Tax Reform Peoples Veto Effort Has $7,000 and Gaining

According to Dan Billings on the other thread, the report is bogus. He says the PAC was just formed, and the report only covered the first five days.

FIGURES DON'T LIE, BUT LIARS FIGURE.

I hope most people don't believe everything they read in the newspapers. This veto will be on the ballot, but which ballot (Nov or June) might still be up for grabs. Join our grassroots effort against this so-called "tax reform" at www.MaineTaxpayers.com

IMO, we really need to stop this downward slide toward Socialism. Have a great weekend!

Is there anyone up in this area circulating? We've been looking...so have others up here.

Totally bogus report. At least $5000 has been raised and more pledged. Thousands of signatures have been gathered. We've just started. In fact, the title of this thread should be changed.

Michelle, we are circulating them in this area...if you want one I have one I can get to you.

Mr. McKane is right and the title of this thread should be changed. This AP report is 100% inaccurate and never should have been published. In fact, Sen. David Trahan just confirmed this inaccuracy on a WLOB radio interview with Kevin Crocker at www.wlobradio.com.

If you would like to join/support this People's Veto effort, please visit www.MaineTaxpayers.com
Have a great weekend!

I've provided shelter in my brother's study back in the woods to a young petitioner who has gathered over 600 signatures so far. He'll be down at Oxford Plains today and tomorrow in my car gathering more.

I am looking for someone to help out at Beech Ridge Motor Speedway this afternoon. Don't have to be a certified collector, you will be directing folks to the table where there will be one set of petitions. Call me if avaialble.

We also have other opportunites for collecting that we need help with.

Steven Scharf
207-774-9393
SCSMedia@aol.com

* ... suggest you put the call out on Facebook if you need help.... *

Ouch!

There's plenty more where that came from.

Trust me.

Still Fed Up With Taxes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 20, 2009

Sen. Trahan – Over $7000 in the kitty and gaining

WALDOBORO – State Senator David Trahan announced today that Fed Up With Taxes has well over $7,000 in donations so far and over $10,000 in pledges to help fund the peoples’ veto campaign against the new tax reform law.

"Even though we have just started our fundraising efforts, pledges and donations are mounting up and we now have thousands of signatures in support of this peoples veto," said Trahan who organized the PAC against the new tax reform legislation.

According to figures from Maine Revenue Services (MRS) the new tax system will increase taxes for tens of thousands of Maine citizens. It will also put an extra burden on Maine’s tourism industry at a time when all sectors of our economy are struggling.

"It is unfortunate," said Trahan, "that the Democrats picked this year – a recession year – to implement a major tax reform initiative. In addition, we find after much study, this plan turns out to be regressive in nature, hurting the working poor the most."

The tax scheme expands Maine’s 5 percent sales tax to scores of services and activities never before taxed, affecting thousands of small companies, trades people, technicians, mechanics and countess others "who will become tax collectors for the state, with all the accounting and paperwork hassles that entails," wrote Senator Trahan, (R-Waldoboro). He said a heavy burden will fall on people trying to keep older cars in operation; MRS estimates it will collect $25.7 million every year in taxes on motor vehicle maintenance and repair.

Reports from signature gatherers have said that this tax reform plan is about as popular as last year’s beer, wine, soda and health claims tax.

"It’s another bad idea out of Augusta and people know it," added Trahan.

###

Traci: Check your voice mail.

A.J. Higgins MPBN Report 7/16/09

http://www.mpbn.net/Portals/0/av/Radio/090716veto.wma

Today's Portland Press Herald:
Tax law repeal divides GOP
State GOP Chairman Charles Webster has been outspoken on the issue and was one of the petitioners for the veto. House Republican Leader Joshua Tardy of Newport and Senate Republican Leader Kevin Raye of Perry have both come out against the package and for the veto effort.

But not every member of the Grand Old Party thinks a people's veto is a great idea. Some party stalwarts think the effort is a waste of energy and suggest more time should be spent on winning a majority of seats in the House or Senate.

"When you embark on a public campaign, you really ought to know that you're going to be able to be successful," said Sen. Carol Weston, R-Montville.

Full Story Here

The decision has been made. Prior criticism in opposition makes sense. Criticism after the event may be productive. Comments undermining the party's project before it runs its course can only undermine the effort. How is that going to help the party? MIlls I understand. He has the responsbility for articulating the views of the Mills wing of the party---consisting of Sen. Peter Mills---but why do these other "stalwarts" feel compelled to set their jaws to wagging? The only purpose I can detect is a desire for attention.

I would say the reason they are commenting is due to the fact the Maine GOP organization is portraying this as a global effort and clearly it is not. Being a lawmaker under the umbrella of the Maine GOP, public perception is that silence equal "in favor" of the move. Clearly, there are many who are not in favor of the move and getting comments out ensures the public realizes where they fall on the initiative.

