273 comes after Mills, a conservative Democrat, vetoed a similar minimum wage bill last summer that would have also granted agricultural workers limited overtime protections.

After an outcry from labor unions and progressive groups, the governor issued an executive order directing the state Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to convene a committee made up of industry groups and farmworker advocates to study the implementation of a minimum wage for agricultural workers. LD 2273 was the result of that process. 

“It’s astounding that Governor Mills would put everyone, including her own administration, through this effort only to pull the rug out from under us once again,” said Heather Spalding, deputy director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. “Her lengthy veto letters obscure the reality that farmworkers are second class citizens in the eyes of Maine labor law.”

As Beacon previously reported, both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act, which passed in the 1930s as part of the New Deal, excluded farmworkers and domestic workers. The carveout was intentional, as Congress moved to specifically exempt groups of workers who were predominantly people of color from labor standards to keep them in an economically subservient position. 

Farmworkers remain an underclass of workers today. Currently, they are much more likely to live in poverty than other Mainers: about one-quarter of Maine farmworkers live in poverty, making them roughly 4.5 times as likely to live below the poverty line as other Maine workers. 

 

The post Advocates dismayed by Gov. Mills’ veto of her own bill to improve farmworker wages first appeared on Maine Beacon.

In Portland and Lewiston on Tuesday, housing advocates delivered a petition to all four members of Maine’s congressional delegation urging lawmakers to take meaningful action to end our state’s housing crisis. 

More than 1,100 renters, homeowners, and landlords signed the petition by Maine People’s Alliance, of which Beacon is a project, this fall, winter, and spring.

The advocates also urged the federal lawmakers to take action to create housing that’s permanently affordable, publicly-funded, and environmentally sustainable – known as “green social housing.” 

Advocates describe social housing as a public option for housing that is permanently affordable, protected from the private market, and under democratic community control. Green social housing protects residents from climate disasters, while being energy efficient and more sustainable for the environment.

Gina Morin (right) tells their story to a staffer in Rep. Jared Golden’s office.

Speaking to staff for Rep. Jared Golden, housing advocate Gina Morin described their experience being unhoused and having to live in their car, and then a motel room. Morin found an apartment during the pandemic. “I’m actually living again,” they told Golden’s staffer, “not just surviving.”

In a statement, Morin said, “No one deserves to lose their home or to worry about where they’ll sleep at night. Unfortunately that’s the reality for many Mainers and it was once the reality for me. While I’ve now been housed for the past four years, I won’t stop fighting until all Mainers have safe, affordable housing, too.”

Maine’s housing crisis continues to deepen, as it does across the country. Housing prices grew 7% in Maine last year after climbing up the year before. Meanwhile, eviction filings rose 16% in 2023, surpassing the pre-pandemic eviction filings. 

Nyawal Lia (right) delivers petition signatures to a staffer in Sen. Angus King’s office.

Maine People’s Alliance housing organizer Nyawal Lia spoke to staff at Sen. King’s and Rep. Pingree’s offices, and said that as she has organized renters in Maine, “people have told me about rising rents; terrible living conditions; and the sense of insecurity that comes from knowing you might have to move at any moment and that you might not be able to find a safe, decent place to live for you and your family.”

Lia went on to urge Congressmembers to “invest in housing in this state and across the country—housing people can afford.”  

Maine’s just-signed supplemental budget includes funding of an $18 million rent relief pilot program, which will be funded for two years, and several other housing programs. 

 

The post “I won’t stop fighting”: Advocates deliver 1,000+ signatures urging members of Congress to act on housing crisis first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Gov. Janet Mills has signed legislation to increase temporary assistance payments to families experiencing deep poverty.

Payments will increase by 20%, meaning a single-parent family of three will now receive nearly $870 per month.

Ann Danforth, policy advocate with Maine Equal Justice, said the aid will help families get beyond just surviving.

“It enables parents to be able to have child care, to go to work,” said Danforth, “and enables kids to grow up in strong families, where they are then able to participate in the workforce, too.”

Nearly one in eight Maine children live in poverty. The bill passed both chambers with unanimous support, signaling what Danforth said is a greater understanding that poverty impacts us all.

Childhood poverty in the United States was cut nearly in half during the COVID-19 pandemic, as expanded federal and state tax credits put cash in parents’ pockets to help cover their basic needs.

Danforth said Maine lawmakers heard testimony from families utilizing these rebates and temporary aid, providing them with direction on what policies work best.

“All of the research and data from these policies reinforce what people with low income tell us,” said Danforth, “which is that when we give people the resources and supports they need and trust them to do what’s best for themselves and their families, we all win.”

Danforth said she’d like to see a renewed expansion of the federal Child Tax Credit and further consideration of direct cash payments in Maine.

She said these policies not only help families pay for rent and food but help lift the constant stress that comes with poverty, giving parents time to plan for the future.

The post Maine lawmakers increase aid for families experiencing deep poverty first appeared on Maine Beacon.

This week on the Beacon Podcast, Cate interviews Hillary Knight with the Capital Region Public Defenders Office in Augusta, who clarifies what the right to counsel means for Mainers, some of the realities of meeting the constitutional right to counsel, and some hopeful developments in the state. After a lawsuit in 2022 (which is ongoing) claimed the state was violating poor defendants’ constitutional rights by failing to provide them with adequate counsel, Maine opened its first public defender office in Augusta in 2023 (More on this ongoing saga here.)

Resources for talking with your Members of Congress during recess week:

The housing crisis in Maine, and federal efforts to create permanently affordable housing build to high environmental standards.

Access to affordable childcare and wage equity for providers (read more here!)

Expanding the child tax credit in Congress

Ask a question or leave a comment for a future show at (207) 619-3182.

Subscribe to the podcast feed using any podcasting app or subscribe on Apple Podcasts.

The post Podcast: Maine’s long-awaited public defenders first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Last November, I found myself crouched on the tile floor of my bathroom. Its coolness grounded me, helped remind me I’m still breathing. On the counter above sat a pregnancy test with two pink lines — positive. 

I knew I would terminate the pregnancy, but despite my certainty, I was terrified, because we live in uncertain, judgmental times with disturbing health outcomes for women. 

Two days later, I sat on an exam table in my doctor’s office, the paper beneath me crinkling with my anxious attempts to settle. She confirmed my at-home test. I slumped to my car clutching a paper bag with mifepristone and misoprostol, the “abortion pills.” And that was that.

I’m extremely privileged to reside in a state where people can still get safe and legal abortions. I live with an endlessly supportive partner and I’m a FaceTime away from parents who never judge me. But it was so very hard, not because of regret for my decision, from which I never wavered, but because of the surge of hormones which left me feeling suffocatingly depressed and anxious for weeks, as though I was sinking deeper and deeper into a grain silo.

