Did Mainers Reject Fiscal Conservatism With Question 4?

Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting Takes A Baseball Bat To The Otten Piñata

Thursday, Mar 11, 2010 – 9:49 AM | One Comment

Everyone has been dancing around the whispers of “Les Otten” and “the failure of American Ski Company”, hesitant to engage, or really hammer him on the subject. Well – maybe not everyone – but the …

Read the full story »

Headlines

The biggest political news from around Maine.

Blaine House

News, analysis and opinion relating to the office of the Governor of Maine.

Maine Senate

The politics of the 35 member upper house of the Maine Legislature.

Maine House

The politics of the 151 member lower house of the Maine Legislature.

Commentary

A more detailed look at an issue, including analysis and opinion from Pine Tree Politics.

Home » Commentary

Did Mainers Reject Fiscal Conservatism With Question 4?

By Matthew Gagnon on Thursday, November 19, 20095 Comments

This is a question that I have been giving a great deal of thought over the course of the last couple weeks.

I have argued – more than once – that I felt Maine was a somewhat libertarian state. In other words, one that had a people who were rugged individualists who had a fiscally conservative outlook, but who had a “live and let live” attitude about social issues. In other words, the typical “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” archetype that is usually associated with a libertarian bend.

On election day this year, that belief of mine got smacked in the face. Twice.

First of all, the gay marriage question showed that at least on one issue, Maine remains somewhat socially conservative. But that could still be misleading – it was an off year election, and even among socially liberal communities, gay marriage is hardly a settled question. I actually know several people who consider themselves libertarian who do not support gay marriage.

But more devastating to my underlying theory was the result of question 4 – TABOR. This question would have provided a rather telling statement to the state government that the people of Maine were tired of high taxes and irresponsible spending. What we saw was quite the opposite – TABOR was rejected by an overwhelming margin.

So did this mean that the voters of Maine are not of the fiscally conservative mold? Does this mean voters are happy with the level of spending and taxes?

A first look at those numbers would suggest that the state is far more tolerant of fiscal extravagance than I thought. However, I have been talking to several people on both sides of the political spectrum on this question, and I have begun to believe that this question told us next to nothing about the Maine voter’s opinion on spending and taxes.

It may sound counter-intuitive given the nature of the question, but I think the logic holds. It goes a little something like this:

Maine voters have indicated for years that they are sick of higher taxes, and aren’t exactly thrilled with higher spending and vast waste coming out of Augusta. The question on people’s minds when they considered question 4 was not if they felt that taxes and spending was out of control, but instead it was whether or not TABOR was an appropriate way to address that problem.

And the Maine voter said, “no it is not”. They did not reject the idea that taxes and spending is too high – they rejected TABOR as the solution to that problem.

Why?

Maine voters want leadership and judgment – they do not want a computer algorithm essentially deciding what we spend and what we tax. The voters felt that TABOR was a rigid, restrictive way to fight the problem of government growth and excess. They felt it would tie the hands of lawmakers and local officials, which would do more damage than it would do good.

That does not mean Maine voters do not see taxes and spending as a problem, it just means they didn’t think TABOR was the answer. People do not want math formulas making decisions about school funding, or tax levels – what they want is quality, strong leadership to simply make better decisions.

So, for me, the jury is still out on the psyche of the Maine voter. I still believe they are basically anti-tax and low spending folks, and their vote on question 4 is not indicative of anything other than a rejection of computer models deciding state finances.

Share This Article:

Popularity: 5% [?]

5 Comments »

Dan Billings said:

One side spent over $2 million on the campaign. The other side spent about 10% of that amount.

Guess which side won?

No more analysis is needed.

- 19 November 2009 at 6:51 PM

Jay said:

As a libertarian and Mainer, I am gobsmacked that you ever considered this place to be even somewhat libertarian. This year was especially tough in the voting booth, but the result was exactly what I expected.

You want to know the psyche? I think the average Maine voter falls a LONG way from libertarianism if 52% of us are able to justify continued bigotry and selective application of law in order to “protect” a religious institution.

- 19 November 2009 at 10:34 PM

Matthew Gagnon said:

Jay,

I grew up in Maine and lived there for 25 years. Everyone I have EVER discussed politics with – Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, has essentially come down to a very similar point of view on government.

Namely, that they want their taxes lower, they want government spending to be more efficient, targeted and effective, and they want to be “left alone”.

Mainers have a very “live and let live” sensibility. Yes, the gay marriage vote didn’t exactly send that message, but you should keep in mind that this is an off year election, and the fear based Yes on 1 campaign “got to” a lot of people who I think ordinarily tend to not want the government to dictate our lives.

You can say you are gobsmacked that I suggested it, but I am equally as gobsmacked that you wouldn’t consider it a possibility. As I said, basically everyone I’ve ever talked to has these same sensibilities. The trouble really is that our government hasn’t reflected those sensibilities in a long time.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans speak to this basic underlying Maine psyche, and that is why both parties are losing members and independents gain so much.

I think deep down, most Mainers want somebody to take careful care of the budget, spend wisely, do not waste money or grow government (socially OR fiscally) so that it runs our lives, and again, allows its citizens to live and let live.

I do not believe the November election reflected the true voting sensibilities of the people of this state – ESPECIALLY on fiscal matters. And that was the point of this article – the vote on 4 had nothing to do with Mainers wanting or not wanting fiscal conservatism… it was a statement that they don’t like arbitrary math to decide what our priorities are. Simple as that.

- 19 November 2009 at 11:13 PM

Steve Robinson said:

Matt,

This post comes a bit late, but I believe some events on the State’s college campuses could explain the abysmall failure of TABOR. At Bowdoin College the Brunswick town clerk came to the Student Union for an early vote day. The turn out was incredible and lines stretched clear out the door. Most of the enthusiasm was centered around question 1, but operatives in the college democrats made sure to “help” the students make “informed” votes with regard to questions 2 and 4. They strolled the lines telling students “No on 1, 2, and 4.”

Thats it. No explanantion as to the matter at hand. It was Machine style, corral voting, and a serious violation of election law. Not only were voters being influenced in the immediate vicinity of the polling station, No on 1 campaign material was clearly visible within feet of the booths.

The Brunswick town clerk was clearly derilict in her duty. She might as well have filled the ballots out for them!

I would expect a similar process took place at all campuses.

- 7 January 2010 at 2:10 PM

Gayle Finkbeiner said:

There is a political and economic fact that is working against limitation on taxing and spending in Maine: A large part of the so-called “middle-class” (by income) voters in the state now work for the government or are paid with federal,state, and local tax money. There is now an army of municipal, state, non-profit, and vendor employees which is directly dependent on government tax money as much as any welfare mom. The MMA, KVCOG, and the MEA make sure they know what’s at stake and they vote accordingly. Cutting back or even limiting the size of government means cutting these middle-class jobs. They know there is no where else for them to go if they lose them. With no private economy there is no alternative.In that respect ME has become like New York City and California.

- 16 January 2010 at 7:15 PM