Latest news with #Faulkingham
New York Post
01-05-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Seniors could get a tax break in this state — at younger people's expense
Maine Republicans are pursuing a bill that would eliminate property taxes for longtime senior residents. The move could bring financial relief to retirees—but it also raises serious questions about who will cover the cost. The Pine Tree State ranks 17th in the nation for effective property tax rates, according to the Tax Foundation. It's a middling position on paper that can hit especially hard for seniors on fixed incomes. 'We have an aging population, and a lot of people on lower income in that age range, and it's just an incredibly unfair burden to put on them,' House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) told WGME. But property taxes are the lifeblood of local government, and if seniors are removed from the tax rolls entirely, younger Mainers could be left footing the bill. 6 Maine Republicans are pursuing a bill that would eliminate property taxes for longtime senior residents, which could bring relief for those with fixed incomes. Getty Images What's in the proposal? LD 1541 would eliminate property taxes for Maine residents aged 65 and older who have lived in the state for 10 or more consecutive years. The state government would then be responsible for reimbursing local governments for the lost revenue. It's just one of several proposals across the country this year to abolish property taxes, which are pinching homeowners of all ages as home values remain elevated and push up tax bills, but it's unique in its focus on seniors. 6 The proposal would eliminate property taxes for Maine residents aged 65 and older who have lived in the state for 10 or more consecutive years. Universal Images Group via Getty Images For context, the median home in Maine cost just $249,000 in January 2020. Today, it's nearly doubled, to $462,500. That's pushed the state's median annual property tax bill to $4,223, according to data. For younger homeowners, that jump in equity can be a financial asset. But for retirees, the resulting spike in property taxes can become a serious burden. The Pine Tree State isn't alone in this. Nationally, tax burdens are driving older Americans to leave high-tax states in search of more affordable places to age in place. Maine's proposal could help stop that outmigration by allowing longtime residents to stay in their homes. But the bill's financial impact on the rest of the state remains a major question mark. 6 While the plan could help keep longtime residents in Maine, it raises concerns over who will cover the costs. Getty Images/iStockphoto LD 1541 does not yet include a fiscal note—an official estimate of what it would cost—and Faulkingham has acknowledged that he doesn't yet have a firm projection. Still, past efforts and Maine's demographics suggest the cost could be staggering. A similar, doomed program This isn't the first time Maine has tried to provide property tax relief to seniors in the state. A 2022 program froze qualifying seniors' property tax bills so they wouldn't increase year to year as home prices also rose. 6 A 2022 program froze qualifying seniors' property tax bills so they wouldn't increase year to year as home prices also rose, and was later repealed 11 months after enactment due to its cost. Getty Images/iStockphoto That initiative cost the state $26 million and was repealed just 11 months after enactment due to its cost. In addition to the price tag, critics of the freeze also pointed to loopholes that made it possible for well-off homeowners to apply the homestead exemption to their luxury homes. It's unclear if similar workarounds would be possible in LD 1541. Keep in mind, the 2020 initiative simply froze effective rates—meaning that seniors were still responsible for paying some property taxes. The new proposal would eliminate them entirely, threatening a shortfall that could have severe consequences for the rest of the state. 6 The new proposal would eliminate property taxes for seniors entirely, impacting the rest of the state. The Washington Post via Getty Images Who will pay the difference? Part of the difficulty in Maine might be related to the simple fact that it's home to so many seniors. When measured by median age, Maine is the oldest state in the nation, and nearly a quarter of its population is over the age of 65, according to a 2024 report by the State Economist of Maine. Nationally, nearly 80% of seniors are homeowners and boomers (those aged between 61 and 79) hold $84 trillion in real estate wealth. Assuming Maine seniors mirror these trends, local governments could lose a substantial portion of their revenue. 6 According to the State Economist of Maine in 2024, it is the oldest state in the nation, with nearly 25% of its population being over the age of 65. The Washington Post via Getty Images And if the state can't fully cover the shortfall, homeowners under the age of 65 might be left picking up the tab, shouldering higher property taxes in a housing market that's already unaffordable for many. An uncomfortable trade-off Proponents of LD 1541 see it as a lifeline for Maine's aging population—one that could help longtime residents stay in their homes despite rising costs. But with no fiscal analysis and few guardrails in place, others worry the proposal could shift the financial burden onto younger generations—especially in a state where nearly one in four residents is over 65. Without clarity on how the state would reimburse municipalities or offset the potential cost of this proposal, it's not just a question of whether Maine can afford to help seniors; it's a question of whether doing so might come at the expense of younger Mainers. As the bill moves forward, the challenge for lawmakers will be finding a way to support aging Mainers without undermining the financial future of the state they hope to keep calling home.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republican lawmakers want to repeal Maine's 72-hour waiting period on firearms purchases