That experience was one of the most difficult I’ve had. And it’s one that I’ll fight for other people’s right to have. That’s why, four months later, I stood before the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court demanding reproductive freedom for all.

Through the Center for Popular Democracy, I’d learned of a civil disobedience action in support of people’s right to end pregnancies using mifepristone. The U.S. Supreme Court, I’d heard, would be hearing a case brought by a newly-formed group made up of far-right anti-abortion activists who claim to be medical professionals challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone.

On the morning of Tuesday, March 26, I and hundreds of others marched toward the Supreme Court. We constructed blockades with our bodies on the streets leading to the court in an effort to challenge the justices’ commutes. We chanted and clapped and hollered and rallied because a society without bodily autonomy isn’t a society but a sentence. With all of us there, before the steps of the Supreme Court, there’s no way we could lose.

Sarah Benesi at the mifepristone rally last month. | Courtesy of Maura Sinclair

I collected story after story from those streets. There was “Jackie,” 74 years old and five feet of spitfire. She told me her abortion story. It was 1970 in Philadelphia, three years before Roe v. Wade. She’d located an abortion provider through layers of friends of friends. She and her best friend drove for two hours, and a medical resident and nurse performed her surgical abortion on their dining room table.

I also met “Naomi” and “Hadley,” a mother and her 9-year-old daughter. Hadley clutched a poster with the words, “PROTECT MY FUTURE” in jagged child handwriting. “She wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for mifepristone,” Naomi shared. “She came when we were ready. I want her to know she always has a choice.”

As I bellowed outside the Supreme Court, I looked through my calendar. Exactly four months prior I’d been having my own profoundly difficult experience with mifepristone. Today, I stood alongside hundreds of strangers, firm on my feet and in my conviction. It felt like a miles-wide hug that hummed lullabies of strength. After a long winter, I could finally channel my righteous anger into action.

I returned home exhausted but full of fire. I refuse to quit. The women I met refuse to quit. With a cohort so strong, how can we fail? Today may feel dark, but it will brighten once more. I know it. Together we can protect the future for every child and every child at heart. Our hope will persevere through the pain.

The post Opinion: Hope and solidarity at the front lines in the fight for bodily autonomy first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Conservationists in Maine said reinstated protections of the Endangered Species Act could help wildlife already struggling to adapt to climate change.

Economic impacts will no longer be considered when listing certain species as threatened or endangered but the threat of climate change will be a factor.

Anya Fetcher, federal policy advocate for the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said so-called “blanket rule” protections will also be revived.

“This is basically, while they are considering whether they should become endangered, they’re going to continue to protect those species as if they were,” Fetcher explained.

The Trump administration removed protections for threatened species along with other key aspects of the law. Fetcher acknowledged the new rules are likely to be challenged by Congress similar to other climate and environmental regulations.

Conservation powers will also be extended to federally recognized tribes, allowing them the same opportunities to protect wildlife, including some of Maine’s most iconic species such as the piping plover and Canada lynx, which are losing critical habitat to development and a changing climate.

Fetcher pointed out one-third of Maine’s species are vulnerable to climate change, including more than half the state’s birds.

“Our wildlife is part of what makes Maine so special,” Fetcher asserted. “Protecting critical habitat and the incredible wildlife that we have here is vital to our economy as well.”

Fetcher added the Endangered Species Act has been helpful in protecting species such as the bald eagle, once on the brink of extinction but now a common sight in Maine. Nearly 500,000 public comments were considered in the new rule-making process.

The post New Endangered Species Act rules consider climate impact on ME wildlife first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Last week, Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a small bill, one that received no formal opposition in committee and would have helped some of our most vulnerable Mainers stay out of jail, get jobs, and rebuild their lives.

LD 2246 would have ended our three strikes law against petty theft. As Michael Kebede of the ACLU of Maine put it, under current law, “Stealing three loaves of bread on three separate occasions… could mean five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.”

“[LD 2246] will ensure that Maine does not needlessly punish people who commit crimes of poverty,” he added.

It would also ensure that someone isn’t labeled a felon for life for making a few small mistakes or for making a decision while in survival mode.

Beyond the stigma, having a felony on your record leads to immeasurable hardship. Matthew Morgan, president of the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, testified in support of the bill, saying, “Three petty shoplifting cases where a person without money steals food could result in him or her being made a felon for the rest of his or her life. The imposition of a felony conviction with its many impacts on housing, employment, firearm possession, and more should require far more egregious conduct…”

Even the Criminal Law Advisory Council, known to be relatively conservative on criminal justice reform, did not oppose the bill, and instead testified neither for nor against.

But Mills, a former criminal prosecutor, has rarely been a fan of criminal justice reform. In 2021, she vetoed a bill decriminalizing sex work (and putting the onus on the Johns and traffickers where it belongs, rather than on sex workers and trafficking victims). She has also vetoed two bills overhauling our poverty punishing bail code.

Perhaps worst of all, she vetoed a bill by state Rep. Grayson Lookner that would have closed the Long Creek Youth Development Center, the state’s only youth prison. The bill also would have provided resources to get children the community support they need, instead of letting children be sucked into a criminal justice system that does everything to keep them there.

As a recent New York Times/Bangor Daily News investigation showed, this veto in particular has allowed a system to continue failing our lowest income kids, as non-incarceration alternatives remain neglected. The article stated, “Nearly three years ago, Maine lawmakers hoped to be in the vanguard of a national movement to transform how governments deal with teenagers who break the law. The legislators passed a bill aimed at closing the state’s only youth prison and expanding programs with a better record of rehabilitating adolescents. But Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat and longtime prosecutor, vetoed the June 2021 measure, even though the facility, Long Creek Youth Development Center, had repeatedly been faulted for harmful treatment and dangerous conditions.”

Sadly, this pattern of the governor to veto bills that will help our most vulnerable does not simply extend to criminal justice issues. During her tenure, she has vetoed legislation to raise wages for farmworkers, to give tenants more than 30 days notice before being evicted without cause, to strengthen the negotiating rights of overworked teachers and public employees, and to empower workers to protect themselves from bad employers.

Perhaps what is most frustrating about her veto of the bill to end three strikes on petty theft, beyond the human impact, is that she says she vetoed it because it “would make Maine an outlier from New England states.” And yet, when it comes to gun safety, she says about her proposals, “They are not a cookie cutter version of another’s state’s laws; they are Maine-made and true to our culture.”

Whether LD 2246 is actually an outlier (it isn’t), or whether it is a tried and true reform (it is), it would have improved the lives of people who desperately need help. She shouldn’t have vetoed it. 

 

The post Opinion: Janet Mills wields her veto pen against the most vulnerable. Again. first appeared on Maine Beacon.

