I just pulled the blinds on my office windows. I turned off my phone. I left the sink downstairs running, to obscure any noises.

I don’t want anyone to see or hear what I’m doing.

I’m writing a column for distribution online and in one of Maine’s largest newspapers, but that doesn’t mean I want people to “know” about it.

While many people might consider the point of a newspaper column to be about being read, it’s not. If I’d known that people — even just a few — might read the thing, I’d never have agreed to write it.

I haven’t made an issue about this practice of people reading my column — and occasionally sending me nastygrams about it. But enough is enough.

In protest, I’m also canceling the meetings I had scheduled tomorrow with people who aren’t reading my column. Clearly, they are to blame for the people who are, and I cannot tolerate the invasion of my privacy and the privacy of the people I write about.

If this doesn’t make sense, it’s because it shouldn’t.

Short-tempered Gov. Paul LePage flipped out earlier this week because the Maine Democratic Party had a staff person at a public event — in front of people, nonetheless — recording the governor’s remarks that he delivered to the public.

Called a tracker, the person goes to public events — with the permission of event hosts and sometimes the governor’s staff — and records what he has to say. That’s it.

In the old days, the press used to do that. But with fewer reporters and fewer media outlets, it’s not practical for them to follow the governor of a small state around hoping he makes news.

Instead, the work falls to his political opponents, who have good reason to believe that the governor will say something outrageous, inflammatory, insulting or simply incorrect and that the audio or video could be used against him in the next election.

Given the governor’s record, they’re probably right.

On Tuesday, LePage canceled important budget meetings with new Democratic legislators because a tracker from the Democratic Party was following him around.

It was a bad decision that reflects poorly on the governor.

As the Kinks sang in 1981: “Feelin’ guilty, feelin’ scared, hidden cameras everywhere. Stop! Hold on. Stay in control … paranoia, the destroyer.”

There was a time when tracking a political candidate might have been out of bounds. But those days have long since passed. Trackers are now normal and are to be expected.

During her last re-election bid, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins had a tracker. She didn’t care much for it.

U.S. Sen.-elect Angus King this year had to deal with a Republican tracker during his campaign. It’s fair to say the tracker didn’t get invited to ride along on the bus.

And in 2010, the Republican Governors Association paid a tracker to follow LePage’s opponents, Eliot Cutler and Libby Mitchell, around, hoping for a gaffe.

As is often the case, it’s the person being tracked that finds it most distasteful.

At the time, the RGA defended the practice, while LePage’s folks took a pass on the controversy.

In a 2010 Portland Press Herald story, RGA spokesman Tim Murtaugh had this to say: “If the candidates are worried about young people with cameras, then they have bigger problems than they know. We give our trackers very clear instructions: Be passive observers and never a participant in any event; do not actively engage the candidate; do not be aggressive or overly aggressive; do not be disruptive, be polite; when you are asked who you are and who you represent, tell the truth; and if asked to leave an event, make every effort to be able to stay, but in the end don’t cause trouble.”

Those rules are the standard for trackers. Get the other guy on tape. Don’t cause a stink. Don’t make them a victim.

While Cutler played the victim card to perfection in 2010, LePage doesn’t seem to have the hang of it. It just doesn’t fit his character.

And at the time, his chief of staff and current Commissioner of Public Safety John Morris played the whole thing off, saying he knew “nothing about it.”

At the time, Cutler’s spokesman put it this way: “The tracker is being paid by the Republican Governors Association to help Paul LePage. And if Paul LePage finds the practice distasteful, like the vast majority of Maine people, all he has to do is call the RGA and say, ‘Call this off.’”

This time, it was Lepage: “If Democrats want to work together, they will publicly call for an end to this distasteful practice,” LePage said. “Actions speak louder than words.”

Yes, they do. Politics is a tough business. But it’s no excuse not to try to get things done, and the budget waits for no man or temper tantrum.

Willis Henry Farmer was born in April 1932. He died 65 years later.

He was my father and a glorious mess. When I consider proposals to cut Social Security or increase the age of eligibility for Medicare, which provides health insurance and care for retirees, I think of him and my mom.

Willis Farmer traveled the world, served in the U.S. Army in Germany, started and lost his own business, had a family and finally settled into a work-a-day existence.

When I was a boy, he owned and ran a service station, worked as a machinist and a janitor and finally went to work for the gas company, fixing furnaces, boilers and the like.

He worked in small, dirty spaces fighting off rats and snakes with a large flashlight. He worked on ladders and on roofs and in people’s kitchens, basements, crawl spaces and garages.

In the summers, some of those places became unbearably hot, and in the winter they were unbearable cold.

I used to think it was funny when he’d come home from work sometimes with his eyebrows singed from some sort of gas flare up or the unorthodox method he used to check for small gas leaks.

He worked through major surgeries and near constant pain. And he continued to work despite self-inflicted damage to his body from cigarettes and alcohol.

By the time he retired – “early at 63” – his knees and legs were used up, his health was gone and he had less than two years to live.

These are the facts of his life.

I’m not sharing them because they are unique. Instead, I’m sharing them because they are not. It’s a similar story for tens of thousands of people.

Right now in Washington, there are numerous efforts underway to change public policy in ways that would hurt people like my dad.

People who wear ties and wingtips are debating the “very serious” ideas of changing Social Security or increasing the eligibility age for Medicare, a program that provides health insurance for seniors who paid into the system for their entire working lives.

The current prize for Republicans in Washington is to raise the eligibility age for Medicare to 67. The argument: People are living longer, healthcare costs are rising, something must be done.

Raising the age to qualify for Medicare won’t reduce healthcare spending. In fact, it’ll do just the opposite. Medicare is actually very good at negotiating lower rates for health care services.

It will cost working men and women thousands in out-of-pocket expenses or lead to a new category of uninsured Americans. And any money the federal government does save will be shifted onto states, to people who buy private insurance and to the seniors themselves.

During the presidential campaign, former Gov. Mitt Romney and his surrogates made sport of attacking President Barack Obama for his alleged efforts to cut Medicare.

But the lies of the campaign season have given way to reality, and once again it is Congressional Republicans who want to fundamentally alter the promises that we have made to generations of working people.

They want to cut Medicare and Social Security.

And the folks who will shoulder the worst of their ideas are the low-income and middle-class families who spend a lifetime working and who are counting on Social Security and Medicare to keep them secure, at least at some minimum level, in their old age.

My dad played by the rules. He went to work every day, whether he felt like it or not. He worked hard. He saved his money. He bought a house and he helped his son to get an education that he hoped would give him a better life.

His hard work helped write a ticket for a better life for me and my children, whom he never had a chance to meet.

He wasn’t perfect, but he did his part for his family, his community and his country.

Changes in Medicare won’t affect my dad. Too late for that. But they would affect many others like him.

How many 55-year-old gasmen, drywall hangers, construction workers, farmers and fisherman do you know who are hanging on until they can call it a day and hopefully have a few good years to enjoy retirement, spend time with their grandkids, fish a little or just tinker around the house?

We shouldn’t tell seniors that after a lifetime of work that they owe it to the rest of us to carry on for a few more years.

They gave at the office. Everyday for 45 years or more.

I’ve never worn snow boots and a parka to a wedding before, but Saturday was a very special occasion.

At midnight, a new law went into effect allowing same-sex couples in Maine to receive a marriage license.

City Hall in Portland and Falmouth opened in the first hours of the day so couples — many that have been waiting decades for the chance to marry — could file out the paperwork, get a marriage license and, if they wanted, tie the knot.

More than 500 people stood together at Portland City Hall in the bone-aching cold to cheer the first state-recognized marriages of same-sex couples in Maine, to witness history and to celebrate a day long in the making.

People began gathering before 10 p.m. on Friday when the doors to City Hall opened. The first couple inside was Steven Bridges and Michael Snell.

Just after midnight, they filled out the paperwork to receive a marriage license and were married. They emerged from City Hall a few minutes later flanked by reporters from newspapers and television.

The crowd went the good kind of crazy.

The joy was real in the faces of the people who were there.

There was singing and shouting. Tears and smiles. Hugs and high fives.

As more couples emerged from City Hall, they were welcomed with a loud celebration of their relationships.

Other city and town halls across the state also opened on Saturday, giving loving couples a chance for weekend wedding.

For thousands of loving, committed same-sex couples in Maine, marriage had been elusive.

In 2009, the Maine Legislature and then-Gov. John Baldacci passed a law allowing same-sex couples to receive a marriage license. Later that year, a People’s Veto took the chance away.

Changing minds one conversation and one person at a time, an army of volunteers worked for two years for a better result. In November, voters decided that, in the words of Harlan Gardner of Machias, “marriage is too precious a thing not to share.”

