Gov. Paul LePage is notable for the degree to which he disparages “the quality of traditional public education” in his home state, says a reader.
I'm a retiree and moved to Maine permanently last July from New Mexico (yeah, I had been warned about the Maine winters).
Bottom line, I've been receiving the Press Herald since my arrival and following the ongoing arguments about the quality of Maine public schooling and the direction (more charter, virtual/computerized learning) and funding of same.
Frankly, I've been amazed at the blatant favoritism exhibited by Gov. LePage for nontraditional (i.e. virtual/charter schools) public education.
In my lifetime, I cannot remember another governor disparaging the quality of traditional public education in his state as severely as does Gov. LePage. I cannot comment on his motivation, but his pronouncements are clearly prejudicial against traditional public education in Maine, and it appears (to me) he is taking his cues from external sources.
I'll leave it to people who are more knowledgeable and well-informed to "prove" the quality of public education in Maine. As for me, I can only go on the basis of my observations concerning my two nieces and one nephew.
These young ladies and this gentleman (ages 17 and up), products of both "rural" and "high-end" Maine schooling, are articulate, poised and secure in their ability to progress further in their education, and ultimately, a career goal. This would not be possible if Maine public schooling were not doing an acceptable job in preparing Maine's children to assume their responsibilities as adults.
The television news on Jan. 9 covered two items. The first was the young mothers' protest against the use of BPA; the second was the Charter School Commission's decision not to grant a charter license to four applicants.
Gov. LePage responded to both, and his remarks were covered as well.
He sounded very sympathetic to the mothers' concerns and said that if their concerns were based "on science," he would support their wishes, but if they were emotional, he didn't know what he could do.
He was angry at the commission and said the members ought to resign for not supporting charter schools and that public education in Maine was in bad shape.
If he had based his response to the commission "on science," he might have noted that the virtual schools that applied have an unsatisfactory record of student achievement. Further, had the governor done more "scientific analysis" of student achievement data in charter schools, he would have found out that the results are mixed.
More "scientific analysis" would also have shown the governor that student achievement data depend on variables other than whether schools are charter or public.
However, I now understand why the governor doesn't want people videotaping his public appearances.
Opponent of Obama budget should detail what he'd cut
I would like to point out to Jim Burke ("Another View: President, not Congress, to blame for debt ceiling dispute," Jan. 17) that President Obama did not spend $1.50 for every $1 in taxes in the last four years, Congress did. The Constitution is pretty clear on this point -- "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts."
I am a liberal, social welfare-loving, gun-restricting, gay marriage-approving baby boomer, and I am very aware that the only way we can survive as a nation is to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This game of political chicken, whereby the Congress and the president say, "You first"; "No, no, after you," is really wearing me out.
And Mr. Burke is not helping. I ask Mr. Burke to define "significant expense cuts." Being the liberal I am, I would propose extensive cuts to the military, but I don't expect that to be considered any time soon.
My Plan B is to make major changes to our social safety net -- that would be Mr. Burke's and my Medicare and Social Security. Again, I ask him to articulate what he means by "significant expense cuts."
Recent news confirms need to act on global warming
Recent weeks have delivered floods of compelling data, confirming the grim effects of global warming ("Report: Climate change disastrous already," Jan. 12).
Coming on the heels of events like Superstorm Sandy and 2012 being the hottest year on record, the new National Climate Assessment draft report should serve as yet another wake-up call for decision-makers that strong action on global warming is urgently needed.
Maine and the Northeast region will continue to experience heat waves, sea level rise, coastal flooding and extreme precipitation jeopardizing our environment and economy from tourism to agriculture. Sandy's too-close-to-home strike, the report says, shows the vulnerability of our region to climate change.
The clean energy solutions that will combat global warming by cutting carbon emissions are right in front of us.
President Obama needs to take this opportunity to set the first-ever federal carbon pollution limits for new and existing power plants. We can curb the dangerous effects of warming in Maine that are outlined in this report.
field organizer, Environment Maine
Let's make industry pay for high cost of alcohol abuse
Alcohol has been linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year, and "excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States." (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/.../alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/)
So I wonder why the government has never gone after the makers of alcohol for extra taxes or to have them help pay for rehab facilities and halfway houses for those in need.
With more than three-quarters of our jails filled with people committing offenses under the influence of alcohol and the court system backed up, maybe we need to look at the cause and effect created by this in our country.
We look at everything else except one drug that kills 2,500,000 people worldwide annually.