What is tax fairness?

Taxes help pay for things that benefit everyone, like good schools, clean air and water, and safe roads. Businesses also need these things to succeed, along with a healthy, housed, and educated workforce, modern infrastructure, and affordable energy. Fair taxes mean everyone pitches in according to their means, so those who have less pay less, and those who have more pay more. Unfortunately, the vast majority of states still have upside-down tax structures, meaning that families with wealth pay a smaller portion of their income in taxes than families with low income. That’s not fair.

 

 

Most public services are funded by a mix of income, property, and consumption taxes. Some states decide to get rid of income taxes altogether. But when they do, they often raise other taxes and reduce support for essential services and infrastructure. This hurts people with low income the most and worsens economic and racial inequality. Ultimately, the “no income tax” approach to taxation means people with low and middle income end up contributing a greater share of their income towards shared services and infrastructure than people with wealth but get less of the benefit. That’s not fair either. 

 

Why is tax fairness important?

• Unfair tax structures worsen income inequality. New state-by-state analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) shows that on average, the least wealthy 20% of taxpayers pay state and local tax rates that are nearly 60% higher than the wealthiest 1%. In 41 states, the wealthiest 1% are taxed at a lower rate than everyone else. In the most unfair states, families with low income pay three to five times as much of their income as those with wealth.
• States described as “low tax” are often high tax for families with low income. When states move to eliminate or flatten personal income taxes, they often make up for the lost revenue by raising other taxes, like property and consumption taxes. These taxes hit people with low income hardest, as they typically spend about three-quarters of their earnings on items subject to sales tax, while top earners only spend about one-sixth of earnings on these items.
• Unfair tax structures and enforcement worsen racial inequality. Taxing people with lower income and their work-based income at higher rates than wealthy people and their unearned income negatively and disproportionately impacts people of color. In the US, the typical white family has eight times the wealth of the typical Black family, and yet Black Americans have been found to be three to five times more likely to be auditedthan taxpayers of other races. Wealthy white people are also significantly more likely to have sources of unearned income, including stock.
• Unfair tax systems shift costs to workers and small businesses. Taxpayers with higher incomes can exert political influence and employ advisors to exploit complicated loopholes and accounting schemes to avoid paying what they owe. Following the Trump tax cuts of 2017, corporations spent $1 trillion on stock buybacks, further enriching shareholders while workers’ wages stagnated. Maine enacted a policy to stop big box stores from employing shady practices to reduce their property taxes and shift costs to local communities, which has cost other states millions in local tax revenues.
• Unfair tax structures cost the US billions every year. The US Treasury estimates the wealthiest 1% use loopholes and other strategies to hide their wealth and underpay their taxes by $163 billion each year. Tax avoidance by the wealthiest 1% accounts for nearly 30% of what the government is shortchanged annually.

How do Maine’s tax structures compare?

According to ITEP’s analysis, Maine is one of only seven states with tax structures that reduce rather than increase inequality. In New England, only Vermont has fairer tax structures.

In recent years, Maine has made strides to increase fairness by targeting tax credits to people with low income. For example, Maine has increased its Earned Income Tax Credit fivefold since 2019, removed minimum income qualifications for its child tax credit and sales tax credit and introduced a dependent care tax credit and a property tax fairness credit.

In contrast, Florida, which has the least fair tax system in the US, relies heavily on sales taxes because it doesn’t have an income tax, and it lacks targeted tax credits that create balance for families with low income. As a result, families with low income in Florida pay almost five times more of their income in taxes than the wealthiest families do, and 35% more than their counterparts in Maine.

By maintaining a fairer tax system, Maine has also been able to sustain the funding to enact bold policies that build economic opportunity and further reduce costs for working families, including free school meals, free community college, child care and energy subsidies, paid family and medical leave, expanded access to Medicaid, and new affordable housing construction.

FLORIDA: The most unfair in the U.S. MAINE: The 7th fairest in the U.S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income taxes

Income taxes play a significant role in our economy, but just as important are the taxes that go unpaid. The “tax gap” — the difference between what taxpayers owe and what they pay — was $688 billion in 2021. That represents a quarter of the federal tax receipts and about 3% of the nation’s total economic output. This gap comes from wealthy people and corporations exploiting loopholes, complex schemes, lax reporting laws, and gutted enforcement capacity to hide their income, along with other nonfiling, underreporting, and underpayment.

Why aren’t flat income taxes fair? Flat income tax taxes charge everyone the same percentage of their income, regardless of how much they earn. This might seem fair, but it hits people with lower incomes harder. People with low income end up paying a bigger part of what they earn in taxes, leaving them with less money for important things like housing, food, and health care. Meanwhile, wealthier people who can afford to pay more contribute less of their income in taxes, allowing them to save and invest more of their earnings, a cycle that worsens income inequality. Personal income taxes

On average in the U.S., income tax rates go up as income goes up. Additional tax credits targeted to working families with low-income help offset other forms of taxes that are less fair. However, there’s a hidden issue with income taxes: money earned from investments, like stocks and bonds, isn’t taxed as it grows, unlike income from working. This makes it even tougher for working class families to get ahead.

Minnesota has the second fairest tax structure in the nation after Washington, DC. Like Maine, it has robust tax credits for working families, a state-level estate tax, and limits itemized deductions for the wealthy. But what sets Minnesota apart is its approach to taxing high investment incomes and its graduated income tax brackets that apply higher rates to higher earnings. While Maine’s income tax bracket also increases with the amount of income earned, it only has three brackets. The top tax rate starts at just $61,600 for single filers and $123,250 for those married filing jointly, resulting in a large share of middle-income families paying the same rate as millionaires in Maine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEP’s charts show the share of family income spent on income taxes after tax credits and exemptions are factored in.

Corporate income taxes

Business income reported on individual and corporate tax returns accounts for 44% of the tax gap. While the federal government has started taking steps to tackle this issue by improving IRS capabilities to target high-income and large corporate tax evaders, as well as implementing an alternative minimum corporate tax, many states, including Maine, lag behind. In Maine, there’s very little information available about whether corporations operating here are paying their share of state taxes because reporting requirements are minimal.

Much of Maine’s corporate tax base is comprised of multinational corporations like Amazon, Walmart, Apple, Microsoft, and pharmaceutical companies. These corporations sell their products in Maine but are based elsewhere. They pay taxes based on a percentage of their income from sales here. But when these corporations hide their profits in offshore tax havens, those profits aren’t included in the federal or state tax calculations. Each year, tax haven abuse costs the US $60 billion and Maine an estimated $52 million. Many of the big corporations dodging taxes are the same ones getting special tax breaks from both federal and state governments.