Before that election, voters had never approved a referendum to allow same-sex couples to marry. Maine changed that.

Suzanne Blackburn and Joanie Kunian were among the couples at Portland City Hall on Saturday. Even after the election, they told the Associated Press that they were reluctant to get too excited until after Gov. Paul LePage certified the results.

“I don’t think that we dared to dream too big until we have the governor’s signature,” Blackburn said.

After electoral wins in Maine, Maryland and Washington state, and a successful effort in Minnesota to defeat a constitutional amendment that would have barred same-sex couples from marrying there, there are a lot of people who are allowing themselves to dream big.

Same-sex couples began marrying in Washington in December, and Maryland celebrated its first marriages on Jan. 1.

Last year was an epic year in the struggle for the freedom to marry, and 2013 is poised to be even bigger. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two cases that could fundamentally alter the national landscape around marriage.

And new laws allowing same-sex couples to receive a marriage license are being considered – and hopefully will pass — in Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware and Hawaii.

There are promising signs that the change in attitudes that we’ve seen in Maine are happening elsewhere, but it would be a terrible mistake for supporters of marriage to think that the struggle is over.

While the freedom to marry will grow, there will undoubtedly be setbacks, too. Progress is surely coming, but it won’t happen without hard work and commitment.

On the day my wife and I got married, it was hot, unusually hot for late in September on Maryland’s eastern shore. Our wedding was outside, and there was little relief from the heat.

We couldn’t even count on a breeze to cool down the groomsmen, crammed into tuxedos. The ceremony was short, and some of the speeches were long.

I will always remember my wedding day in 1998.

And I will always remember the day that Bridges and Snell, and dozens of others around Maine, got married.

It’s one thing for Gov. Paul LePage to try to tempt Democrats into a game of political nah-nah-nah-boo-boo, but it’s something much more politically dangerous when the governor draws the ire of the stroller brigade.

No force is more powerful in politics than moms.

Long before there was a tea party, there were soccer moms, suburban moms, super moms, career moms, mama grizzlies, you-name-it-moms.

Moms bring together the power of the baby the politicians love to kiss and the knowledge that every major figure, from sports superstar to politician, always thanks mom first.

It’s always, “Hi, Mom!” (I’m still holding out hope for an Olympic soccer superstar to score the winning goal against Brazil and frame up the TV camera and thank Dad — and specifically me.)

With good reason: Mom knows best. Listen to your mom. I’m telling Mom.

From the earliest day, we know who the boss is.

And besides, every politician, no matter how reptilian they may seem, still had a mom who helped to bring them into the world. They aren’t hatched. Only the plots are.

When you cross moms — especially on a straightforward, no-brainer of an issue — you better watch out.

LePage better watch out.

Maine moms, along with other environmentally conscious consumers and public health advocates, want bisphenol-A, BPA for short, removed from baby food jars.

The science is clear. BPA is dangerous for children.

The chemical has been linked to cancer, learning disabilities, early puberty in girls and other serious health problems. Even low levels of the substance can cause serious harm, particularly to young children.

For some strange reason, the governor has had a love affair with the chemical, which led to one of his earliest gaffs. Forever, he will carry the title of “Little Beards” LePage. In comments off the cuff, LePage demonstrated that despite his opposition to a BPA ban, he hadn’t taken the time to understand the issue and didn’t truly grasp the dangers posed.

In 2011, the governor opposed eliminating BPA from sippy cups and bottles.

The Legislature then voted, 145-3, to support a phase-out of BPA in certain food containers, and many food companies concerned about the welfare of their customers have already started to phase the chemical out of their packaging.

Proving that some lessons are never really learned, this year the governor is opposing a citizen’s effort before the Board of Environmental Protection to further restrict the dangerous chemical by banning it in baby food containers.

Earlier this month, LePage’s Department of Environmental Protection testified against the new protections, despite presenting evidence that BPA is dangerous to kids and that kids are exposed to it through food containers.

Bizarre.

According to the BDN, a spokesperson for the environmental protection department said the department testified against the BPA ban, in part, because it’s difficult to define toddler food.

Here’s a simple working definition: Toddler food is food a toddler is likely to eat. When in doubt, how about we just keep the harmful chemical out of all food — you know, just to be safe.

The Board of Environmental Protection will meet on Jan. 17 to discuss the proposed ban and could take a vote as early as Jan. 24. The BEP decision would then go to the Legislature for review.

The facts around BPA are pretty clear.

Even low exposure can hurt kids. Food from containers with BPA is the way many kids are exposed to the chemical, and there are better alternatives that aren’t as dangerous.

The Maine Medical Association and the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics support removing BPA from baby food and toddler containers.

It’s the right thing to do.

But it’s also politically smart. There’s a bunch of soccer moms who are ready to turn into mama grizzlies when it comes to their cubs.

They’re a force for sure.

Maybe LePage feels confident rejecting science and even his own department’s analysis.

But if he’s smart – if we’re all smart – he’ll do what moms say. Otherwise he might find himself in a permanent time out from the Blaine House.

Gov. Paul LePage’s two-year budget plan isn’t real.

It’s as if he ran out of time on a homework assignment, blew up the font size but still came up short. Left with no option, he just filled in the blanks with whatever bad ideas he could find.

On paper, the budget seems to put forward equal revenue with spending.

But in reality, the budget is a work of fiction. There’s no reason to believe the budget is anything more than a political document meant to pick a fight with new Democratic majorities in the State House of Representatives and Senate.

Either that, or the LePage administration is so bankrupt of real ideas that it put forward this budget out of desperation and in the hopes it will buy enough time to come up with something better.

I do not believe the governor could even get a majority of Republicans to vote for this budget.

Here’s why: The budget is devastating to towns and cities in the state and would result in a massive shift of taxes onto the backs of property taxpayers.

The governor claims that his budget flat funds K-12 education. It’s just not credible.

The largest expense for local governments is education. The governor eliminates $200 million in revenue sharing that helps support local governments. Plus, he’s shifting retiree costs onto local taxpayers and away from the state.

In the past, revenue sharing has been trimmed as the state has required municipalities to help share the burden of a staggering economy. But total elimination of the funding is unprecedented.

Towns and cities simply cannot absorb such a large cut without disastrous effects.

Property taxes in Maine are already out of whack. They are too high, especially in service-center communities, and, in many communities, particularly along the coast, they inappropriately equate property ownership with wealth.

Zeroing out revenue sharing isn’t realistic — economically or politically.

It’s a sure sign of desperation and of passing the buck.

The governor’s budget proposal is a hodge-podge of shifts, gimmicks and stale ideas.

He targets homeowners with the elimination of the Homestead Property Tax Exemption and massive reductions in the Circuit Breaker program, which helps low-income families stay in their homes.

Those two are straight increases in property taxes for thousands of families.

He goes after the poor, with caps on General Assistance and changes in the rules to gut this program of last resort for families who are facing homelessness.

The budget would eliminate the Drugs for the Elderly program, which helps seniors and people with disabilities to afford prescription medicine.

He plans to book $30 million of yet-to-be identified savings, pushing the actual hard decisions off until later in the year.

He demands that 100 state jobs be eliminated. There’s no explanation or explained wisdom to the number. It smacks of an arbitrary figure. He believes government is too big. He wants it to be smaller. But he doesn’t have any ideas on how to actually make it smaller. So, once again, he passes the tough work on to someone else and pushes it down the road.

The LePage budget raids the Maine Clean Elections Fund and MaineHousing to support the General Fund.

My personal favorite (a tactic I have supported on more than one occasion), he also includes a $70 million gimmick: One day borrowing between fiscal years.

But here’s the problem and the trap for both Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature.

There are so many problems with this budget that it’s difficult to fix.

The budget is built around impossible ideas, but the alternatives are tough to identify without the assistance of the administration. The $200 million cut to local towns and cities can’t stand, but it’s a huge hole to fill.

And the governor has shown himself completely unwilling to work cooperatively with the Legislature. His plan isn’t a budget. It’s a dare. He wants a fight, and he’s almost guaranteed to get one.

There are alternatives, which include changes in the tax code to make it fairer and to ensure that the middle class and working families don’t carry most of the burden.

The Legislature can improve anti-poverty programs, making them more effective while also reducing costs.

And it can find efficiencies in government without destroying its core functions.

What it can’t do – Republicans and Democrats alike – is support what the governor has tossed onto the table.

Arizona Gov. Jane Brewer has stuck her finger in President Barack Obama’s face during a brief airport encounter.

She’s dared the federal government to intervene by passing a nasty anti-immigrant state law.

