Lepage's new budget lowers taxes, ... (Bar Harbor, Hancock: unemployment benefits, living, law)

[Kristin85]

This thread has gotten a bit negative but I would like to say I am SO HAPPY to read the news Forest Beekeeper posted. I am being driven out of my state by rising taxes. Maine has always been my number one choice, it is where my heart is, but I couldn't imagine leaving CT due to taxes and coming to Maine which had its own tax issues. With the recent changes that have been made in the legislature, particularly with the "friendlier" attitude towards business, I have faith that Maine will turn around and become a state where average Joes will want to live. All of Maine's problems haven't been fixed and people may disagree on some of the specifics of the budget cuts, but this a huge step in the right direction.

My job search had been focusing on Nashville and areas of New Hampshire. I may now be switching my focus to Maine if the DH approves.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Kristin85

This thread has gotten a bit negative but I would like to say I am SO HAPPY to read the news Forest Beekeeper posted. I am being driven out of my state by rising taxes.

I used to live in Ct.

Rising taxes, the high cost-of-living, and the crime all came together to make the prospect of staying in Ct impossible.

... Maine has always been my number one choice, it is where my heart is, but I couldn't imagine leaving CT due to taxes and coming to Maine which had its own tax issues. With the recent changes that have been made in the legislature, particularly with the "friendlier" attitude towards business, I have faith that Maine will turn around and become a state where average Joes will want to live. All of Maine's problems haven't been fixed and people may disagree on some of the specifics of the budget cuts, but this a huge step in the right direction.

My job search had been focusing on Nashville and areas of New Hampshire. I may now be switching my focus to Maine if the DH approves.

I wish you luck in your job search.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Zymer

An applicant for 'welfare' does not stand accused of a crime, no search warrant has been issued and 'probable cause' does not exist simply because that person has made the application. The act of requiring a drug test presupposes guilt and requires the individual to prove innocence- which is the exact opposite of how the Constitution and legal system was designed and is *exactly* what they were designed to protect against.

If that line of thought is extended across the board, requiring an individual to waive his rights and prove innocence before receiving service from the government (for whatever reason) provides precedence for the withdrawal of any and all rights. Imagine calling the cops (a government service) for some reason, but before they take a report they first search your house and subject you to a drug test to make you prove that you have not committed any crimes.

I detest the idea that there may be some who abuse the welfare system so that they can party and do drugs at my expense, while I work my tail off to support it, but perverting the system and requiring one to waive his rights and prove innocence, not standing accused of a crime and without probable cause is even more abhorrent to me.

Zymer, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I believe I have come around to your side of the argument. Even though *I* might like the idea of drug testing someone, and on the surface it's probably not a bad idea...but if it means tossing away the 4th etc I can't do it. I don't want to start ignoring pieces of the constitution like "the other side" does for their own convenience.

Just wanted to update you on that.

[cebdark]

Originally Posted by JViello

Zymer, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I believe I have come around to your side of the argument. Even though *I* might like the idea of drug testing someone, and on the surface it's probably not a bad idea...but if it means tossing away the 4th etc I can't do it. I don't want to start ignoring pieces of the constitution like "the other side" does for their own convenience.

Just wanted to update you on that.

As angry as it makes me to see fraud (and yes, I do see it) I see that drug testing is not only unconstitutional, it's a futile 'feel good measure' and little more IMHO.

A badly drug-addicted patient will not, and I repeat, will NOT care whether or not their bill is paid much less who pays for it. No amount of demanding, testing, criticizing, yelling, caljoling, encouraging to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, etc., etc., etc, will work.
They are desperate for the next fix, and they'll do anything to get it.

Sorry, it's a simple fact of life. The emphasis must be placed on catching the drug runners before this stuff gets out in the street IMO. Once some kid has decided to experiment with some ridiculous toxin (the latest being bath salts) for whatever reason, a lot of times, they are lost, and in very short order. Again, reality there.

Personally, as awful as it may sound, IMO, the only thing that may possibly work is to lock them up until they dry out - period. Now having said that, obviously, not every drug-addicted person needs to be locked up. There are many who have managed to beat the addiction, but the hard core drug addict/alcoholic needs to not have a choice about drying out IMO.

A lot can be garnered by education, and from what I've seen, there is very little by way of education when assistance is doled out. I have been told by those who have applied for it, that there isn't even a simple brochure about how Mainecare works, or what is covered under what plan (there are differing plans for Mainecare).

Zip, Zilch, Nada.

If I don't have to pay a single dime when I go to the ER, then I'm going to the ER because I don't have a single dime (or, I've blown my last dime on something stupid).

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by JViello

Even though *I* might like the idea of drug testing someone, and on the surface it's probably not a bad idea...but if it means tossing away the 4th etc I can't do it. I don't want to start ignoring pieces of the constitution like "the other side" does for their own convenience.