“Pass-through” entity income taxes

95% of businesses in the U.S. today are “pass-through” entities not subject to the corporate tax paid by C-corporations. Pass-through entities, such as partnerships, S corporations, and sole proprietorships, allow income to “pass through” to their owners, who then report it on their individual income tax returns. Because these entities underreport at a high rate, they represent the single largest source of the tax gap.

Pass-through entities have minimal reporting requirements and are rarely audited, creating a fertile environment for underreporting, evasion, and tax haven abuse by the wealthy. While sold as a small business benefit, more than 60% of the 2017 tax cut directed at pass-through entities ultimately benefitted the wealthiest 1%, at a cost of roughly $50 billion in revenue each year. Many of these tax benefits are set to expire in 2025. In Maine, the Legislature recently considered a bill that would have created a new pass-through entity tax that, instead of reigning in pass-throughs, would have made even more loopholes and tax breaks available.

 

 

Property taxes

On average, property taxes can hit families with low income the hardest because those families typically spend a greater share of their income on property taxes than everyone else. This includes both renters and homeowners with low income. Many states with flat or no income taxes look to property taxes to raise revenue. New Hampshire, which has no personal income tax, relies heavily on property taxes to make up revenue, resulting in the third highest property tax rate in the nation. All but the wealthiest 5% in New Hampshire pay a greater percentage of their income in property taxes than families in Maine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sales and excise taxes

Taxing the things people buy has the most unfair impact on families with low income. Sales and excise taxes are also the most common way for states that have eliminated or flattened their income taxes to make up for lost revenue. For example, in Washington state, families with low income pay a portion of their income in sales taxes that is seven times higher than the wealthiest families, and almost twice as much as their counterparts in Maine.

What can be done to make tax structures fairer?

End corporate tax haven abuse with complete reporting. Worldwide combined reporting would require corporations and their subsidiaries to report global profits and pay taxes on the portion of their business done in Maine, leveling the playing field for local businesses paying taxes fairly.

Make corporations file state income tax disclosures. It’s impossible for state and local governments to know if corporations are paying their share because little to no reporting is required on the state level. Research by the Economic Policy Institute found that in seven states, 60% of corporations pay $0 in income taxes, including many with over $1 billion in federal taxable income. The Maine legislature passed a bill that would require Maine Revenue Service to report how many of the largest corporations doing business in Maine pay $0 in taxes.

Apply the federal corporate minimum tax on the state level. In 2023, the federal government enacted requirements that corporations with profits over $1 billion pay 15% of profits reported to shareholders. Also known as the “real profits tax”, it will prevent ultra-wealthy corporations from getting away with paying $0 in taxes. Aligning with federal policy will help prevent ultra-wealthy corporations from avoiding their obligations in Maine.

Reform or end wasteful corporate tax subsidies. Federal and state governments give away billions in taxpayer money to profitable corporations every year with little transparency or accountability built in. Corporations that receive subsidies often spend the money on stock buybacks and executive pay while their workers’ wages stagnate. Maine gives away over $1 billion in business tax breaks each year — almost as much as the state spends on education. Many of these subsidies are unproven or proven to be ineffective. States should implement subsidy guard rails like requiring sunset dates, income tax disclosures, and impact data, and by prohibiting stock buybacks and executive raises. Subsidies shown to be wasteful and ineffective should be scrapped.

Expose and prosecute ultra-wealthy tax evaders. The new IRS funding included in the Inflation Reduction Act will allow the agency to prioritize auditing and collecting from ultra-wealthy tax evaders like Microsoft, which owes $29 billion in back taxes resulting from avoidance schemes. Sustained funding and the resulting increased compliance will raise an estimated $851 billion over 10 years. Increasing funding will raise even more. Every $1 of IRS spending on audits of top earners delivers more than $12 of tax revenue.

Sunset income and estate tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. In 2017, Congress passed a tax plan that primarily benefitted the wealthiest 5%, giving income tax cuts more than triple the value of those received by the bottom 60% of earners and doubling the amount the wealthiest households can pass on tax-free to their heirs. Allowing these provisions to sunset in 2025 will restore an estimated $350 billion in revenue per year. Maine’s estate tax excludes $6.8 million of inherited income from taxation, primarily benefiting the wealthiest Mainers.

Enact a mansion tax in the form of a progressive real estate transfer tax. Families with low and middle income are competing with more buyers than ever in a state where housing stock is limited, prices for homes are higher, and more homes are second homes or not owner occupied. Maine’s real estate transfer tax is assessed as $2.20 for every $500 in purchase price when property is sold. Creating a new transfer tax bracket for higher value real estate sales would ask more of those with higher wealth and provide new revenue to fund affordable housing solutions.

Enact a millionaire tax, raising income taxes on high earners. Maine’s current tax code requires middle class families to pay the same rates as millionaires. Creating a new bracket for those with higher income would add fairness. ITEP analysis estimates that adding a surcharge of 3% on income over $1 million and 6% on income over $10 million would isolate impact to the wealthiest 0.2% in Maine and would bring in an additional $99 million in revenue each year.

Restore and expand tax credits for families with low and middle income. Expansions of the federal Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and tax credits for Affordable Care Act marketplace coverage in 2021 all contributed to a significant reduction in poverty and helped working families make ends meet, but were ultimately allowed to sunset. In recent years, Maine has expanded the dependent care tax credit, property tax fairness credit, and earned income tax credit, but there is more to be done to make the tax code fairer for all.

Did you know…?

• Since 2020, the world’s five richest men more than doubled their collective wealth to . That’s a rate of $14 million per hour. Meanwhile, 4.8 billion people were poorer in 2020 than they were the year before.
• Over three decades, the net worth of the wealthiest 1% of Americans grew by $21 trillion, while that of the bottom 50% dropped by $900 billion. The bottom 50% of American households owns just 2% of the nation’s wealth.
• 35 major US corporations, including Tesla, T-Mobile, Ford, and Netflix, paid less in federal income taxesbetween 2018 and 2022 than they paid their top five executives, despite being profitable during that time period. While together those 35 corporations paid their executives $9.5 billion, their combined tax bill came to a negative $1.8 billion. Not only did they not pay their share, they were also rewarded with lucrative tax breaks.
• 75% of the super-rich support a 2% wealth tax on billionaires. More than half also agree that the concentration of extreme wealth is a threat to democracy.
• One year’s worth of uncollected taxes would have covered an extension of the expanded child tax credit through 2025. Or it would have paid for nearly all the non-defense discretionary spending of the federal government.
• In 2022, CEO pay was , on average, than the pay of a typical worker.