She’s a tea party favorite. A radical Republican. She seems to enjoy picking a fight, particularly with the president.

And, she plans to voluntarily adopt one of the key provisions of Obamacare. Arizona, according to numerous press reports, will expand Medicaid to cover more people who are uninsured.

Knock me over with a feather.

In her State of the State Address, here’s what Brewer said, maintaining a hint of derisiveness but making the case for Obamacare:

“Try as we might, the law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The president was re-elected, and his party controls the U.S. Senate.

“In short, the Affordable Care Act isn’t going anywhere – at least not for the time being,” Brewer said.

“By agreeing to expand our Medicaid program just slightly beyond what Arizona voters have twice mandated, we will:

• Protect rural and safety-net hospitals from being pushed to the brink by their growing costs in caring for the uninsured;

• Take advantage of the enormous economic benefits – inject $2 billion into our economy – save and create thousands of jobs; and,

• Provide health care to hundreds of thousands of low-income Arizonans. 
Saying ‘no’ to this plan would not save these federal dollars from being spent or direct them to deficit reduction. 
No, Arizona’s tax dollars would simply be passed to another state – generating jobs and providing health care for citizens in California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico or any other expansion state.

“With this move, we will secure a federal revenue stream to cover the costs of the uninsured who already show up in our doctor’s offices and emergency rooms,” Brewer continued.

“Under the current system, these costs are passed along to Arizona families. Health care premiums are raised year after year to account for expenses incurred by our hospitals as they provide care to the uninsured.

“This amounts to a hidden tax estimated at nearly $2,000 per family, per year.”

A few other Republicans governors are following along with Brewer’s epiphany, but at least 10 others are not, including Maine Gov. Paul LePage. Instead, they are rejecting health care for some of their vulnerable citizens out of a commitment to ideology.

There was a time when Brewer would have given LePage a run for his money on political vitriol. Now, it seems, that race is over and LePage has topped even himself, refusing to meet with Democrats and swearing and yelling at independents.

The benefits to providing health insurance to more people are as clear in Maine as they are in Arizona.

Estimates suggest that 44,000 people who otherwise can’t afford health insurance would qualify for coverage, with the federal government picking up 100 percent of the bill for three years and then 90 percent thereafter. Many of these people have jobs and work, but they don’t make enough money to be able to afford health insurance, even if their employer offers it.

There’s strong evidence that people with health insurance live longer and healthy lives.

Expanding the number of people with health insurance will also reduce costs for people who already have insurance. As Brewer says, the costs of providing health insurance for the uninsured is a hidden tax on current policy holders.

Disturbingly, one in 10 of those without health insurance and who would be newly eligible for coverage are veterans. In Maine, 7,000 veterans – men and women who have worn the uniform of our country and deserve our support – could have access to health insurance.

Here’s Brewer again: “With the realities facing us, taking advantage of this federal assistance is the strategic way to reduce Medicaid pressure on the state budget. We can prevent health care expenses from eroding core services, such as education and public safety, and improve Arizona’s ability to compete in the years ahead.”

I hold out little hope that LePage will have a conversion similar to Brewer’s. But her change of heart – from fierce opponent of the president and of Obamacare to willing supporter of expanded health insurance – suggests that other Republicans, including perhaps some of those in the Maine Legislature, could do the same.

Providing more working families with health insurance is a smart public investment — for Arizona and for Maine.

It’s disingenuous to say that critics of Gov. Paul LePage’s two-year budget haven’t proposed any solutions of their own.

Of course they haven’t. Not yet. But they are certainly coming.

The governor and the whole of the executive branch have been working on his budget for months, beginning far back in the summer.

They’ve tapped the expertise of hundreds of subject matter experts within state government, and they’ve prepared an extensive budget document and a political plan to support it.

Meanwhile, the Legislature has had not a single public hearing or committee meeting on the two-year spending plan. They have had neither the time nor the resources as of yet to fully digest what the governor has proposed, and are just beginning to explore alternatives.

In his weekly radio address last Saturday, the governor taunted Democrats: “Over the past few weeks, you’ve heard much from the loyal opposition about what they don’t like about my budget proposal, but let me be clear – you haven’t heard any solutions from them.”

Meanwhile, in a meeting with unenrolled members of the Legislature chronicled by the Bangor Daily News and other media outlets, the governor called names and threatened to veto alternatives.

According to Rep. Joe Brooks of Winterport, when asked about the details of his budget plan that was months in the making, LePage exploded: “You guys, you’re idiots and you’re just as bad if not worse than the other guys.”

Brooks said he believes the governor was talking about Democrats.

When the governor challenges Democrats and other critics to come up with alternatives, he should be careful about what he asks for.

He’s likely to get it.

The Legislature is not well-equipped to fully re-write the state budget. Not from scratch. They are built to react.

Term limits mean that few lawmakers have the opportunity to build the expertise they need to fully understand the intricacies of public policy. It takes time to come up to speed.

The part-time nature of the Legislature means that men and women – perhaps expert in their own field or business – are asked to match expertise gained through long careers by executive branch employees.

And the Legislature must build consensus, first among diverse members of each party and then among Democrats and Republicans — while the governor can act unilaterally. He doesn’t need to convince the people he works with to go along.

It’s his way or the highway with his commissioners and their employees.

But the Legislature also has advantages of its own.

It’s one of the ultimate examples of crowdsourcing and can draw on the experience, ideas and wisdom of thousands of Mainers who can help identify better alternatives to the governor’s ideas.

The nonpartisan Office of Fiscal and Program Review might not be able to match the size of the executive branch, but the staff has developed a real understanding of the budget and the budget process.

And finally, the governor’s proposal is so bad and so out of balance that the Legislature has little choice but to find a comprehensive replacement.

The governor’s assault of local governments – to the tune of between $200 million and $300 million in shifts to property taxes – cannot stand. Already Republicans have joined Democrats in denouncing the cuts in revenue sharing.

Similarly, the voices opposing cuts to health care, education, pensions and other important programs have shown that they can work together.

Such unified opposition is a powerful motivator.

The Legislature will find a way through the pitfalls and traps of the governor’s budget because, in fact, there are real, meaningful alternatives. They will develop over the next few weeks.

This part of the process is stressful for every governor. He spends months upon months building a budget; he turns it over the Legislature and then – all of a sudden – it isn’t his anymore.

It belongs to the Legislature.

In the past, governors have remained engaged and part of the negotiations as the budget winds its way through the various committees in the Legislature.

LePage, so far, has willingly relinquished that involvement. He yells at independents; he’s frosty to many Republicans; and he won’t even talk to Democratic leaders at all.

He’s turned himself into observer, yelling from the sidelines.

In the next few months, the Legislature will do what the governor demands and give him an alternative plan. The question is, what will happen then?

Gov. Paul LePage was speaking from the heart Tuesday night during his State of the State address when he talked about kids, particularly poor kids.

Relating his own experiences of growing up in extreme poverty and on the streets of Lewiston, young and alone, the governor talked about the stress of finding his next meal and a warm spot to sleep.

“I cannot accept children falling through the cracks and no one doing anything about it,” he said.

If his rhetoric – personal, touching and spot on – matched his policies, he would find a lot more allies than the plurality of hardcore supporters who elected him.

But his rhetoric and his policies don’t match, and the ideas he has pushed are already harming many children.

They need someone in the Blaine House who will defend them with at least the same passion that LePage uses when he attacks “union bosses” and “crony capitalism,” favorite Tea Party slogans that don’t hold a lot of meaning in the real world.

Looking at almost any economic indicator, the number of poor kids in Maine has grown under LePage and his policies.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s “Kids Count” report, the number of children living in poverty has grown from about 46,000 in 2009 to nearly 51,000 in 2011. Nearly one in five kids in Maine lives in poverty.

Shockingly, almost 46 percent of school children in the state receive subsidized lunches and 50 percent receive health insurance through MaineCare, the state’s Medicaid program.

About one in three receive food stamps.

Despite the growing number of children who aren’t sure where their next meal is coming from or whether or not they will have a warm place to sleep, the number of children receiving help from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families has dropped.

Even with poverty growing, fewer than 6 percent of kids are covered by the program in 2012, a number that is dropping through targeted and purposeful public policy changes.

LePage’s attacks on anti-poverty programs, and particularly TANF, mean that fewer kids are receiving the help they need.

Childhood poverty is becoming a bigger and bigger problem, while the governor’s response is getting smaller and smaller.

Right now, the Legislature is considering a number of budget proposals that would make this problem even worse.

The governor has proposed sharp reductions in General Assistance. General Assistance is a program of last resort for many families. More often than not, it’s used to keep families in their homes when the bottom falls out of their lives.