I've communicated my opinion to chairman Webstere that I'm not in favor of the initiative however I respect his effort and right to do so.

They voted against it, but don't wish to oppose its being put into effect? They want the public to know they don't support the state's party and chairman.

They want the public to know they don't support the state's party and chairman.
I'm not sure about that part - opposition to the effort doesn't have to mean lack of support for the state's party or chairman.

I think voting against something and encouraging the effort to use resources for it's recall are two different things. I think the main argument is the purpose of the state party using time and resources to put together a veto against a bill that most folks don't fully understand nor can recite the real benefits or holes.

This effort was put together well in advance of the bill's final form and was in play before the vote came down...I think it's fair to say that the effort was not put together in the best interest of the average taxpayer but as an attempt to get headlines.

As a lawmaker, I respect your right to be for or against the veto, but the work of the party at the state level should be to get folks organized and elected so as to change from the inside rather than dedicate the lack of money and time that already exist to a single topic effort.

We talk about slippery slope - I think this qualifies.

"I would prefer to find a way to go back and fix those objectionable things," Weston said. "I think it would be accomplishing our goals."

With that statement it looks like the former Senate R leader has joined Mills and the Democrats.

“....opposition to the effort doesn't have to mean lack of support for the state's party or chairman.”
BUT
“....the effort was not put together in the best interest of the average taxpayer but as an attempt to get headlines.”
IF THIS IS SUPPORT FOR THE PARTY AND CHAIRMAN, THEY NEED NO OPPOSITION.
“I think voting against something and encouraging the effort to use resources for it's recall are two different things.”
VOTING AGAINST SOMETHING AND OPPOSING ITS RECALL ARE INDEED TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
“...a bill that most folks don't fully understand nor can recite the real benefits or holes.”
THE FACT THAT FEW PEOPLE FULLY UNDERSTAND IT IS ONE OF ITS VULNERABILITIES. THE ONE THING THAT CINEMA OWNERS, INNKEEPERS, GARAGE OWNERS, PROFESSIONAL MUSICIANS, VENTRILOQUISTS (SIC1) AND MANY OTHERS UNDERSTAND IS THAT IT IMPOSES ADDITIONAL TAXES ON THEM. THAT IS ENOUGH.
“This effort was put together well in advance of the bill's final form and was in play before the vote came down...”
IF YOU ASSUME THAT ITS ULTERIOR PURPOSE IS TO RAISE TAXES; THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SO DEVOTED TO SPENDING THAT THEY WILL INEVITABLY FURTHER “BROADEN” AND RAISE SALES TAXES; ANDTHAT BRACKET CREEP WILL INCREASE THE INCOME TAX TAKE DESPITE TEMPORARY RELIEF, THEN YOU MUST BE OPPOSED FROM THE GET-GO.
“... the work of the party at the state level should be to get folks organized and elected so as to change from the inside rather than dedicate the lack of money and time that already exist to a single topic effort.”

OUR CHAIRMAN HAS ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN HOW HE EXPECTS THE EFFORT TO HELPS TO FACILITATE PARTY BUILDING. IF HIS REASONING SEEMS FAULTY THEN ITS FAULTS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED DIRECTLY, NOT SIMPLY DISREGARDED.

I don’t understand the phrase “dedicate the lack of money and time.” How does one dedicate a lack of money and time?

Many more people agree with Republican ideas and principles than vote Republican. There's a disconnect. There was speculation on this board about why voters overturned the last tax increase, then voted back the the legislators that increased their taxes. Those are the voters who vote Democrat for no better reason than because they always did, and/or because of their incorrect understanding of what Republicans stand for. [That branding thing.]

We've been handed a "teaching moment" and Charlie Webster seized it. We have a chance to hammer home the message that the Democrats don't get it, don't listen, don't respect the voter. "It's too bad that you hire people to do your business, but then have to keep taking your time to correct their mistakes. Maybe it's time to give their jobs to someone that will do the job the way you want it done". It's an opportunity to define not just who we aren't, but who we are. I like and admire Carol Weston, but I think she's wrong on this one.

FLAMMENWERFER - Thank you for the conversation - it's important. In talking with folks that not only voted in favor of the bill but crafted it, it's clear to me that not much conversation or individual thought took place on this one.