Dive deeper…

Who Pays? 7th Edition | ITEP

Taxes and Racial Equity: An Overview of State and Local Policy Impacts – ITEP

The Pitfalls of Flat Income Taxes | ITEP

State Taxation of Capital Gains: The Folly of Tax Cuts & Case for Proactive Reforms | ITEP

Corporate Tax Avoidance in the First Five Years of the Trump Tax Law | ITEP

More for Them, Less for US: Corporations That Pay Their Executives More Than Uncle Sam | Americans For Tax Fairness

The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax | ProPublica

Top 1% Up $21 Trillion. Bottom 50% Down $900 Billion. | People’s Policy Project

Inequality Inc.: How corporate power divides our world and the need for a new era of public action | Oxfam

Originally published by the Maine Center for Economic Policy

 

The post Tax Fairness — An Explainer first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Today on the Beacon Podcast, Ben and Esther discuss updates from the legislative session including the new pilot program for housing subsidies, the outcome of Planned Parenthood’s proposed constitutional amendment regarding protecting access to abortion, and the Sears Island offshore wind proposal. Additionally, the two discuss Pres. Biden’s new plan to help erase or lower student debt for approximately 30 million people.

Ask a question or leave a comment for a future show at (207) 619-3182.

Subscribe to the podcast feed using any podcasting app or subscribe on Apple Podcasts.

The post Podcast: Rent relief, abortion access, wind power and student dept relief! first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Maine voters overwhelmingly back crucial housing reforms and a public health insurance option, according to a recent poll. 

In the survey of 607 Maine voters conducted in late March by the Maine People’s Resource Center, a partner of the Beacon, 57% expressed support for “the creation of a new state rental assistance voucher program to help more Maine families afford housing,” with only 30% opposed.

Additionally, 62% of respondents favor banning landlord discrimination against tenants who receive rental assistance. The survey carries a margin of error of +/-4% at a 95% confidence level.

The polling comes as Maine lawmakers last week passed a supplementary budget proposal that includes $18 million in funding for a rental assistance pilot. 

However, the Democrats’ proposed budget is currently in the middle of a legislative fight and the rental assistance pilot could get dropped. 

Their spending plan taps into funds meant for transportation to meet other priorities and scales back a pension tax break passed last year. This reportedly has angered Republicans and risks a showdown with Gov. Janet Mills, who has veto power over the budget.

Cate Blackford, the public policy director for the Maine People’s Alliance, said the polling shows such a program is “desperately needed, right now, to ensure that all Mainers have a safe and stable place to call home. No matter who we are, where we live or how much money we have in the bank, we all deserve that. That means protecting renters today, as we work to meet our state’s housing needs for the future.”

A vital part of that protection, she said, is banning landlord discrimination against tenants who receive rental assistance, which three out of five of respondents supported in the poll. 

“Incredibly, it is legal for landlords to discriminate against people who have some kind of rental assistance, and it’s often just a matter of course,” Blackford said. “But most Mainers believe tenants deserve better.”

Mainers also overwhelmingly back the establishment of a state public option health care plan that would provide competition to private insurers. A significant 60% to 24% margin of Maine voters supports this initiative. Among Democrats, 80% support the plan, alongside 56% of independents and a plurality of 46% of Republicans.

Furthermore, 52% of Mainers disclosed experiencing a denial or delay of care or payment by a health insurance company, contributing to a notable 62% unfavorable view of health insurance corporations.

Maine’s Office of Affordable Health Care recently issued a report exploring potential avenues for a public option health care plan in the state.

In the statewide presidential vote, a plurality of voters favor Pres. Joe Biden. However, in Maine’s Second Congressional District, a plurality supports former Pres. Donald Trump, while nearly a quarter of voters remain undecided or back another candidate. Biden holds a narrow lead statewide, securing 40% of the vote compared to Trump’s 37%. 

Notably, the proportion of voters undecided or supporting a third-party candidate is higher than in previous elections at this stage. Biden leads by 10 points in Maine’s First Congressional District, while Trump holds a four-point lead in the Second District.

The post Poll: Mainers strongly support rent relief, public health insurance option first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Advocates for women veterans, who’ve experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military, are asking state lawmakers for much-needed funding.

Previous legislation backed the creation of two sexual trauma liaisons at community-based organizations in the state, but funding never came to fruition.

Executive Director of the Augusta-based Sisters-in-Arms Center, Rebecca Cornell du Houx, said lawmakers have a chance to help veteran survivors rebuild their lives.

“To have a consistent clinician there to provide that trauma treatment to the woman veteran in a place that they’re safe,” said Cornell du Houx, “I think, can really, really support their recovery.”

Cornell du Houx said one in three women soldiers experience some form of sexual trauma while in the military but many incidents go unreported.

There are more than 10,000 women veterans currently living in Maine.

Women veterans are one of the fastest-growing sectors of the homeless population, and are four times more likely to become homeless than their male peers.

Researchers also now identify military sexual trauma as the biggest factor driving a more than 60% increase in suicide rates among women veterans since 2001.

Cornell du Houx said while group therapy is available to these veterans, state funding would provide for more formalized treatment – especially for those coming off active-duty.

“I think if people knew the stories of what had happened to these women while they were in the service, just really disheartening stories of assault,” said Cornell du Houx, “I think that they wouldn’t hesitate to fund a position so that they could get help.”

Cornell du Houx said sexual trauma is most prevalent among lower-ranking seventeen and eighteen-year-olds, who are influenced to think that reporting an incident is a betrayal of a fellow soldier.

She said it’s important to support those who have come forward, to advocate for themselves and others, and who took an oath to serve their country.

The post Maine women veterans request counselors for military sexual trauma first appeared on Maine Beacon.

When the late Gov. Joe Brennan, who passed away this week at the age of 89, was first elected to the Maine legislature in 1965, the first bill he sponsored was to abolish the reprehensible practice of putting kids in jail for truancy. I don’t know if this was from his lived experience (he reportedly skipped school more than once to improve on his pool game) or from his innate ability to understand injustice. But, pushing juvenile justice reform like this was boldly humanitarian and progressive.

One of the last public positions he took, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1996 against Susan Collins, was to forcefully support an extension of the assault weapons ban, which Collins said she wanted to repeal. His house on Munjoy Hill had been shot up when his daughter was home and his son was in law enforcement. His stance was deemed too boldly progressive. Also risky. He lost that race.

In the 30 years between, Brennan fought for public power. He raised the minimum wage for our lowest income workers. He created the HOME program to help working class families buy a house they otherwise couldn’t afford. He developed one of the first programs in the country to provide low income home energy assistance.

He created the Public Advocate’s office, so consumers had someone, anyone, whose job it was to push back against power companies seeking more and more profits at the expense of our environment and our checkbooks (sound familiar?)