The stereotypes and mythology surrounding the program ignore the reality that it fights homelessness and helps to stabilize families when terrible things have happened – a death, sudden illness, unemployment.

There’s no question that children do best in a loving, stable family with committed parents. The “stable” is an important part of the equation.

When children are forced to spend nights in a shelter or bed hop between friends and family, stability disappears. Uncertainty becomes the rule of the day.

While the governor was proud of the tax cuts he passed last year and angry about the kids he fears will fall through the cracks, he did not connect the impacts of his decisions with the outcomes he decries.

The top earners in Maine will benefit most from the governor’s tax policy, while the cuts that the tax changes require will hurt middle class families and those struggling to get into the middle class.

Under the governor’s plan, property taxes will go up, municipalities will have little choice but to cut vital programs and funding for education, and the planks in the bridge out of poverty will get farther apart for thousands of families.

And while the governor touts his tax cuts as helping everyone, the Maine Center for Economic Policy finds that the poorest 40 percent of Maine households will actually see their overall tax bill go up as programs like the Circuit Breaker, which reduces property taxes on working families, are eliminated.

Jeff Bridges, a favorite actor of mine after his role in The Big Lebowski, is an advocate for ending hunger in the United States. In a message perhaps so simple only The Dude could deliver it, he puts it this way: “Poverty is a very complicated issue but feeding a child isn’t.”

We may never unravel all the causes of poverty, but there are things we can do to help working families build a better life for themselves and their children.

And those things include fair tax policy where the well-off pay their share, support for anti-poverty programs that work and public policies that don’t demonize families because they are struggling.

Unless something in Washington changes soon, our country is about to suffer a needless and self-inflicted wound to our economy.

And unless something changes in Augusta, we might be headed for an even worse debacle this summer in Maine.

On Friday, across-the-board spending cuts in federal spending will kick in. And soon after, Mainers will start to feel the sting.

The cuts are called a “sequester.”

It’s bureaucratic gobbledegook for automatic, stupid federal cuts that were designed to be so bad – so onerous in their impacts – that they would force the U.S. Congress to adopt alternatives.

But instead of serving their agreed upon goal – to force a compromise – many Republicans in Congress have decided that the across the board cuts to domestic and defense spending are tolerable, even preferable to other alternatives.

Even if you blindly reject Keynsian economics and think that the federal budget must be reduced, the sequester is a bad way to go about it. It’s inflexible; it’s applied across the board to non-controversial and lightening-rod programs alike; and it barely makes a dent in the overall size of government. (No programs are ended. They’re just cut back).

Earlier this week, the White House put out state-specific reports about how the $85 billion in cuts would translate on the ground in every state. For states like Virginia and Utah, which are dependent upon the government in ways that are contradictory to the anti-Washington, anti-spending conservative ideology of their governors, the impact will be particularly hard felt.

But Maine also faces serious and dangerous consequences.

The sequester pulls $2.7 million in funding for K-12 education and an additional $2.6 million to serve children with disabilities.

About 740 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus and flu. Dollar for dollar, there is no better public health investment than immunization for kids. It pays for itself in spades with a lifetime of improved health.

Nutrition assistance for seniors, services for the victims of domestic violence, child care, law enforcement and programs to fight infectious disease and respond to natural disasters will all be cut.

And then there’s the Maine National Guard.

On Monday, Gov. Paul LePage issued a press release saying that the sequester puts National Guard readiness at risk and could include furloughs of 600 civilian employees of the U.S. Department of Defense in Maine.

“These cuts will degrade readiness, the safety of Maine’s citizens and hurt Maine’s economy,” LePage said.

While the governor was talking specifically about the National Guard cuts, his comment is also true for many of the other cuts that sequester demands.

“I urge the president and Congress to find smarter, bipartisan ways to cut spending,” LePage continued.

The sequester is bad public policy, and its bad politics, but it’s just the warm-up act for something that could be even more disastrous for Maine.

Soon after passing a supplemental state budget with strong bipartisan numbers, Maine House Republican leader Ken Fredette of Newport dropped a bombshell during a joint appearance with Democratic Speaker of the House Mark Eves.

During the appearance on WCSH-6 with Pat Callaghan last Friday, Fredette said that there is “going to be a real battle on the biennial budget, and quite frankly a government shutdown is something that’s possible.”

There’s no question that negotiations over the next budget will be difficult. There are significant policy differences between Republican and Democrats, but negotiations haven’t even begun, and already one party – the one that holds the Blaine House – is talking shutdown.

If you believe that government is only the source of problems, then perhaps the prospects of a shutdown don’t worry you – in the same way that the sequester doesn’t seem to worry Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.

But in the real world, where government is an important contributor to the economy, the personal and substantial impacts of a government shutdown would be severe and would ripple throughout the economy.

A shutdown would touch every person in the state. Millions of dollars would be needlessly sucked out of the economy. State parks would be closed, public health and safety would be put at risk, veteran services compromised, contractors would go unpaid. Children, the elderly and people with disabilities would be left in the lurch.

No thinking person could accept such consequences.

Writing about the sequester for Bloomberg News, Caroline Baum said: “What’s striking and depressing … is the leaders’ singular focus on their own self-interest above that of the nation.”

By swallowing hard and supporting terrible budgets for the last three years, Maine Democrats have shown they are willing to compromise to make sure the state meets its obligations.

We can only hope that despite his comments, Fredette has the same willingness.

Otherwise, the sequester that is likely to start on Friday is only an appetizer for a main course of misery to come.

Life and finance can be precarious. One minute you can be riding high and the next your fortunes can change dramatically.

My mom was convinced that things happen in threes, good and bad.

My in-laws often talk about the universe suddenly finding you, with big things coming in bunches.

I joke around with the notion as an excuse to buy an occasional lottery ticket or lay low for a few days until I can slip unnoticed back under the universe’s difficult stare.

But given the circumstances of the last couple of weeks, I can’t help but wonder if my kin might have a point.

Last week, I wrote about a medical bill that my family received for emergency surgery my wife had in November. (As an update, I’m still trying to fill out the details of what we were charged for what, and a promised credit still hasn’t shown up.)

We received a bill after insurance for more than $3,000.

The bill came sharply on the heels of needing to replace the tires on my car, which were well beyond their legal life expectancy.

On the same day the hospital bill came, the 90-year-old furnace in my house decided to stop working.

And my daughter was home sick, which required my wife to stay home with her and miss work.

With savings and health insurance and a credit card with a low balance, we were able to meet these unexpected troubles. It stung, but we got by.

My wife has a great job, which provides her with sick leave and flexibility that allowed her to stay home with my daughter.

And the furnace, despite its advanced years, was resuscitated.

I outline these circumstances not because we are suffering, but because these same things could have happened to anyone.

And for too many people such a cascade of unrelated events – brought about through no fault of their own besides having a child or an old furnace – could cause a terrible downward spiral.

With no insurance, a family in exactly my circumstances would have had a hospital bill of more than $11,000.

Now for the cascade: The bad tires lead to a blow out and maybe a missed day of work. Just a day or two later, the sick child causes another missed day.

Without sick leave or paid vacation, those two days cause the much bigger trouble. At the least, two days of pay gone. At the worst, an inflexible boss gives you the boot.

How do you fix the furnace? Get the car running again? Pay the property taxes that are due the next week? Stave off the debt collectors who start coming after the hospital bill?

In my work for Maine Equal Justice Partners, which is one of my clients, I hear stories like this frequently. A series of unfortunate, unrelated events sends a young family over the edge.

A 2010 study by Harvard University found that the No. 1 reason that people file for personal bankruptcy is medical bills. And, remarkably, most of those folks had some sort of insurance.

The second most common reason was job loss, followed by poor credit decisions, divorce and some sort of disaster, such as a flood or tornado.

The lessons are pretty straight forward. As individuals and families, we all need to do what we can to save for an emergency. But we also have to understand that many working families make wages that aren’t high enough to save enough for tough times or compounding bad news.

Right now, Democrats and some Republicans – perhaps even including Gov. Paul LePage – are considering a plan to expand access to health care to 69,500 Mainers who currently lack coverage.

Conservative governors in conservative states around the country are opting to provide the coverage and accept the federal funding to make it possible.

Providing health insurance to thousands of people – and effectively cutting Maine’s uninsured rate in half – won’t put an end to any particular series of unfortunate events, but it could make sure that unpaid medical bills aren’t the final straw pushing families into bankruptcy or worse.

We all gain when more people have access to health care when they need it. Productivity goes up. Absenteeism goes down. Treatment for chronic conditions improves. People live longer and healthier lives.