Apr. 16—AUGUSTA — Gun rights supporters urged Maine lawmakers Wednesday to roll back some of the safety measures put in place last year in the wake of the Lewiston mass shooting. House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham, R-Winter Harbor, has submitted one of two bills to repeal the 72-hour waiting period on firearm sales. Rep. Jennifer Poirier, R-Skowhegan, has proposed eliminating mandatory background checks for private sales. The waiting period and a law expanding background check requirements to include private, advertised sales were passed by the previous Legislature after a gunman killed 18 people in October 2023. Faulkingham said Wednesday the waiting period law was the result of government overreach. "This requirement may have been well-intentioned, but ultimately it is unnecessary, burdensome and of questionable constitutionality," Faulkingham said. Gun rights advocates also sued the state in November to overturn the waiting period law. The outcome of the lawsuit is pending, but a federal judge ruled in February to pause implementation of the law while the case works its way through the court system. Faulkingham pointed to Chief U.S. District Judge Lance Walker's injunction, which has been continued pending a decision by a federal appeals court, in making his case for LD 208 to members of the Judiciary Committee Wednesday. "This is a strong signal the courts believe this law will ultimately be found unconstitutional and if that is the case, it makes little sense for us to keep it on the books," Faulkingham said. Gun safety advocates, however, have said that 72-hour waiting periods are useful in preventing suicides by giving people a "cooling off" period before they're able to access a gun — an argument that resurfaced during Wednesday's public hearing. "It allows ... time for the suicidal person to have second thoughts and to change their mind before acting," said David Moltz, a physician and psychiatrist who testified on behalf of the Maine Association of Psychiatric Physicians. "They still get to have their gun; they just have to wait a few days to get it. But those few days may mean the difference between life and death." Lawmakers only narrowly passed the 72-hour waiting period last year, with the House of Representatives voting 73-70 and the Senate voting 18-17. Gov. Janet Mills allowed the bill to become law without her signature, saying at the time that she was deeply conflicted over the bill and that similar laws were being challenged in other states, including Vermont. The Vermont lawsuit still has not been resolved. Rep. Quentin Chapman, R-Auburn, has proposed a second bill, LD 1230, identical to Faulkingham's, that would also eliminate the waiting period. Both bills have several Republican co-sponsors. Supporters of gun rights argued Wednesday that the new law, which was in effect for a few months before being paused by the court, hurt business at gun shops and has made it harder for people to be able to defend themselves. Andee Reardon, a Maine representative of the group Women for Gun Rights, told the committee that she lives just minutes away from where the Lewiston shooting took place and that she was overwhelmed hearing from women who felt unsafe in the aftermath as it took police two days to locate the shooter. "For those people, that 72-hour wait period is much too long," Reardon said. "If we have another tragedy in our state people are going to want to arm themselves, because the police are busy." Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, which pushed for the reforms last year, testified against both 72-hour bills as well as a proposal from Rep. Jennifer Poirier, R-Skowhegan, to eliminate requirements for background checks on private gun sales. "These policies are two of the most basic tools in our toolbox to reduce crime and save lives," Palmer said. IMPROVING STORAGE Lawmakers also heard proposals Wednesday for improving the safe storage of firearms. LD 1120 would strengthen the criminal penalties associated with negligent storage of firearms and would require dealers to post public notices in areas where sales occur warning of the risks associated with having firearms at home. Another pair of bills, LD 1174 and LD 1104, would facilitate firearms hold agreements through which people could temporarily store their firearms with a gun shop. Rep. Vicki Doudera, D-Camden, the sponsor of LD 1104, said such arrangements would be useful in a variety of scenarios, including during the sale of a home, when children are visiting or during a tumultuous time such as a divorce. Doudera suggested the committee could combine her bill with LD 1174, from Rep. Stephen Wood, R-Greene, because she said the language in Greene's bill is stronger. She suggested also expanding Greene's bill, which would only provide the option for firearms owners who are veterans or emergency responders. Greene said gun shops are currently not allowed to offer such a service. He said it would be a valuable tool for helping people who are more likely to experience a mental health crisis, but expressed concerns about opening up hold agreements for broader groups of people, saying it could overwhelm firearms dealers with needs for storage. "If it's just military and first responders, it would be fewer people and they could make the room for them," Greene said. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bipartisan lawmakers, Wabanaki leaders propose next change to Settlement Act
Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana testifies in support of prohibiting eminent domain on tribal lands before the Judiciary Committee on April 4. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) A bipartisan group of lawmakers presented legislation on Friday to prevent the state from being able to seize Wabanki land for public use without consultation. For the past several Legislative sessions, leaders of the Wabanaki Nations have worked with lawmakers to try to overhaul the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act that has resulted in the tribes being treated more akin to municipalities than sovereign nations. So far, sweeping change has failed due to opposition from Gov. Janet Mills, but the executive, lawmakers and Wabanaki leaders have successfully made some targeted adjustments, including expanding tribal authority to prosecute crimes last year. LD 958 represents the next area of focus, although an omnibus bill is still expected to be considered during the second regular session of the Legislature next year. Sponsored by House Minority leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) and bipartisan co-sponsors, LD 958 would amend the Settlement Act and the 2023 Mi'kmaq Nation Restoration Act — as the Mi'kmaq Nation hadn't been included in the earlier act — to prohibit eminent domain, a protection already afforded to almost all other federally recognized tribes. 'Much of our land contains irreplaceable cultural, spiritual and ecological resources,' said Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana, a co-sponsor of the bill who sits on the Judiciary Committee. 'This bill ensures those places are safeguarded and are not subject to destruction or appropriation. Too often in our history, our tribal lands have been taken, divided and exploited under the guise of progress.' The U.S. government can seize private property for public use, known as eminent domain, however that authority is restricted by the Fifth Amendment U.S. Constitution, which requires just compensation for land taken, as well as some federal laws. Rep. Rachel Henderson (R-Rumford), a co-sponsor who sits on the Judiciary Committee, questioned whether the bill is in conflict with the Constitution. It is not, Faulkingham, tribal leaders and attorneys explained, because the Constitution outlines when eminent domain can be exercised but not that it can't be further restricted. 'There's nothing in the Fifth Amendment that prohibits a state from enacting laws that says we won't do that,' Faulkingham said. LD 958 applies to land protected under federal law — trust and reservation land — but fee lands — private property for which the owner owns the title — would still be subject to state power of eminent domain. A constitutional amendment allows states to condemn individually owned plots within tribal reservations. Maine has seized Wabanaki land from the start of their intertwined histories, as the state territory today had first been inhabited by the Wabanaki people. One example of eminent domain those who testified in favor of the bill cited occurred in 1925, when Maine took land from the Passamaquoddy Tribe's Reservation at Sipayik to build Route 190 without tribal input. In 1912, the state helped a paper company pursue building a dam in Grand Falls, which flooded 6,000 acres of Passamoody land and harmed native fish, said William Nicholas, chief of the Passamoquoddy Tribe at Indian Township. 'When we talk about the Constitution of the United States and how it affects all of us, the Passamoquoddy Tribe is still waiting for our compensation for 113 years,' Nichols said, referring to the impact of the dam. Since the 1980 Act, Nichols said he views the state's efforts to build an offshore wind port as an example of attempted eminent domain. Though the effort has been effectively put on hold, Nichols criticized the state for not consulting the tribes when pursuing a 'possible invasion of our ancestral waters.' Maulian Bryant, executive director of the Wabanaki Alliance, a nonprofit created in 2020 to advocate for the recognition of the Wabanaki Nations' inherent sovereignty, said the bill encourages collaboration, not conflict. 'If a project can truly benefit the public, the State and the Tribes, the state should work with tribal leaders to find a solution,' Bryant said. 'This legislation is a protective measure to guarantee consultation and mutual agreement before any action is taken on tribal lands.' There is one component of the bill Wabanki leaders are advocating to amend. The bill stipulates how the money received for seized land has to be reinvested and how the Tribes can reacquire land with such proceeds, which Passamaquoddy attorney Corey Hinton criticized as a paternalistic process. 'It puts an unnecessary restriction on a federal process,' Hinton said. Tribal attorneys will be presenting proposed changes to the committee before the work session on Wednesday. The change will likely be to strike the language and simply point to the federal takings process. Prohibiting eminent domain has unique bipartisan support, as some of the Republican co-sponsors of the bill previously voted against omnibus sovereignty legislation and piecemeal changes considered in past sessions. Faulkingham described the bill as consistent with his political ideology, describing it as a measure to protect private property rights. 'I don't believe in the process of eminent domain against anybody, anywhere,' Faulkingham said. Other co-sponsors include Republican Sen. Marianne Moore of Washington, Democratic Rep. James Dill of Old Town and Republican Reps. Jennifer Poirier of Skowhegan, Katrina Smith of Palermo, Elizabeth Caruso of Caratunk and Arthur Kevin Mingo of Calais. Other piecemeal changes to the Settlement Act so far include establishing a formal Tribal-State collaboration process for policy making, allowed the Tribes to generate sales tax revenue from sales on their own lands — except for the Mi'kmaq Nation, though lawmakers are hoping to expand that ability to them with a bill this session — and permitting the Tribes to handle sports betting. Another bill this session supported by Wabanaki leaders would allow the Tribes to expand gambling options through internet gaming, with 16% of revenue generated going back to the state to fund services such as substance use disorder and gambling addiction programs. But casinos in Maine are opposed, arguing such a change would allow the Wabanaki Nations to monopolize the industry. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine House censures lawmaker for post about transgender student