He fought the alcohol industry by pushing for much stronger drunk driving laws and he fought the car industry by passing Maine’s first seatbelt law. He set the stage for the Land For Maine’s Future program, which has now preserved 620,000 acres of Maine land. Forever.

In 1968 he supported a resolution on the floor of the Democratic convention opposing the Vietnam War (earning the wrath of Senator and Vice Presidential nominee Ed Muskie) and in 1986 he refused to send the Maine National Guard to train in Honduras because of the illegal war Ronald Reagan was waging against Nicaragua.

Brennan’s legacy isn’t perfect: His progressive credentials certainly take a hit with the rigidity with which he, and every governor since, enforced the Indian Land Claims Act, especially around self-governance and tribal sovereignty. The settlement was the largest of its kind at the time, and many saw it as a breakthrough for the Tribes in Maine, but ultimately it has not lived up to hopes and desperately needs to be reformed to better meet the spirit of what was intended.

Even Brennan’s reputation for fiscal conservatism was more in the progressive tradition of making government more effective for those in need. Improving our fiscal standing with bond markets, so we could borrow at lower risk. Balancing our budgets, so programs could be sustained over time. Creating the Finance Authority of Maine to ensure loans were administered responsibly and putting the Maine Housing Authority on solid financial footing so it could do all the good work it has done building housing for those in need.

That is a very different fiscal conservatism than what has been pushed by Republicans for a generation, one that seeks to starve government solely to undermine the effectiveness of the safety net so they can reduce tax rates for our wealthiest and increase income inequality.

I mention all this because the progressive drive of this great governor is getting somewhat lost in all of the accolades I have been reading. The memorials speak mostly to his personal integrity and generosity, both of which I experienced too often to count, which is certainly worthy of highlighting. Focusing on a person’s integrity, kindness, and how they treated others should be paramount to all of our legacies.

But for a politician who gave 60 years of public service to our state, I expect he would also want to be remembered for what he did and for the activist progressive ideology he espoused about government’s role: “The moral imperative of government is how you treat those in the dawn of life… those in the shadows of life… and those in the twilight of life. Government is the last and best hope for those in need.”

May all of us carry on his memory and continue his work.

The post Opinion: The late Gov. Joe Brennan was a progressive champion first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Housing advocates are applauding a spending plan passed by Democrats which includes $18 million in funding for rental assistance.

Legislative Democrats endorsed a proposed state supplemental budget on Saturday that included funds for a state-run housing voucher program pilot. 

The plan, which passed the Democratic-majority Appropriations Committee in a 7-5 vote along party lines, goes beyond what Gov. Janet Mills has already called for to address the state’s housing crisis, which continues to deepen in Maine, as it does in many parts of the country, after decades of underproduction of affordable housing.

“We are excited to see a rent relief pilot program included in the budget that can provide Mainers most at risk of housing instability and eviction get the help they need to remain housed,” said Kathy Kilrain del Rio of Maine Equal Justice. “This will have a huge positive impact on the lives of many families and individuals. Everyone should have the safety and stability that having a place to call home provides. This is an important part of the solution to the housing crisis.” 

The pilot would provide around 2,000 Mainers with between $300 and $800 in monthly rental assistance. 

Maine Equal Justice and other housing advocates held rallies in Augusta this session to push lawmakers to fund rent relief, which they say is an important tool to keep low-income renters from falling out of the bottom of the housing market and becoming unhoused.

For many housing advocates, rent relief must be part of any serious policy package pursued by lawmakers to address the housing crisis. It’s one leg of a four-legged stool that also includes funding private and public affordable housing construction, funding homeless shelters, and regulating the private rental market.

Until now, lawmakers have been reluctant to regulate landlords or go beyond funding the same public-private housing development schemes they have been relying on for decades — the same schemes that failed to produce enough affordable housing. 

In her amendment to her initial supplemental budget proposal, Mills called for directing an additional $22 million to federal low-income housing tax credits and the Rural Affordable Rental Housing Program — both programs that subsidize private developers to create affordable housing.

“Any help is welcome, especially by our elected officials. This is a humane and reasonable approach to handling homelessness by making sure people stay housed,” said Spencer Jacob, a tenant at Redbank Village in South Portland. “However, I fear that this relief is only going to be temporary. Rent will keep going up and Maine will need more funding each year to suffice the growing need for rent relief.”

But Democrats’ efforts to go further than they have previously to address the housing crisis may still face a legislative fight.

As the Bangor Daily News reports, the spending plan passed by Legislative Democrats on Saturday taps into funds meant for transportation to meet other priorities and scales back a pension tax break passed last year. This reportedly has angered Republicans and risks a showdown with Mills, who has veto power over the budget.

The post Housing advocates applaud inclusion of rent relief in Democrats’ budget plan first appeared on Maine Beacon.

This week on the podcast, we bid a fond adieu to longtime Beacon reporter Dan Neumann, who is leaving us for the labor movement. Dan and Ben talk about some of their favorite Beacon stories and when the Beacon’s reporting has really made a difference. They also talk about what’s happening in the last part of the legislative session with housing, wind power and the budget.

Ask a question or leave a comment for a future show at (207) 619-3182.

Subscribe to the podcast feed using any podcasting app or subscribe on Apple Podcasts.

The post Podcast: What it means to be a “movement journalist” first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Maine Lawmakers heard from the public on Friday over a proposed red flag law, also called an extreme risk protection order, which is aimed at empowering not just law enforcement but also family members to petition a court to restrict access to firearms for individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others.

“I’m here to join the chorus of voices asking you to give Mainers a streamlined mechanism to protect our loved ones in crisis from harming themselves or others. We need a true extreme risk protection order to keep our family members and our communities safe,” said Yarmouth resident Cam Shannon, board chair of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition.

The bill, LD 2283, presented by House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Portland), seeks to streamline the existing process in state law, bypassing the requirement for a mental health evaluation before obtaining a judge’s approval to remove someone’s firearms.

Introduced late in the legislative session, the proposal gained traction in response to pleas from citizens and advocates testifying on various gun reforms, particularly in the aftermath of the tragic Oct. 25 mass shooting in Lewiston, which claimed 18 lives and left 13 others wounded. 

“Constituents from across the state have shown up at rallies, they’ve made phone calls, written letters to the editor,” said Talbot Ross. “They’ve delivered the hours of public testimony that this very committee has heard. And they have been very clear: The epidemic of gun violence requires leadership, urgent leadership, and a comprehensive approach to public health and safety.”

Alongside this red flag initiative, lawmakers are mulling over additional gun safety reforms, including broader background checks encompassing private sales, a mandated 72-hour waiting period for purchases, and updates to the current yellow-flag law.