You're point:
"IF THIS IS SUPPORT FOR THE PARTY AND CHAIRMAN, THEY NEED NO OPPOSITION." Ask Chairman Webster directly if this was crafted as a PR campaign first and foremost and he'll tell you yes. We must get beyond the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.
Why is stating that this is a PR campaign showing no respect for the party or the chairman?
==============
IF YOU ASSUME THAT ITS ULTERIOR PURPOSE IS TO RAISE TAXES; THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SO DEVOTED TO SPENDING THAT THEY WILL INEVITABLY FURTHER “BROADEN” AND RAISE SALES TAXES; ANDTHAT BRACKET CREEP WILL INCREASE THE INCOME TAX TAKE DESPITE TEMPORARY RELIEF, THEN YOU MUST BE OPPOSED FROM THE GET-GO.

One of the points that I disagree most is the argument of what this bill "..will lead to" and not necessarily what this bill is. We cannot seriously put weight into what may be as the basis for absolutely disagreement of this bill, or any other for that matter. The expansion of the sales tax to broaden the revenue base is something that does not sit well with many and I agree that it stings. Heck, I'm a business owner and I don't want to have that burden either. However, I don't think that's enough burden to warrant the elimination of the key piece of the legislation and that's the income tax reduction.

====
OUR CHAIRMAN HAS ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN HOW HE EXPECTS THE EFFORT TO HELPS TO FACILITATE PARTY BUILDING. IF HIS REASONING SEEMS FAULTY THEN ITS FAULTS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED DIRECTLY, NOT SIMPLY DISREGARDED.

You're exactly right. And that is what I have done with Chairman Webster. I've communicated with him the issues that I'm concerned with. The number one disadvantage that the party has is the lack of connection and cooperation from top to bottom. From support, public awareness and even shared resources of behalf of candidates, the fact that every two years candidates who step up to the place are essentially on their own is disturbing to me.

In my opinion - opposing a bill that reduces income taxes is not the way to get a part re-energized. What have we be after for years? On top of controlled spending and fiscal responsibility, we've been after a reduction in the income tax. Step number one is here.

Now -we say this is a way for the Democrats to temporarily decrease income tax and permanently expand sales tax.

To me says that the GOP is not going to have a say in the future of our state. By default, that means we're not going to be elected in the numbers needed to effect change or become the majority. Is that the message we need to be sending?

How about an alternative point of view: how about saying "this bill reduces income tax and now its our duty to ensure we reduce spending so not only can we reduce taxes but we can reduce the number of taxes will help our economy grow and we're going to do that by getting good people elected."

It's not about not supporting the party or the intentions of the Chair - it's about crafting a working plan to effect change and not to continually sit around and mope.

I believe enacting the veto and repealing the law puts us further back in our attempt to lower overall taxes in the end.

C-W: As to your final point, the cards are dealt and the game must be played out. We must both await the results before assessing the wisdom of Charlie Webster's play. There is no possiblity of reversal at this point and absolutely no advantage to it.

As to your other points, but objections still stand unaltered. All I can add is that I spoke with Charlie the day the first version of the bill was passed and he spotted it as a set-up from the get-go.

The argument for broadening the tax bill and reducing income tax and capital gains taxes are valid in themselves. The Brookings Report made them, Sen. Mills made them in Changing Maine.. If the veto fails we will soon learn if Charlie has accurately spotted the joker in the deck. If he was right than the GOP will have a powerful talking point.

Cary,

Do you honestly believe that this lowers the tax burden for average Maine citizens? If so, why? The evidence is quite to the contrary.

Personally, I am a big proponent of expanding the sales tax to ALL items except life essential items such as food, medicine, medical care, water, electric, heating oil and fire wood. There might be one or two other items, but not many. In doing this, we must also "ELIMINATE" the income tax. Maine's government funding should be based on consumption, not the sweat of a man's brow.

I mention this only because my opposition to this is not because of the expansion of the sales tax philosophically. I oppose this legislation because it is poorly crafted, fails to adequately address our tax burden .... and because of its passage, will likely mean that real tax reform that provides real tax relief is off the legislative table for the next decade.

Carol Weston was wrong to do what she did in the paper yesterday. She voted "No" on this legislation because she apparently felt it was wrong for Maine. While she may not agree with Charlie Webster's effort, she did not have to attempt to undermine him.

The reason the brand is damaged is not because we have the wrong ideas. The brand is damaged because we have too many politicians who are more worried about their relevance than what is good for our state and country. Popularity over principle .... that is why our brand is damaged.

I refer you all to Mike Travers' argument. It makes excellent sense to me.

Hey Ray,

I'm still in the camp of not having enough information to make that point either way - I'm not sure what evidence you're referring to but please share.

Even those who crafted this bill speak in generalities and until a couple weeks ago, Piotti and the secret briefcase camping in woods of Maine was the only source to the secret calculation.

I consider our household to be a fairly normal home in Maine..dual income, homeowner, kids, bills, etc. The early projections of the tax bill show a savings in our annual tax but that was before the "final details" are in place so who knows what to trust.

