Without their support.

Americans want to cut back government spending to sustainable levels | Portland Press Herald

Americans want to cut back government spending to sustainable levels | Portland Press Herald

The above article by Dean Scontras is well worth a long hard look. For in it he explains fully the implications of our current and former governments failure to act responsibly. I cannot help but applaud Mr. Scontras' grasp of the problems facing our troubled nation.

I won't even complain that through this article he managed to undermine my Column piece for the Lakes Region Weekly that is due out this Friday.

Take a warning from the words of Mr. Scontras, for in this he is most definitely on the mark.

Sláinte
Allen Butler

No Health Care in the Constitution

No Health Care in the Constitution



The above is an important and well written piece on the legality or better yet the illegality of the current Health Care Reform proposals. Would that I wrote it myself perhaps, if I had the money to retire I could have had the time. In any event it is worth the read, for it shows quite clearly that Congress and the Administration are in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

As these elected officials are bound by oath to uphold said document they are by this act, breaking their oath, which is grounds for dismissal from office.

Given the obvious complete disregard for the basis for our government coupled with the lack of understanding of "Limited Government" we are faced with no recourse in this matter. The Supreme Court will not easily dismiss the take over of such a large part of our economy as the faulty argument of "General Welfare" was used by FDR in setting up Social Security. The reasoning goes: If the Health Care reform package is proved unconstitutional through it's use of the general welfare clause then so too would the whole Social Security program.

Sad but true, and that will leave the court with quite a sticky situation indeed! One in which they will have neither the grit or fortitude to step out of.

Essentially what I'm saying is that if we are saddled with this law, the courts will lie down and die before it out of fear of the consequences of following the actual law. For those consequences are far too great. A challenge on Social Security would threaten the lives and livelihood of far too many people in this nation, no matter that those entitlements were given illegally in the first place.

Sláinte
Allen Butler

The Ups and Downs of Election Day

I’m not usually surprised by the outcome of elections, but this past run at the polls really stumped me. Two items in both Windham and Gray respectfully threw me curveballs and I “whiffed” at bat. I did manage to call all the other referendum questions correctly however. Under normal circumstances, by November 2nd, I can pick who is going to win a seat, large or small, or what issues and referendums will pass or fail. This is not due to some supernatural power that propels me to heights of consciousness and understanding unknown to mere mortals. No, I base my choices on mundane observations and history.

For example: Mainers love to approve bonds, one cannot doubt this fact, for the evidence of it lies in every election since 1995. Each time we go to vote on town or state issues sure enough, there will be a finely worded bond package nestled within the ballot. Its old news to be sure. Everyone knows that any bond proposal for roads, bridges, water quality, or just about anything else will pass here in Maine; after all don’t bonds come with matching funds? What could be finer than a bit of “free money” as those funds are commonly called? So bond packages are pretty much an easy guess when it comes time to decide. They get a hearty “thumbs up”, or at least they used to.

Even though the 71 million dollar state transportation bond was given the voter’s blessing, the Clark Farm bond proposal was turned down in Windham. The one and a half million dollar proposal was rejected by the voters 3,515 to 3,164. It was a close one but a huge surprise to me. I thought for sure it was a lock because when it comes to borrowing money most towns and definitely the state just can’t say no. Stunned does not begin to express my reaction, but happily so, for it seems the voters of Windham understand that their community cannot afford to incur that kind of debt at this time. I wonder if perhaps this decision is some kind of indicator which shows that fiscal responsibility in government is becoming a real voter concern. I can only hope it is, and I applaud the fine people of Windham for exercising prudence and foresight on this issue. I’ll happily take the loss on this pick.

The other ballot question I missed on was the proposal to eliminate the annual Gray town meeting. This one really threw me for a loop as I thought for sure this bit of nonsense would have been rejected out of hand. Yet in a landslide decision of 2,633 in favor to 809 opposed, the people of Gray eliminated this very old and very important part of their government.

I am sure that many were confused by the wording of proposal itself, which was in essence nothing more than a part of the town charter with lines crossed out. I personally had to read it twice to be sure my vote was cast (against) correctly and I had known ahead of time what I was going to do! However confusion alone cannot explain the overwhelming numbers in favor of eliminating open and accountable government. Perhaps it is a lack of understanding of the importance of the institution itself that caused so many to call for its demise? Maybe if we couple this ignorance with the apparent apathy of the citizenry we might begin to scratch the surface of why this came to pass.

Regardless, what happened in Gray this past November 3rd, is shameful.
The loss of town meeting means less accountability not more, as some would say. It means the Town Council can no longer be “compelled” to amend the budget at the request of the people, it means they can accept or reject at whim any suggestions one might put forth. And I ask where are we the people to go and act the part of supplicant, rather than legislator?

To the budget workshops where we will be welcomed, I am sure, with open arms and hearts, all voices will be given fair hearing, well maybe, if that voice exceeds not three minutes. Oh wait! I’m talking about Town council meetings there sorry, separate discussion.

I missed hard on the issue of town meeting, by misjudging my neighbors and fellow citizens. Don’t worry though, I’ll not fall prey to such foolishness again.

Sláinte
Allen Butler

* This article was written for and published in the Lakes Region Weekly newspaper*