Maine’s current yellow-flag law, a compromise brokered between Gov. Janet Mills and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, was at the center of a state investigation of the Lewiston shooting which found significant law enforcement error but otherwise offered little criticism of the current law.

The law, which requires a mental health evaluation for police to intervene and limit access to weapons, has faced scrutiny in light of recent events. Critics argue that its convoluted process creates loopholes, potentially allowing individuals to slip through the cracks, as illustrated by the Lewiston tragedy.

The proposed red flag law has garnered praise from members of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, who emphasized the significance of empowering families to intervene and remove firearms from loved ones displaying concerning behavior. They highlighted the strain on law enforcement tasked with assessing mental health under the current yellow-flag law, underscoring the necessity for Maine to enhance its gun safety measures.

“The bill gives family members, not just law enforcement, the opportunity to seek help for a loved one in crisis by petitioning a judge for the temporary removal,” Shannon said. “They are the most likely to recognize warning signs. They should be empowered to seek help when they are concerned.”

Maine has the chance to join 21 other states that have enacted red flag law. Many proponents believe lawmakers missed an opportunity in 2019, when Maine Republicans unanimously rejected Sen. Rebecca Millett’s original red flag law, instead aligning with the gun lobby’s assurances of safety. Rather than acknowledging the current law’s weaknesses, Republicans now seek to blame law enforcement for not enforcing the flawed law. 

Some Democrats are urging Mills and other lawmakers to meet the moment now.

“This is a crucial moment in our state’s history, and we are here to meet that moment. It will take all of us working together and listening compassionately to chart a path forward,” said Sen. Eloise Vitelli (D-Sagadahoc County). “This bill represents one step in the march towards that progress.”

The post ‘We need a true extreme risk protection order:’ Mainers call on lawmakers to pass red flag law first appeared on Maine Beacon.

If you are a Republican in southern Maine, your vote hasn’t mattered in a presidential election for 36 years. Literally. 

And it won’t matter in 2024 or 2028 either, if how we tabulate elections remains the same.

Thirty six years ago was the last time a Republican presidential candidate won either the state or the First Congressional District (1988). In every election since, the Democratic candidate won both. Pretty handily. 

In fact, even Republicans in the Second District were silenced in presidential elections for most of the same period. They were given a tiny voice in 2016 and 2020 when they voted for former Pres. Donald Trump, but even then, what Maine offered didn’t matter to the winner.

That’s because in the United States we do not have one-person, one-vote in our presidential races. Instead of the winner being elected by a majority of the votes around the country, we use an arcane “compromise” created by the same people who believed Black people were three-fifths of a human and women not smart enough to cast a ballot.

The system, called the electoral college, allocates “electors” based on the number of congressional seats we hold. This makes for the bizarre system we currently use in which candidates spend all their time in relatively few states, because the rest of the electors in the country just don’t matter.

For instance, between 2008-2016, Maine got an average of 1.6 visits by presidential candidates per general election. Wisconsin got 13. That’s over eight times as many visits, yet Wisconsin only has four times our population. 

Or take Virginia which got 82 visits over the same period (16 times as many as us), despite only having five times our population.

Over and over again, Maine is disadvantaged by the current system. 

Now, imagine a scenario where every vote mattered. Where every vote across the country was equal. Where, if a candidate moved 10,000 votes in Maine, it meant the same as moving 10,000 votes in Alabama. Where knocking on a door in Kittery to motivate a single voter to turn out for the candidate of your choice, meant the same as knocking on a door in Knoxville.

Right now, if the Maine GOP convinces a voter in Yarmouth to vote for Trump, it has zero impact on whether Trump wins. Honestly, it is the same for Democrats and Pres. Joe Biden. We know Maine will vote for Biden, and we really, really, really know the First District will vote for him.

But all that changes if Gov. Janet Mills allows the National Popular Vote (NPV) bill recently passed by the Maine legislature to become law.

NPV guarantees that the presidential candidate who wins the most votes across the country wins the presidency. That means presidential candidates must campaign for any and every vote they can get. Everywhere.

And just a quick note on constitutionality. While our federal constitution does not use the phrase winner-take-all for presidential races, it makes 100% clear that every state gets to choose how they allocate their electors, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …” Article II, U.S. Constitution. So, for any states’ rights conservatives out there, this idea is right up your alley.

So far, 16 states and the District of Columbia have decided to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote, for a total of 205 delegates. Maine would be the 17th and would bring the total to 209. Additionally, 74 more delegates are in play in seven states where NPV has passed at least one branch of their legislature.

Once we hit 270, it is game over.

So, let me repeat something you will not hear me say often: Let’s give Maine Republicans more voice in our presidential elections. They have been silenced and disenfranchised for far too long.

The post Opinion: Let’s make sure Republican votes matter in Maine (seriously) first appeared on Maine Beacon.

With bipartisan support, the Maine House passed an amended bill on Tuesday that will expand the Wabanaki Nations’ jurisdiction over certain crimes.

LD 2007, which passed the House 82-62 and has the support of Gov. Janet Mills, aims to synchronize Maine’s legal framework with federal statutes concerning tribal court jurisdiction. It specifies the areas where the state holds either concurrent or exclusive authority over criminal prosecutions. Presently, among the four tribes in Maine, only the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes operate their own tribal courts. However, the proposed law would encompass future tribal courts of the Mi’kmaq and Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians as well.

The bill now advances to the Maine Senate.

“Today was a big win but a small step moving forward so a big thanks and appreciation goes out to all that supported us on both sides of the aisle. We still have so much work to do and education to accomplish. LD 2007 is a step in that direction,” said Passamaquoddy Tribal Representative and Wabanaki Alliance board member Aaron Dana. 

LD 2007, introduced by House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Portland), was originally drafted to implement many of the recommendations made in 2019 by a legislative task force formed to find a way to amend the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980.

The Settlement Act is a jurisdictional arrangement between the tribes and the state that Indigenous leaders have long criticized for leaving the Wabanaki Nations with less authority over natural resources, gaming, taxation, criminal justice and economic development on their lands than 570 other federally recognized tribes.

However, Mills signaled earlier in the session that she was still in opposition to several of the task force’s recommendations, but was open to adopting many of the criminal justice recommendations. The speaker, tribes and the offices of the governor and attorney general then worked together on a compromise bill that solely focused on expanding tribes’ authority over certain crimes.

The amended bill also would allow the Penobscot Nation a greater role in the management of its drinking water.

“Maybe one day the Wabanaki Nations can reclaim their inherent right to self-governance and be allowed their ability to succeed or fail on their own terms,” Dana said. “We are a very proud Wabanaki Confederacy, and we will always move forward in a good way. We will always look to our ancestral teachings and be the warriors our ancestors fought on behalf of and prayed so hard for us to be.”