Here's my concern: the same folks who are telling us its going to save Mainer's $56 million per year are the folks that can't seem to get any other calculation right. So who do you trust?

I know trust is a big figure but do we want to hang our hat on the "I don't believe you" card? There needs to be more evidence than that.

And you're right - it does not solve the real problem of tax burdens and spending reform - that is what's needed in this state - the ability to live within a budget.

This budget bull crap that they've "already shaved $500 million - what more can we do" is pathetic. $146 million shifted to towns and cities and over $300 million coming from Obama's Porkulus bill.

There are two conversations at play here:

1. what is our brand and how do we strengthen it
2. does this bill do damage or good to most Mainers?

I agree with the concept of taxing what I spent over taxing what I make...however, there are some real reforms needed before we eliminate the income tax altogether. It's gotta come from somewhere but at the moment its not where it comes from that bothers me as much as where is it going.

I think the brand can get a facelift on the backs of declaring war on where it's going vs where it comes from. There's danger on both sides as we find ourselves in a society, as its been stated, where half work and the other half vote.

Popularity over principle does indeed get us into trouble - but I think there's popularity to be had by better defining our principle.

This movement doesn't do that...which is why I'm not jumping up and down to support it. However, you'll find at the discussion tonight and at all opportunities, I do not obstruct discussion by those who feel strongly in favor. That's what we do - discuss and go after what we believe in.

I just wish more folks knew the details of those beliefs.

I have read what passes for the latest version of the bill. I have seen the MRS tax calculator. While not recently, I spent extensive time two years ago, arguing with bill with Piotti/Strimling.

The bottom line is, this bill is a political stunt, designed to appear as though real reform was accomplished. If they had been truly seeking to lower the income tax, they would have simply cut it to 6.5% and leave the deductions and exemptions in place. They did not.

State Senator Bill Diamond, Senate Chair of the Appropriations Committee, said that this bill was dangerous, particularly at this time of economic uncertainty. He voted against it and said he believes that assumptions are being made that cannot possibly be supported. He said this publicly.

The whispers around the halls of the dome just prior to passage was a faint admission that this bill would likely lead to more revenue for the government.

The truth is, this effort did not move the ball down the field, if the goal is to create lower the burden on Maine citizens and give the perception that Maine is open for business because we are finally addressing our tax problem. Yes, the WSJ ran a big story, but after it ran, I called and asked why they ran a story with factual inaccuraries. They said they did the piece based on the information provided and was not aware of the error.

At the end of the day, this effort hurts Maine's long-term future and doesn't solve the problem that it supposedly addresses.

I can only conclude that those who support LD 1495 either a) are intellectually incapable of understanding the connection between economic growth and oppressive tax policy, b) do not believe such a connection exists, or c) simply do not care what happens as long as the object of their affection, Maine's government, is sustained regardless of its impact on the people they serve.

Debating whether or not the veto is a good idea from a tactical point made sense prior to the effort's launch.

Carol Weston's comments yesterday are part and parcel why we struggle. There is a time to speak out on important issues and make as much noise as is possible. During that time, she was no where to be found.

Now that she can do some damage while attempting to appear reasonable, her mouth will not stop running.

Mitchell, Pingree & Weston.

Ray - question:

Sen. Smith had a bill to only reduce the income tax to 6.5%. If that had gone through as written for 2010, what do you suspect the next step would have been to fill the revenue holes?

That is a question without an answer. The reason is, the majority Democrats would have never allowed a income tax cut without extracting revenue from another resource to make it up.

While we all know the truth about the supposed 500 million dollars in spending cuts ...... let's, for the moment, say they were real. Everyone has said, we have cut to the bone, all the fat is gone and any more cuts will be to the muscle of our programs. Then, they supposedly cut 500 million dollars from the buget.

The last time I checked, taking a point off the income tax was supposedly a cut in revenue of about 80 million dollars. Using that as a baseline, 2 points would be 160 million dollars.

If they were able to "cut" 500 million dollars from the budget after telling anyone who would listen that they had already cut out all the fat and waste of government .... who says they could not cut another 160?

All of this stuff is based on government-centric ideas. Because the overwhelming, vast majority of the dominant party in Augusta does not believe in the free-market and very few have even worked in the private sector, they see everything as "what will we lose?" I never hear them talk about what will our actions gain?

In a direct answer to your question, if Smith's bill had passed, they would have either, a) cut spending to match the reduced revenue, b) raise taxes, fees and fines elsewhere to make up the difference, or c) God forbid, realize that a significant reduction in the income tax will spur economic activity and the resulting activity from consumption and job expansion will go a long way to bridging any gap.

This is, of course, Augusta Maine where the American Dream is now defined as getting a lifetime government support check.