After reading a column by Greg Kesich last week regarding my involvement in the labor mural controversy, I felt compelled to respond. I have always felt that the mural belongs in the Labor Department building.
I only suggested Portland City Hall as a temporary location, where it could remain on display to the public and not be hidden away like it is now.
Additional Photos
The column went on to suggest that, as a state representative, rather than get involved in trying to save the mural, I should be fighting to retain state support for social service programs like General Assistance.
Whatever your opinion is about the labor mural, nobody can dispute that I have been on the front lines leading the fight against budget cuts to social services. In fact, I invited Gov. Le-Page to visit Preble Street Resource Center on Feb. 18 to hear directly from constituents who would be impacted the most by cuts to General Assistance.
It was at this meeting that we convinced the governor to change the proposed budget and remove a provision limiting recipients to one month of help per calendar year. Advocates agree that this change will likely keep hundreds of the poorest of the poor from going homeless.
I have also been leading the fight against budget cuts to substance abuse services. Serenity House, located on Mellen Street, an area I represent, could be forced to close if these cuts go through.
On March 11, I rented a van and transported several constituents from this facility and area neighbors to the State House, where we all spoke against these cuts at a hearing of the Appropriations Committee.
Before publishing a column suggesting a legislator should be doing something, next time it might be wise to do some research to see if they already are.
Rep. Ben Chipman
Portland
I am writing in defense of my fellow state Rep. Ben Chipman of Portland because it is the fair and right thing to do. Just to be clear, I knew Ben’s name before we were both elected last fall, but I did not know him until we began serving together, we are not on the same committee and we are not in the same political party.
That being said, we share a common goal: representing our constituents the best we can and caring about the people of Portland and Maine.
Rep. Chipman, like nearly every other legislator I know, is working on several things at one time. We spoke about the importance of the labor mural, particularly given previous actions such as the consolidation of the Labor and Business, Research and Economic Development Committee into one committee, the current budget cuts to state workers, which includes teachers, and the general tenor that business is more important than the people who make the business person successful.
To say that Rep. Chipman should “be fighting to retain state support for social service programs like General Assistance and medical coverage for legal immigrants, which the governor wants to shift to local taxpayers” implies that he is not doing his job, but in fact he is.
This same paper reported on Feb. 18 that Gov. LePage accepted an invitation from Rep. Chipman to visit his district, and then the governor agreed to remove the strict limitation on general assistance in the budget.
Rep. Chipman and I may not agree on every issue in the next two years that we will serve the people of Maine. However, I feel confident saying that we will always agree that the best decisions are those that help our constituents, which includes all Mainers.
Lastly, if the voters truly want elected officials working together, isn’t working with members of different parties toward solutions that would be best, given the less-than-ideal circumstances, what people want?
Rep. Denise Harlow
Portland
Obama and Libya: Nuance, or a case of turned tables?
Reading your editorial after President Obama’s speech on Libya on March 28 made me think we didn’t hear the same speech.
It seems as if the Press Herald was looking for a yes-or-no answer to a very complex situation.
While folding laundry, I heard the president say that although he understands that there are horrific leaders around the world that harm their own citizens, the situation in Libya is unique and our involvement has a good, not a guaranteed, chance of making a lasting difference.
The revolt was sparked by Libyan citizens who are themselves willing to make extreme sacrifices.
He thoughtfully acknowledged that acting unilaterally would not be in our best interests. Using our military in another Muslim country without the support of Arab nations risks having our good intentions misunderstood as imperialism.
The president said our leadership in the first stages of air support would soon be taken over by NATO. It is not his intention to send any ground troops to Libya.
He said because of the quickly unfolding events in Libya he would not try to predict when or how the revolt would end. But standing with other nations on the side of freedom was where we belonged.
The Press Herald seemed upset that there is no “doctrine,” but I feel relieved. I’m glad our president is pragmatic. He doesn’t need a doctrine. He said he would not respond to all international situations in the same way. He will consider the limits and ramifications of our actions and act accordingly.
I don’t know what you all heard, but I didn’t hear a “snazzy” speech. I heard a man articulating the role our country will play in this specific situation. It was all perfectly clear.
Jacqueline Peters
Kennebunk
The shoe is on the other foot! The tide has turned! Etc. Etc.
Our new president must feel a little (is “awkward” the right word?) as he finds himself in the unenviable position of having to defend U.S. military involvement in world affairs — a matter somewhat contradictory to his campaign against our prior president, who was belittled, ridiculed and otherwise disparaged for his decisions regarding a viable defense of America.
Because of the NATO mandate for this recent military action, some may view this as comparing apples to oranges; however, at the center of this issue is an ideological conviction regarding the balancing of personal will, political correctness and public and worldwide perception with endangering the lives of American servicemen and women.
History’s record of this will surely hinge upon a timely, effective and responsible end to U.S. military involvement — an end which has not yet been achieved in the aforementioned effort; again, the president has taken a path contradictory to expectations he raised, if not promises he made!
Kevin Douglas
Fryeburg
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Comments are no longer available on this story