There’s no good reason that we shouldn’t find a way to make health insurance available to thousands of working families who need it.

Then maybe a sick day or furnace repair or new tires would become a bit more manageable.

The key to maintaining discrimination is segregation.

If people are kept divided from one another – torn into “us” versus “them” – then it’s much easier to build the animus that allows discrimination to survive.

Once we get to know each other, the walls that are built to keep us apart start to break down.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in two landmark cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. United States, both of which seek to break down barriers to allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Perry challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in California, which bans same-sex marriage in the state. Windsor challenges the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies same-sex couples equal protection under federal law.

There’s no way to predict what the Supreme Court will do in Perry and Windsor, but the national tide of public opinion is clearly moving toward allowing same-sex couples to wed.

As the communications director for Mainers United for Marriage, which successfully brought a citizens initiative to allow same-sex couples to marry, I saw firsthand the process by which folks changed their minds.

They worked with someone who was gay or had met the lesbian couple down the street through their kids. They had a son or daughter, grandson or cousin, niece or nephew who had talked to them about why marriage matters to all loving, committed couples. And they started to understand that same-sex couples want to get married for similar reasons as other couples.

And through those conversations, honest and personal, undecided or skeptical voters changed their minds.

They empathized.

The “us” versus “them” faded, and the shared humanity that connects us all came through. In November, voters approved same-sex marriage in Maine, Washington state and Maryland. And an attempt to write discrimination into the Minnesota Constitution failed.

Regardless of how the justices rule, support will continue to grow for same-sex marriage. Because now, it’s impossible to ignore the subject, to keep thoughts about our co-workers, neighbors, friends and families separated from thoughts about fairness, justice and love.

Those common values – and making sure that they apply to the people we know and love – will carry the day.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer lived together for more than 44 years, marrying in Canada in 2007. Through their four decades together, Windsor and Spyer were married in all ways except for under the law, which treated them as legal strangers. After battling multiple sclerosis with Windsor by her side, Spyer died in 2009. Her wife inherited her estate, but because of DOMA, Windsor was forced to pay federal inheritance tax that other married couples avoid.

It’s a story of long love, commitment through good times and bad, through health, sickness and ultimately death. And it’s a story of unfairness and discrimination.

Now the world has heard the story, and there’s no way to go back and un-hear it. We know Edith Windsor. And that makes a difference.

If the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, the lives of thousands of married couples in Maine will change for the better.

And if it doesn’t, if the justices punt on a decision or craft some narrow ruling, recognition for loving, committed same-sex couples and their families will still continue to grow.

When President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, I didn’t recognize the impact the law would have. The notion of same-sex couples being able to marry seemed a long way off.

As New York Times reporter Peter Baker describes, Clinton chose to relent to political pressure. Returning to the White House, late in the night after a campaign swing, Clinton signed the bill without fanfare and with little notice. “Mr. Clinton considered it a gay-baiting measure, but was unwilling to risk re-election by vetoing it,” Baker writes.

Over time, Clinton has moved away from DOMA and now says he believes the act is unconstitutional.

Seventeen years ago, DOMA came down to one man’s decision: to sign or not.

Now it may come down to two others, with Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy the likely swing votes on the court.

But this time, it’s not the middle of the night; the world is watching; and we all know what’s at stake.

And sitting in the courtroom will be Jean Podrasky, Roberts’ first cousin and a lesbian who would like to marry her partner in California.

Podrasky told the Los Angeles Times she doesn’t know Roberts’ position on marriage or whether having a lesbian family member would influence his decision.

“Everybody knows somebody” who is gay, she told reporter Maura Dolan. “It probably impacts everybody.”

I have hope that the Supreme Court will do the right thing in these two cases. But I am convinced that either way we’re never going back. DOMA and bans like Proposition 8 are doomed.

Either this year or next year or 10 years from now. It’s only a matter of time before fairness, justice and love win out.

Gov. Paul LePage appears to have the law on his side in a dispute between Maine and the Passamaquoddy Tribe.

But the law isn’t always enough, especially when dealing with the strained relations between the state and a tribal government.

The icy relationship between the state and Native American tribes date back to hundreds of years and reached such a boiling point in the late 1970s that presidential action was required.

Since then, Maine governors and legislatures have tried to improve the relationship and balance the terms of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 with claims of tribal sovereignty.

Flashpoints have erupted over issues ranging from gambling to fishing. At stake are questions of tribal sovereignty versus state law.

This week members of the Passamaquoddy tribe clashed with state law enforcement officers over rules regulating elver fishing. And then, in a short phone call with LePage, the already tense situation got much worse.

While the governor’s office has not commented on what was said during the call, tribal leaders have said that the governor threatened to withdraw his support for a number of unrelated tribal initiatives unless they agreed to obey state fishing laws regarding elvers.

The stakes are high for the tribal fishermen as the market for elvers has exploded to as much as $2,000 a pound. They are also high for the state as it tries to manage pressure to protect the fishery or risk its closing.

As part of the settlement act, the Passamaquoddy tribe agreed to an arrangement in which it would have limited sovereignty and would be treated, in most instances, as if it were a municipal government.

That’s a simple reading. In practice and implication, it’s a lot more complicated.

The act carves out certain areas of jurisdiction, including giving tribal governments the ability to make rules for hunting and trapping in their territories and for fishing on any point that is entirely within their territory. But it also says that the state can overrule those regulations if it can be proven that they put at risk the fish and wildlife resources in other territories.

The elvers dispute pits tribal methods of resource management against recently adopted state laws.

Attorney General Janet Mills issued an opinion in March, backing the state’s jurisdiction over the matter.

“A reading of the statutes and the legislative history of the Indian Claims Settlement Acts leads to the conclusion that tribal members are subject to Maine’s regulatory authority over marine resources to the same extent as other Maine citizens,” Mills wrote.

But the law only gets you so far.

The governor’s rhetoric, in which he’s accused of threatening things such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, earned the following response: Passamaquoddy leaders aren’t backing down.

On Sunday, when things started to heat up, Department of Marine Resources officers and state troopers began to enforce state law. They were confronted by a large number of people protesting their actions.

The incident ended peacefully.

But the potential for another clash is evident. Fred Moore III, a former Passamaquoddy representative, put it this way to the Bangor Daily News: “They can come and take a couple of us to jail, and 300 more will join in.”

The path forward won’t be easy and isn’t clear. The state has an obligation to enforce its laws. To do otherwise would undermine state authority.

For tribal leaders, the argument over the best way to manage a valuable fishery has now descended into a fight about sovereignty, culture and self-determination.

First, the governor must untangle this dispute from any other issues or projects. He needs to isolate the elvers from other issues, especially those in which the state and tribal governments can cooperate.

Second, he should make sure that his emotions don’t get the best of him and, if he said what tribal leaders say, he should apologize. That’s a tough order, especially since he appears to be right on the legal merits. But a sincere apology might move the state beyond a confrontation.

And, he should step lightly with the use of law enforcement personnel, perhaps instead seeking resolution through the courts or a negotiated agreement.

Tribal leaders must do their part as well. They should do their best to avoid physical confrontations with law enforcement. Fifty people showing up during an encounter with law enforcement creates a dangerous stew of emotions that could have serious consequences. That’s something all sides should agree upon.

Both sides should look for ways to de-escalate current tensions. An apology. A slowdown of the fishing. A deliberative, slower approach to pending legislation. Some show of good faith. Small steps, for sure. But it’s the only way forward.

Some Republicans are rushing headlong into a campaign that will become the most destructive, divisive and racially charged of any in the country.

The results for Maine – and for people of color living in our state – will be devastating.

A group of Republican activists is working to place a People’s Veto on the ballot to overturn a recently passed law that would allow asylum seekers to receive general assistance benefits for up to two years.

The legislation, which was LD 369, passed the Legislature with strong bipartisan support in the Senate and became law when Gov. Paul LePage failed to return his veto in time. The veto case is now headed to the Maine Supreme Court.

And last weekend, the Republican State Committee voted to fund a statewide initiative on “welfare.”

Republican Party leaders told Chairman Rick Bennett to “dedicate and deploy any and all party resources he deems necessary” to get the “welfare reform” and an effort to repeal the state’s income tax on the ballot for next year.

During last year’s gubernatorial campaign, we got a taste for what we can expect if the People’s Veto gets on the ballot or there’s an initiative that targets poor people as part of an effort to eliminate the income tax. Dark, scary images, appeals to racism and fear, and the worst that politics has to offer.

Racism is real, alive and well. And while it goes far beyond the base of the Republican Party, it has a particular resonance there. It’s a problem reasonable members of the party must address.

