I would like to commend the ladies and gentlemen of the Maine Legislature for expending the time (and money) it took during the last year to return to us the God- and Constitution-given right to buy fireworks and use them to relentlessly affirm our patriotism, blow off our fingers, set fire to our apartment buildings, terrorize our neighbors’ pets and litter parking lots with empty Big Boom-R boxes.

And the fact that the new legislation was passed as an “emergency measure” because it was “immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety,” while a little puzzling, is still very impressive, and only fitting for this big step toward eliminating government intrusion into our everyday lives.

I hope the Legislature will continue that progress by looking into other nanny-state regulations, like the one against drinking and driving. This is typical government “broad-brush” lawmaking, which leaves no room for the nuances of a particular situation.

While there may be times when drinking and driving is not a good idea, that decision should be made, not in Washington or Augusta, but by the actual people involved, at the place and at the time that the events unfold — for instance, by me and my buddies down at the Starlite at drivin’-home time.

And since the fundamental reason behind this new wave of legislation seems to be to proclaim that Maine is “open for business,” think of the financial boost resulting from the additional spirits that could be purveyed without the pesky legal “OUI” deterrent.

Looking forward to more legislative progress in the near future — onward and upward, or, to quote the Constitution (which I think got it from the Bible): “Forward into the past!”

Advertisement

Steve Bradford

Lisbon Falls

Don’t reject east-west road before learning all the facts

I am dismayed at the position taken by some environmental groups in opposing the East-West Highway Study. Even before knowing where the road corridor might lie, they oppose it because a future east-west highway, wherever it might go, will create grave environmental damage.

I am a Democrat of long standing and sympathetic to environmental causes, but this type of knee-jerk reaction to a development project even before we know much about it gives me heartburn.

So, a highway through a heretofore-undeveloped area of Maine will cause irreparable damage to the environment and, potentially, lead to rampant development pressure in rural communities? Well, folks, you only need look north-south rather than east-west and see a real live example of a major highway in rural Maine.

Advertisement

The 105-mile section of Interstate 95 between Old Town and Houlton has nine exits and was built in areas that were just as undeveloped as those that opponents believe will be destroyed by an east-west highway. With the exception of a mom and pop store here and there, there has been virtually no development within the viewshed of the highway.

Indeed, some of the most spectacular views of the Penobscot River, Mount Katahdin and Baxter can be had from I-95, and, of course, it provides critical access for recreationists to the Great North Woods.

Without the ability to get paper- and wood-products trucks to I-95 and to markets around the world, would the industries of the two largest communities in the region, Lincoln and Millinocket, have survived into the 21st century? Probably not.

Maybe an east-west highway can help some of the communities in Franklin, Somerset and Piscataquis counties that have been reeling from the loss of mills, tanneries, shoemaking and wood products manufacturing reinvent themselves and create a better future for their residents.

Bob Faunce

Hebron

Advertisement

Headline on survey story presents data deceivingly

I would like to respond to your front-page article written by John Richardson on July 11 (“President leading race in Maine poll”). These respondents give the president a definite 14 percent lead in the polls.

According to the Google website, there are 933,748 registered voters in Maine, and your poll contacted 615 of them. That seems like a very small sample.

My little hand calculator shows that .00067 percent of the population was contacted, or essentially, you asked one person to speak for 1,500 others. No doubt, many of the 615 came from Portland, which is typically regarded as a Democratic stronghold.

Deceptively splashy headlines like this seem to be the best that liberal-leaning newspapers like yours can come up with in an attempt to make Barack Obama look good and subsequently make Mitt Romney look bad. This type of poll manipulating also has a way of planting seeds of apathy in the general public.

The truth is the voters of Maine and this country have given President Obama an opportunity to put things back on track, and he has failed miserably.

Advertisement

Ervin Mullett

Bath

All seniors deserve tax break on supplemental premiums

For everyone who gets health insurance through their employer, the amount you pay for the benefits are untaxed dollars. So if you pay, let’s say, $50 per week, then you don’t have to pay taxes on about $2,600 per year.

Now if we talk about Medicare supplemental insurance, the situation is altogether different. Seniors get no such tax break. The type of insurance is similar. You purchase it from a private insurer and it is optional. It is also not what some folks call an entitlement program.

Now here’s the rub. Supplemental insurance costs $2,400 per year — a huge amount on a fixed income. You can deduct the cost on your tax return only if you meet the 7.5 percent threshold for medical expenses itemized against your income.

Advertisement

I have put my concern and questions to all of my federal representatives: Rep. Mike Michaud, Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Olympia Snowe. Not one of them has returned my calls, after posing the question to their aides.

Why aren’t the supplemental premiums untaxed dollars, which health insurance premium dollars deducted from your paycheck are? The supplemental premiums are deducted from your monthly Social Security check, so the similarities between the two cases are even more apparent.

Maybe when the politicians are through with their campaigning, I might get an answer.

Stephen King

Canaan

Seeking clarity on doctrine of church-state separation

Advertisement

Much has been said about the separation of church and state in the United States, often very emotionally and misleadingly.

The Constitution clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The first part prohibits the federal government from setting up a denominational religion, as England did with Anglicanism, giving it legal favoritism and power in the post-Reformation era to the exclusion and persecution of other faiths, including Catholicism.

France did the opposite, favoring Catholicism to the detriment of other religious expressions; for example, the French government religion led to the persecution of the Huguenots.

This intertwining of government and religion was so onerous that the people ultimately revolted violently, as in the French Revolution, when the government-church partnership was severed through the beheading of the ruling hierarchy at the guillotine.

The second part enables any and all religions to thrive equally, be it Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam or Hinduism. All faiths are protected by the Constitution. Contrast this freedom of religion with the Iranian theocracy, which seeks to establish its own version of an exclusionary government-religious alliance.

Advertisement

The framers of the Constitution were very aware of the abuses of a government-religion marriage and wanted to avoid the pitfalls of the European fusion of politics and religion. Their approach has resulted in religious strength through impartiality.

Christ himself expressed the right of both government and religion to co-exist freely: “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

Ross Paradis

Frenchville


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.