Over the course of three successive Maine legislative sessions, proposals echoing the widely agreed-upon suggestions of the task force have been deliberated. Should LD 2007 be approved, it would mark the most significant alterations to the Settlement Act since its enactment by Gov. Joseph Brennan, a Democrat, in April 1980.

The post ‘Big win but a small step:’ Maine House passes bill expanding some Wabanaki rights first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Whether you believe Maine’s yellow flag law failed us because of human error or poor design (spoiler alert, it failed by design), one thing is clear — a much less bureaucratic version would have dramatically increased the chances of stopping Robert Card from shooting 31 people in Lewiston last fall.

In fact, it likely would have prevented it.

That is why House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross should be commended for her courageous move last week submitting LD 2283, An Act to Enact the Crisis Intervention Order Act to Protect the Safety of the Public. Red flag laws, or extreme risk protection orders, have been proven to deescalate emergencies and save lives. 

In the face of furious Republican opposition which tried to kill the bill before it even got to committee, attacks by the gun lobby claiming the bill will “make it too easy” to take a dangerous person’s guns away, and no doubt some pressure from members of our own party, Speaker Talbot Ross put public safety ahead of political safety.

Political safety would have been for her to accept the absurd spin that our current laws failed because, as the Republicans and the gun lobby want us to believe, the cops were incompetent. 

But the truth of the matter is that Maine Republicans, more than anyone, are responsible for the failure of our current law to prevent the Lewiston tragedy. In 2019, they voted unanimously against Sen. Rebecca Millett’s original red flag law (the law that Speaker Talbot Ross modeled hers from) and instead followed the lead of the gun lobby, which promised the public its law would be enough to keep us safe.

And now, instead of admitting their failure, Republicans desperately want to continue blaming the cops for not enforcing their law. A law that, by design and intent, made it as hard as possible to take someone’s guns. The yellow flag law is filled with so much red tape it basically ensured that Card, or someone else, had the best possible chance of falling through the cracks.

As a reminder, here is how our current law “works.” Upon receiving a tip that a person might be a risk to themselves or someone else, the police must contact the individual to assess the situation. If they are able to make contact and they determine the person is a risk, they can take the person into custody. Then, they must get a professional mental health assessment to determine if the person is indeed a threat. Then, the police officer must take that assessment to a court and a judge must sign off. Assuming all that happens without a hitch, and only after all that happens without a hitch, a police officer may finally go and take possession of the individual’s guns.

If that sounds cumbersome, littered with opportunities for someone to slip through the cracks, look no further than 18 dead on Oct. 25. 

What would the law proposed by Speaker Talbot Ross do? 

It would cut out all the stuff in the middle. If a family member, a member of a household, a law enforcement agency, or a law enforcement officer believes someone is a threat, they can go directly to a court to ask for the person’s guns to be taken away. That court can then order it immediately, while scheduling a full hearing for 14 days later. End of story.

If someone is fearful for their life, or fearful for the lives of others, including a potential suicide, a court can immediately take their guns. No requirement for a police officer to agree that the person is a danger. No taking the person into custody first. No mental health assessment. 

This is how 21 states do it and this is how Maine should have done it back in 2019. 

Card’s family members had spent six months begging for someone in authority to start the process that would have taken his guns, but were stymied by a law that had too much red tape. If we’d had an extreme risk protection order in place, they would have been able to start the process themselves and likely would have saved 18 lives.

The post Opinion: The law that could have prevented the massacre in Lewiston first appeared on Maine Beacon.

This piece was originally published at the Maine Center for Economic Policy blog.

A major new study by the US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) shows asylum-seekers and refugees provide net fiscal benefits to federal, state, and local governments, and these individuals perform similarly on various economic metrics to US-born Americans over the long run. The USDHHS report examined the costs to all levels of government from providing support for asylees and refugees during the period 2005-2019 and offset those against the estimated tax revenue from these individuals. At the federal level, there was a net fiscal benefit of $31.5 billion over this period; and at the state and local level, there was a net fiscal benefit of $92.3 billion ($125.7 billion of expenditures offset by $218 billion in revenues). The study confirms while people seeking asylum and refuge often require considerable public assistance when they first arrive in the country, they more than pay back that assistance through taxation over the long run.

Immigration more broadly also has significant economic benefits. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently upgraded its long-term economic outlook to reflect higher than expected levels of immigration which CBO finds will result in $7 trillion of additional economic output over the next decade.

Meanwhile, there is also evidence of the benefits of immigration over the short term. As the economy rebounded since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, immigrants played an outsized role in filling empty jobs, at the same time US-born Americans are experiencing record low levels of unemployment. In other words, immigrants are boosting the US economy without hurting Americans’ outcomes.

Lawmakers should champion policies that support immigrants

These findings are particularly relevant for Maine lawmakers in the current moment. Even more than the United States as a whole, Maine has a very strong labor market and Maine employers are looking for workers. The latest data still shows two job openings for every unemployed worker in the state. Meanwhile, Maine is seeing higher than usual levels of immigration. Between 2013 and 2022, approximately one fifth of all the state’s population growth, just under 12,000 people, consisted of foreign-born residents.

The national experience demonstrates how this immigration flow can be a boon to Maine’s employers and economy. While many immigrants, especially people coming as refugees or seeking asylum need substantial support from state and local governments when they first arrive, after a few years their earnings rise substantially and their need for support diminishes.

Data from Maine also bears this out — while immigrants’ earnings are typically low in the first year or so in the state, these grow rapidly and their use of public assistance decreases. It should be noted that a major contributor to the lack of earnings in immigrants’ first years in the US is the bar on working for asylum seekers and refugees for at least 180 days (and delays in the application process can push this back even further).

Note: Use of public assistance programs is dependent on eligibility for non-citizens, which varies by program and immigration status, and which underwent several policy changes during the period analyzed.

All people and communities do better when everyone has the resources they need to prosper and thrive. Lawmakers should ensure immigrants, especially people seeking asylum and refuge, have the support they need during their time of arrival in the US until they are able to settle into a community, make connections, and begin working. Once they do so, the investments made in state supports will pay off through stronger economic growth and increased tax revenue. Maine legislators have already taken steps in this direction, for example expanding MaineCare eligibility for children and pregnant people regardless of immigration status in 2022. However, some assistance programs are under threat in the Governor Mills’ latest supplemental proposal, including food assistance for people who have recently received work authorization, and the ability of towns to offer general assistance to any Mainer who may be at risk of homelessness.

Maine Center for Economic Policy urges the legislature to reject the governor’s cuts and continue to work toward robust policies that protect immigrants as well as existing Mainers.

The post Opinion: Asylum seekers benefit Maine’s economy — lawmakers need to support them first appeared on Maine Beacon.