Thanks for the update. Yeah, sometimes we gotta think about stuff for a while.

My wife was convalescing after surgery recently, and she watched that trial of the woman who killed her kid and tossed the body in the swamp. I caught the beginning and the end of it. I saw the prosecution's presentation and said that I didn't think it was good enough for a conviction. I'm convinced that she did it, but the evidence wasn't sufficient.

She was ticked off because the woman was acquitted, but, even though I felt she was guilty, I was glad to see that the jury wouldn't convict. The evidence was all circumstantial.

I think my point is that, if we start bending the rules to punish 'bad' people it won't be long before the rules get bent to take advantage of innocent people. And that is what the rules are intended to do- prevent good people from being unjustly punished. It sucks that some 'bad' people get away with the things that they do, but it would be worse to abandon the system that is meant to protect the rest of us.

[bustaduke]

Originally Posted by Zymer

I agree that 'welfare' isn't a right', but I don't agree that to get it one should be expected to waive the things that *are* his rights. This would be a bad precedent to set.

The test to get a driver's license is a test for skill and knowledge, not a test to prove innocence of criminal activity. In addition, revocation of driving privileges occurs *after* you screw up and due process occurs. (In some cases, only after you screw up a whole bunch of times- I wonder what the record is for the largest number of DUI convictions before license revocation?)

BS if you want a drivers licenses you have to prove that you have insurance and if you drive without it then you're breaking the law.

busta

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by bustaduke

BS if you want a drivers licenses you have to prove that you have insurance and if you drive without it then you're breaking the law.

busta

Incorrect.

Insurance must be obtained on each registered vehicle and is independent of licensing. If you do not have a registered vehicle, then you are not required to purchase any insurance. Proof of insurance goes with the vehicle, not with the license.

Fact is, I wish it *were* the way you describe it, it would be a more equitable system. If liability insurance were attached to the license one would need only a single policy. Instead, those of us who own multiple vehicles must pay for insurance on each one of them, even though we can only drive one at a time.

I don't know of any state that requires proof of insurance in order to obtain a license. If you do, please post a link to the appropriate state law, I wouldn't want to pass up a chance to increase my knowledge with accurate facts.

[mainegrl2011]

Originally Posted by JViello

Zymer, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I believe I have come around to your side of the argument. Even though *I* might like the idea of drug testing someone, and on the surface it's probably not a bad idea...but if it means tossing away the 4th etc I can't do it. I don't want to start ignoring pieces of the constitution like "the other side" does for their own convenience.

Just wanted to update you on that.

So again, why then is it acceptable to drug test people who are applying for jobs, but somehow we are violating rights by drug testing someone who is applying for welfare?! Think about it for awhile. Also, fingerprinting someone who is applying for a job is also commonplace. Why isn't it "unconstitutional" to drug test and fingerprint those applying for jobs rather than applying for a handout.

[Maineah]

Originally Posted by mainegrl2011

So again, why then is it acceptable to drug test people who are applying for jobs, but somehow we are violating rights by drug testing someone who is applying for welfare?! Think about it for awhile. Also, fingerprinting someone who is applying for a job is also commonplace. Why isn't it "unconstitutional" to drug test and fingerprint those applying for jobs rather than applying for a handout.

I agree. We should also only allow people who pay income taxes to vote or they should reinstate the poll tax. It should be worth a couple of hundred dollars to go cast a vote for your favorite welfare pushing liberal candidate.

[cebdark]

Originally Posted by mainegrl2011

So again, why then is it acceptable to drug test people who are applying for jobs, but somehow we are violating rights by drug testing someone who is applying for welfare?! Think about it for awhile. Also, fingerprinting someone who is applying for a job is also commonplace. Why isn't it "unconstitutional" to drug test and fingerprint those applying for jobs rather than applying for a handout.

It's not acceptable (at least to me anyway). The military drug tests, but then again, they own your rear end once you sign on the dotted line. It used to be that they were the only ones who did.

Just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it's constitutional or even right.

I can understand people who operate dangerous equipment or transport people, but now you need to submit a urine sample to shlep products on a shelf? A background check? Really? Not necessary at all (unless you are in the cash office - and even then...meh) considering what retailers do for store security these days. One security camera review and voila! Instant escort out the door. The only place that's not covered is the bathroom (and give those time - for our "safety" dontcha know). That's what management is for - firing someone if they screw up.

The bottom line for me is that drug testing doesn't do a thing to lower taxes really.

In fact, if you factor in the costs of administering the test, it will probably cost more in the long run. Those tests will not be done for free.

If you want to go after welfare fraud on the other hand, that would go along way to save tax money. In that respect, I hope Lepage can do something like cutting off benefits for people who buy bottled water and dump it out for the returnables (like Bangor did by requiring the bottle deposit to be paid up front).

How easy was that, and it didn't even cost one cent.