In a Fox News poll conducted last week, Donald Trump was leading the Republican presidential candidate field, with 18 percent. Other polls show Trump with an even larger lead.

Despite his early support, Trump is a sideshow in the Republican primary.

But here’s the scary part of the poll: nearly 70 percent of Republicans said they agreed with Trump’s racist rant on immigrants from Mexico.

Trump said that Mexico is sending the U.S. it’s worst. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

Even after the remarks have cost him business affiliations and created a national backlash, he has continued to attack immigrants in one of the most hateful campaigns since the early days of desegregation.

There are many Republicans, some of whom are very conservative, who reject these ideas. But the cranks in the party are capturing the headlines and will drive these two campaigns.

Members of the Maine Republican State Committee and proponents of the People’s Veto are reacting to the same dynamic that’s fueling Trump’s rise in the polls and from the success of their campaigns last year that scapegoated and attacked new immigrants to Maine.

Vox reporter Amanda Taub spoke with Tufts University political scientist Deborah Schildkraut, who studies immigration and national identity. In the interview, Schildkraut moves beyond the idea “everyone is just a racist” to paint a nuanced understanding of race as it relates to personal identity for white voters.

“There’s a strain of research that shows that if you show [white] people headlines saying things like ‘Census shows American to become a majority-minority nation by 2043,’ people become more conservative. Not just on racial issues, but on non-racial issues as well. So even if they’re not aware that they feel a sense of anxiety about ethnic change, they do.”

Later on in the same interview, Schildkraut describes other research that shows that you can plug a number of terms into the dynamic with the same result: “Hispanic,” “illegal” and “immigrant” create the same reaction. I’d add “welfare” to the list.

Maine is white. And an electoral strategy that depends on moving voters to the right by attacking and demeaning asylum seekers, other immigrants and low-income families might deliver short-term gains.

Certainly it played a part in the re-election of LePage.

But at what cost to our state? To our reputation? To the families who have moved her to escape violence and even death because of their political or religious beliefs?

Will we victimize them again by making them the focus of an all-out political assault?

It’s difficult to successfully place a People’s Veto on the ballot. Time and money are both obstacles.

But if the efforts are successful, that question is most likely to appear next June – not this November. And then, if the “welfare initiative” makes it to the November ballot, that means Maine would face 15 months of nasty, hateful campaigning.

The initiatives will set up two elections where there will only be losers, with the greatest damage heaped on people who have already suffered more than their fair share.

When the campaigns are over, our state will be much different than it is today – less welcoming, more isolated, backwards.

Politics inevitably focuses on differences and conflict.

But come November, voters are going to have an opportunity to decide on a ballot question that brings together Republicans, Democrats and independents.

This week Mainers for Accountable Elections launched its campaign to pass meaningful election reform that focuses on transparency, accountability and reducing the impact of big money in campaigns.

A “yes” vote on Question 1 will give everyday voters a greater voice in our elections.

At the launch in Augusta this week, a broad grassroots coalition of individuals and groups concerned about good government and the negative consequences of money in politics came together to kick off the campaign. (Disclosure: A colleague of mine works on the campaign.)

The initiative will do several important things, all of which will improve the way campaigns are conducted.

First, it increases transparency by requiring outside groups to list their top funders on political advertisements, such as TV ads, radio spots and direct mail.

The increased disclosure is important because it lifts the veil that hides the source of political spending and allows voters to know who’s really behind political advertising. That’s a great tool for voters when they are being bombarded by sometimes negative and untrue ads.

Second, the initiative increases the fines and penalties for people and groups who violate Maine election laws.

We’ve seen this time and again. Our laws just aren’t strong enough to deter big-money special interests — often from out of state — who treat ethics commission fines like just another cost of doing business.

When you have millions of dollars in dark money at your disposal, a small fine is no more significant than paying the light bill.

Third, it will reduce the influence of large contributions and big money in elections by strengthening Maine’s Clean Elections Act, which allows candidates to run for office without being dependent on donations from wealthy special interests.

In 1996, Maine voters made history when voters approved the Clean Elections Act, which set up a system of public financing for candidates for the Maine House of Representatives, Maine Senate and governor.

At its height in 2008, 81 percent of candidates for the Legislature participated in the clean elections program. And in 2010, 89 percent of Democrats running for the House and 94 percent of Republicans running for the Senate ran as clean elections candidates.

Candidates like the system because it reduces the amount of time they spend chasing dollars, increasing the amount of time they have to talk to actual voters in their districts.

The Clean Election Act gave candidates the option of raising qualifying contributions of just $5, which were then matched by public dollars. It’s a logistical challenge and a test of organization to qualify for the program.

Once a candidate qualified, they would also be able to receive matching dollars if their opponent or an outside group exceeded spending caps in the race.

It was a groundbreaking and effective system that helped to keep the amount of money in legislative races in check.

But in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court blew the system up, when it ruled against matching funds in the Arizona.

This year’s initiative, which will be Question 1 on the statewide ballot, creates a new system that allows candidates to re-qualify for funding if their opponents or outside groups go beyond spending limits.

In June, The New York Times and CBS News conducted a nationwide poll on the topic of money in politics. As they described the results: “With near unanimity, the public thinks the country’s campaign finance system needs significant changes. There is strong support across party lines for limiting the amount of money individuals can contribute to political campaigns, limiting the amount of money groups not affiliated with candidates can spend, and requiring unaffiliated groups to publicly disclose their donors if they spend money during a political campaign.”

That’s what this campaign is about.

Some voters look at money in politics, and they’re tempted to throw up their hands and think that there’s nothing that can be done. But real reform is possible.

After Watergate, reformers passed a series of good government reforms. Those laws made a real difference. That work continues today.

It starts with common-sense measures like Question 1 that we know will work.

Same-sex marriage opponents gather at a National Organization for Marriage rally in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 2010. Fibonacci Blue via Flickr/Creative Commons

The National Organization for Marriage is a hate group that has ignored Maine law for more than six years.

In 2009, the group spent millions of dollars in the state to take away marriage from loving, committed couples.

The money helped to overturn a new state law, passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor, that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry.

NOM set out to deny a fundamental, human connection — to repeal love — and they broke the law to do it.

Today, after a groundbreaking marriage campaign in 2012 when Maine became the first state in the country to pass marriage at the ballot box, the U.S. Supreme Court has settled the issue once and for all.

There is not “gay” marriage or same-sex marriage. There is marriage.

NOM has lost. Its one purpose to exist gone. But that hasn’t stopped it from pursuing its hateful agenda, which includes defying Maine law and hiding the donors who funded its deceitful campaign in Maine.

With the issue lost, NOM fights on to make sure that the people who helped to deny thousands of Maine couples marriage are shielded from scrutiny; to undermine marriage by passing legislation that allows discrimination and by exporting its antigay dogma to other countries.

Earlier this week, the Maine Supreme Court ruled that NOM must disclose its donors from the 2009 campaign.

For six years, the group has illegally shielded its donors, denying Maine voters the opportunity to know who paid to influence their elections.

NOM ran a campaign based on deception and fear, and it hid its donors. The group says donors were afraid to have their names made public for fear of backlash.

Backlash?

Like being punished for whom they fall in love with? Like being told their relationships and family are lesser? Like being accused of terrible things because you are living as the person you were born to be? Like being fired or denied housing or beaten and bullied?

That’s the backlash that NOM empowers every day against the LGBT community.

Attorney General Janet Mills, in a written statement released after the ruling, cited a string a legal defeats for NOM that have upheld Maine’s financial disclosure laws.

“NOM has fought for almost six years to skirt the law and to shield the names of the out of state donors who bank-rolled their election efforts. The time has come for them to finally comply with state law like everyone else. The people of Maine have a right to know who is paying to influence our elections.”

I gladly admit my bias on this case. I worked on the original legislation in 2009, on the campaign to defend the law and on the campaign in 2012 to make things right and pass marriage at the ballot box.

As The Advocate reported this week, defeated in the United States, NOM has taken its hate onto the road, where it’s working to influence public policy in other parts of the world.

Brian Brown, NOM’s leader, went to Russia and used his hateful rhetoric that’s now rejected in the U.S. to help deny adoption rights to loving, same-sex families.

And this year, NOM Chairman John Eastman said that he hopes that a Ugandan law that would put people in prison for life for “aggravated homosexuality” comes back, even though that country’s court system struck it down.

The group is also pressuring Republican presidential candidates to swim against history and public opinion, and sign a pledge to take marriage away from millions of families.

NOM’s disregard for Maine law telegraphs its intentions. It will continue to ignore the law, and continue to spew its antigay messages here in the United States and anywhere it can find an audience, including other countries where gay and transgender people are under great threat.

NOM has skirted Maine’s law for six years, and it would be understandable for people to lose interest in holding them accountable and simply move on. After all, marriage is the law of the land.

There’s a maxim in the law that justice delayed is the same as justice denied. Justice in this case has been denied for too long.

For our friends, family and neighbors who were attacked by NOM, their ads and their campaigns, we must continue to push for full disclosure, as required by the law.

And we must hold NOM accountable for its misdeeds. Otherwise, they will continue to inflict suffering on gay and transgender people here in the United States and around the world.

In quick, but thorough, fashion, Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Gov. Paul LePage’s efforts to get a do-over on 65 attempted vetoes.

LePage’s efforts are a clear-cut example of hubris and overreach, and the court had no choice but to deliver a sharp rebuke.

The justices needed less than a week to weigh the arguments and render a unanimous decision in a 49-page opinion, released today.

At issue was the governor’s ill-advised attempt to veto 65 bills after the constitutional time clock ran out. Whether by mistake or in a malicious attempt to expand executive authority and waste the time of the Legislature, LePage missed the deadline to veto the legislation.

The Legislature carried on according to the Constitution and precedent, and treated the bills as new laws.

The governor sought counsel from the Supreme Court, hoping for another chance. He didn’t get it.

In a written statement released after the decision, LePage tried to strike a chaste tone, a hard pivot from his typical bombastic style.

“This was not about winning or losing; it was about doing things right. We are fortunate to be able to seek legal opinions from the Judicial Branch, and we’re thankful the Justices came to a fast and fair resolution to this issue. We look forward to moving on and continuing to work for the Maine people.”

He struck a similar note earlier this week in Brunswick, saying: “The court is facing a very monstrous decision, and I pray that they make the right decision, which, in my mind, is to send it back to the Legislature.”

The court certainly made the right decision, ruling that the Legislature – not the governor – correctly interpreted the Constitution.

While the court gave deference to the governor’s arguments and took them at face value, there was never a legitimate question of the meaning of the Constitution, precedent or law.

The governor pushed things too far and he has suffered a humbling defeat, reflected by the language in his statement.

With the voice of the court ringing in his ear, the governor says he’s ready to “move on and continue to work for the Maine people.”

That means he’s going to have to dutifully and fully enforce 65 laws that he despised enough that he was willing to risk a Constitutional crisis to try to veto.

Such a change in attitude would be out of character for LePage. It will be up to the Legislature to ensure that the laws it passed are enforced properly by the executive branch.

The immediate argument is over, and LePage lost. But I would watch carefully to make sure we’re really “moving on” – or, if instead, the fight is just moving to a new arena and a time and date of the governor’s choosing.

Supporters of Gov. Paul LePage rally at the State House in June. Troy R. Bennett | BDN

The letters keep coming.

And with each one, the office of the governor is a little more diminished.

Gov. Paul LePage has fallen into a nasty little habit of blasting off ill-considered, handwritten notes to people who have fallen out of favor with him.

It’s a long list.

And it continues to grow to include political leaders, business leaders, activists and normal people who took the time to write the governor with no real expectation that they would get an angry reply.

Poison pen letters are nothing new. And, in fact, they’re not new from famous — or infamous, if you prefer — writers.

Charles Osgood, of the CBS News Morning Show and “The Osgood File” on CBS radio, has written an entertaining book that compiles blistering missives from famous writers, including Mark Twain, Ben Franklin, Oscar Wilde and Bob Hope.

Needless to say, LePage is no Twain or Hope. He’s not even a good imitation of Groucho Marx, whom Osgood also included.

Osgood calls his work simply, “Funny Letters from Famous People.” Released in 2004, it’s safe to say that the next edition isn’t likely to include any of LePage’s so-far public letters.

Although the mysterious note from LePage to Good Will-Hinckley that led to the firing of Speaker of the House Mark Eves from a private-sector job might make the cut — if it turns up. The letter apparently threatened the school if it didn’t dispatch Eves and is the focus of a federal lawsuit accusing the governor of blackmail.

As Osgood writes in the introduction to his book, “a real letter about a real situation from a real person, especially a real politician, author, or show business celebrity … Now that can be funny.”

A number of the letters Osgood highlights can best be described as mean, but with panache. The meanness comes with a flair for language and wit that is undeniable.

Tench Tilgham, a 38-year-old bachelor, wrote to Gen. George Washington, explaining his overdue return from leave, saying that he had married. Washington responded, acerbically, “We have had various conjectures about you. Some thought you were dead, others that you were married.”

President Lincoln was known for his short correspondence and sharp pen.

Lincoln once responded to a woman who requested a “sentiment” and an autograph: “Dear Madam. When you ask from a stranger that which is of interest only to yourself, always enclose a stamp. There’s you sentiment, and here’s your autograph.”

And my favorite, a letter from C.L. Clemens, also known as Mark Twain, is to the gas company complaining about an unannounced loss of service.

“Dear sirs. Someday you will move me almost to the verge of irritation by your chuckle-headed Goddamned fashion of shutting your Goddamned gas off without giving any notice to your Goddamned parishioners. Several times you have come within an ace of smothering half of this household in their bed and blowing up the other half by this idiotic, not to say criminal, custom of yours. And it has happened again today.”

I’d pay money to see his letter to the cable company.

Unfortunately, LePage’s letters, while not short on meanness, tend to lack flair or wit.

In a letter to a constituent in southern Maine, his handwritten note barely made sense.

Responding to Cape Elizabeth resident Louise Sullivan, who had written asking him to resign, LePage angrily and incoherently responded: “Louise. I bet you would like to see me resign. You live in the south who exploit those who are not so fortunate, or understand the level of corruption that southern Mainers ignore and welcome! Regards, Governor Paul R. LePage. P.S. Not going to happen!”

Perhaps his followers appreciate his plain-spoken style, but if you’re going to use the power of the office to attack constituents with nastygrams, you should at least do more than stick your tongue out and say, “Nah-nah. Boo-boo.”

If you’re going to be angry, at least be funny.

Flipping through Osgood’s book, I did see one letter that reminded me of LePage. It was from Lincoln, of all people.

Recommending two young men for work, Lincoln wrote a message that perhaps captures some of LePage’s ideas, if put more succinctly and eloquently: “My dear Sir. The lady of this says she has two sons who want to work. Set them at it if possible. Wanting to work is so rare a want that it should be encouraged.”

That’s certainly better than the LePage version: “Get off the couch and get yourself a job.”

Some people claim that the art of letter writing is dead. That’s not true, but with the governor it is badly wounded.

Ten of the 2016 GOP presidential candidates pose before their first official debate last month. Brian Snyder | Reuters

Republicans are starting to say some of the darndest things.

And I’m not talking about the crazy stuff, like building a fence along the border with Canada, sending nasty grams on government stationary or ending birthright citizenship.

Sure, there’s plenty of that. And as Republican candidates for president and GOP governors struggle to capture attention in the wake of the reality TV campaign of Donald Trump, we’re likely to see more and more of it.

But, it seems, left with few options, some top-tier Republicans are actually starting to make sense.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, he of the halting speaking style and karate-chop hand motions, is leading the pack in this regard.

By most measures, it would be hard to describe Kasich as a moderate. But after a Lansing Chamber of Commerce meeting this week, Kasich spoke favorably of raising the minimum wage.

Now, he stopped short of a full-throated endorsement, but as the Huffington Post reported first, his comments set him apart from most other Republicans running for president.

Kasich said he could support a “reasonable” increase in the minimum wage, while declining to discuss specific numbers.

“I wouldn’t get into numbers right now,” he said, according to the Huffington Post. “I just think you have to be realistic, and management and labor can sit down and talk about what is an effective way to help.”

Then the governor pointed to the wage in Ohio, which is $8.10 an hour and indexed to inflation. It’s a number smaller than a living wage that’s being debated nationally and in Maine right now, but a definite improvement over $7.25, the spot where the federal minimum wage has been since 2009.

Kasich’s position on the minimum wage comes after one of the non-Trump memorable moments from the first televised Republican presidential debate, held by Fox News in Ohio.

While most of the candidates did their best to attack Obamacare, a remarkably successful health care reform law that has substantially reduced the number of people without health insurance in the country while beating cost expectations, Kasich defended his decision to expand Medicaid to provide health care to thousands of Ohioans under the law.

Again, like the minumum wage, he did hedge. He has said he doesn’t support Obamacare, but he also said this: “We brought a program in here to make sure that people get on their feet. And you know what, everybody has a right to their God-given purpose.”

He also talked about how the expansion of Medicaid is helping fight the horror of drug addiction, mental illness and helping the working poor to get on their feet.

But Kasich isn’t the only Republican who’s connecting with populist — and what might be considered Democratic — ideas.

Trump, the flame that draws most of the moths so far in the Republican primary, has — in his own, very special way — attacked money in politics and the influence of special interests.

In Iowa on Tuesday, the billionaire reiterated a point he’s made several times: He doesn’t need to raise money from lobbyists and special interests, so he won’t be beholden to them when they come looking for favors.

Reporting for Slate, Jamelle Bouie tied at least part of Trump’s early race success to this attack on the powers that be. The anti-government sentiment that’s driving a large piece of the electorate is fed, in part, by the feeling that the political system is rigged against the working class.

As Bouie writes: “Who better to stop special interests and wealthy corporations than a rich man who doesn’t need their money, who isn’t beholden to either party, and is ready to drive the hardest deal possible?”

Like with the minimum wage, we see this debate playing out in Maine as there is strong, bipartisan and growing support for Question 1 on November’s ballot, which would limit the impact of money on political campaigns, increase transparency and make penalties for breaking campaign finance law tougher.

Whether it’s health care, the minimum wage or money in politics, there’s strong support among voters, which will be helpful to any candidate who makes it out of the primary and into the general election.

But for Republicans there remains one final frontier. Background checks on guns.

Public Policy Polling, in a poll released Tuesday, found that 78 percent of Republican primary voters support “requiring a criminal background check of every person who wants to buy a firearm.”

Republican candidates trying to find the magic mix for success in the general election are starting to step out on the minimum wage, health care, immigration, and money in politics.

Can background checks be far behind?

(Public domain image)

Gov. Paul LePage is doing his best to draw and quarter his own political party.

The governor came riding into the year high after winning re-election. Many Republican leaders were convinced that he had set the stage for the party’s ascendancy.

Many Republicans crowed that LePage would set the stage for the GOP for a generation to come.

Pfffft.

Karl Rove had a similar dream about the “permanent Republican majority” during his time with President Bush.

It hasn’t worked out that way for any of them.

For all of his potential, LePage has traded away his influence and his ability to lead.

And now he has even turned on other members of the GOP, and he is using the party apparatus as a weapon in his private war.

He’s demonstrated that he’s willing to put his own ego ahead of the best interests of the state — and even the rest of the Republican Party.

Now, the real question is not whether the Republicans will build a new, lasting majority in the Legislature, but whether or not they can survive next year’s election.

Or, if instead, they’ll be pulled down a LePage-created referenda rabbit hole.

In a presidential year, Maine acts a lot differently than it does during off-year elections.

It’s a problem that has plagued Democrats and Republicans alike. Democrats are able to win legislative majorities during presidential years, but struggle to hold them in off years, when fewer people vote and the ones who do are more conservative.

Republicans, too, haven’t been able to hold onto their recent off-year gains.

After an impressive win in 2010, political overreach and electoral numbers doomed them to lose the majority in both the House and Senate in 2012, a presidential year.

And in 2014, after again winning the Blaine House and a majority in the Senate, political overreach by the governor and math are working against them again.

But in 2016, it appears they’re also going to be facing an even stronger LePage-fed head wind.

The governor told MPBN this week that he’s basically finished with the Legislature and will take his policies straight to voters through the referendum process.

He’s called members of both parties liars and has promised to campaign against even his former allies who dare to disagree with him.

In the process, he’s co-opted the state’s Republican Party and convinced it to lead the campaign on two controversial and highly charged initiative questions.

As leaked details of the potential referenda, reported by the Bangor Daily News’ Chris Cousins, show, the questions involve a poorly designed scheme to reduce income taxes and a catch-all effort to villainize poor people and attack refugees and asylum seekers.

If they move forward, the two initiative questions will place enormous stress on the Republican Party. It’s expensive to gather enough signatures to place a question on the statewide ballot, and it takes time and energy.

It can easily cost $200,000 or more to gather signatures for a single question, and, if successful, you then have to run a campaign. Even in Maine, that adds up to serious dollars.

A campaign for a question without real opposition can cost millions of dollars. Highly charged issues such as taxes and aid to working families are likely to cost even more. As previous tax fights at the ballot have shown, the public has a critical eye for initiatives that promise more than they can deliver, and they’ve rejected empty tax promises like this one before.

And, while it may seem like money in politics comes from a bottomless cup, there are limits.

In a presidential year, with 186 seats in the Legislature up for grabs, two congressional races and the White House at stake, running two citizen initiative campaigns through the state party could easily turn into robbing Peter to pay Paul (LePage).

While it’s safe to say that most Republicans legislators favor lowering the income tax and reducing access to programs such as MaineCare and General Assistance, their support for the governor’s end run around the Legislature has so far been muted.

Maybe that’s because they know that every dollar the state GOP spends on the referenda, every hour volunteers collect signatures, and all the effort used chasing LePage’s Holy Grail is less time spent on the hard work of electing Republicans.

For Republican lawmakers in tight elections next year, a state party and governor focused on calling them names and chasing election-year wild geese is a recipe for defeat.

Expera Specialty Solutions’ mill in Old Town, which the company plans to close by the end of the year. Gabor Degre | BDN

Maine faces a real, honest-to-goodness crisis in our rural communities.

The problems are substantial and complicated, and they can’t be solved by sitting down and sharpening the pencil or through a simplistic policy pronouncement or scapegoating some of our people.

And the problem is mirrored all across the country as many rural communities face changing economic markets, aging populations and crumbling infrastructure.

Instead of facing these challenges head on and with honesty, political leaders such as Gov. Paul LePage, Lewiston Mayor Bob Macdonald, the Maine Republican Party and presidential candidate Donald Trump focus our attention on distractions.

They attack immigrants and refugees, dehumanizing people who are only trying to build better lives for themselves and their families. They take their humanity away by referring to them as “illegals” and talk about “rounding them up.”

Macdonald, on a tear last week, joined the national circus by calling for a registry of people receiving public benefits. The Scarlet Letter ploy gained no political support in Maine, but it sure boosted the mayor’s profile and earned him national attention.

In the past, Macdonald has targeted immigrants for his ire. This time his target was kids with special needs. As Bangor Daily News blogger Mike Tipping reported: Macdonald apparently wanted to include children who receive special education services on his website of shame.

What’s stunning about the revelation is its honesty. When we talk about programs such as food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and even General Assistance, the biggest beneficiaries are children and the elderly. Macdonald, perhaps by accident, reveals that the real targets aren’t “able bodied adults,” but vulnerable children.

With LePage firmly holding the leash, the Maine Republican Party has also joined the fray, proposing a likely illegal citizen’s initiative that tries to convince voters that they can have lower taxes if they just kick the bums off “welfare.”

And Trump, the leader of the GOP presidential field, has soared to the lead in polls while offering nothing but brash talks and ridiculous ideas. Ever the showman, Trump excelled during an interview on “60 Minutes” earlier this week. He was convincingly earnest and completely lacking in substance.

His answers are nonsensical. Build a wall? Start a trade war? Force other countries to change their policies? Because, Donald says so?

None of this makes a tinker’s damn. These ideas won’t improve the lives of people in Maine, they won’t help to revitalize rural economies or help our children. Instead, they will make our state and nation weaker, poorer, uglier and less secure.

With the headlines dominated by the news of mill closures in Lincoln, Old Town, East Millinocket and Bucksport and layoffs in Jay, we need to diversify our thinking and stop pretending that “immigrants” and “welfare cheats” are causing our problems.

The workforce in rural Maine is shrinking. The population is declining. In a world that is growing more and more connected, many of our rural communities are isolated.

The roads that connect them are failing. Information technology and connectivity are missing.

But instead of a concerted effort to fix our roads (and create jobs), improve communications (and create jobs), strengthen our schools (and create jobs), expand access to quality health care (and create jobs), grow renewable energy (and create jobs) and encourage diversity and in-migration to Maine (and create jobs), we are stuck in a xenophobic, fear-based argument about which group of disadvantaged people is doing more to take things away from us.

It’s a big lie.

But I guess the anger and hate are a lot easier to understand and a lot cheaper to implement.

During the same weak that Macdonald, LePage and Trump continued their appeals to our worst instincts, there was one person who broke through with a different message.

Speaking to the U.S. Congress, Pope Francis called on us to be better, to do better: “We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible. … Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities, which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us.”

Our economy will not improve as long as we are content to leave children, the elderly and new arrivals behind. Our state cannot get stronger, and our people cannot prosper if we let hate and fear drive the debate.