The Maine State House in Augusta lit up at night during the 2024 legislative session. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) The Maine House of Representatives voted to censure Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) for posting on her legislative Facebook page photographs and personal details about a transgender high school athlete. Days after the post, President Donald Trump threatened to withhold funding from Maine for not complying with his executive order seeking to ban transgender women from competing in sports that correspond with their gender identity. In her post, Libby referred to a policy of the Maine Principals' Association that continues to allow such participation in scholastic sports in accordance with the Maine Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, among other protected classes. After the 75-70 vote Tuesday night to censure — an official statement of condemnation by the Legislature — Libby declined to submit an apology to the body, meaning she is in violation of the House rules and therefore unable to cast a vote or speak on the floor until she complies. 'I urge you, and indeed every member of this body, to recommit to keeping kids out of the political fray as has long been observed in both our state and federal politic,' Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau (D-Biddeford) said to Libby after the vote. 'Maine kids and all Maine people deserve better.' Fecteau explained on the floor that he reached out to Libby earlier this week to request she take down the post, which has since received national attention, but she refused. In a floor speech ahead of the vote, Libby began her remarks referencing other policy decisions, including criticizing how the Legislature and governor handled the COVID-19 pandemic and passage of a law expanding access to abortion later in pregnancy. The comments, however, drew several point of order objections as lawmakers asked Libby to keep her comments to the resolution at hand. Those objections bubbled to a chorus when the representative said, 'Boys participating in girls sports is not fair.' House Majority Leader Matt Moonen (D-Portland), who proposed the censure, pointed to the Legislature's code of ethics, which states that members are 'charged with civility and responsible conduct inside and outside of the State House' and 'entrusted with the security, safety, health, prosperity, respect and general well-being of those the legislator serves.' House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) argued the code of ethics does not refer to online or social media posts, and that Libby's post also didn't violate Facebook's community standards. 'This censure motion makes a mockery of the censure process,' Faulkingham said. 'It sets a standard that says that the majority party, when they're displeased with a social media post that upsets them, can censure a member of the minority party, and by a majority vote, censure them.' In a statement issued after the vote, Faulkingham also accused Democrats of using what he referred to as a 'sham' censure to distract from the supplemental budget proposal to address an imminent Medicaid funding shortfall that is currently still in limbo. 'Instead of solving pressing problems,' he wrote, 'they have attempted to divert public attention to a social media post.' Democrats characterized the moment differently. 'Recognizing the gravity of these harmful actions should not be a partisan issue,' Moonen said on the House floor. It arguably had not been before the censure motion, Moonen added, pointing to comments from Maine Republican Party Executive Director Jason Savage about Libby's actions. While Savage criticized the Maine Principals Association's decision in an interview with WGAN, he called for those sharing Libby's post to have 'a dose of humanity.' 'I think if you're a young person who is struggling with identity, I don't think we need to be putting you at the center of anything and making you a focal point for an entire state or nation,' Savage said. Trump administration launches investigation into Maine schools over transgender policy While some Republican representatives expressed their disapproval of Libby's actions, they stopped short Tuesday of taking official action to reprimand their colleague. 'I think my colleague's actions were cruel, callous and reprehensible,' said Rep. David Boyer (R-Poland). However, Boyer explained he'd be voting against censure. 'I have concerns about regulating members' conduct on social media,' he said. Rep. Jennifer Poirier (R-Skowhegan) said what legislators should be asking is whether Libby is being afforded freedom of speech. 'This youth's name and picture, similar to those used in her post, could be found easily with a simple Google search,' Poirier said. 'If Rep. Libby had posted the same picture, the same name with sentiments of congratulations, would we be here doing the censure right now? I think we know the answer to that.' Democratic lawmakers pushed back, describing the post as 'doxing,' or sharing personal identifying information about someone with malicious intent. Rep. Jan Dodge (D-Belfast) said the narrative Libby posted about the student took the post well beyond the act of publishing a photo of a minor online. 'I'd like to note that the representative from Auburn had the forethought to blur the faces of some of the student athletes in the social media post, but not this athlete,' Dodge said. Rep. Michael Lemelin (R-Chelsea) — who was censured last year for implying that the Legislature's passage of the bill expanding access to abortion later in pregnancy caused the Lewiston shooting by invoking God's wrath — pushed back on accusations of doxing because Libby has not said she intended to do harm. Lemelin then referred to the act of censuring Libby as 'a lynching.' Rep. Christina Mitchell (D-Cumberland), a teacher who represents the county where the student in the post resides, said parents have reached out to her to express their upset and concern. 'The representative from Auburn's actions have directly harmed the school, the families and our children in my community, and it's all happening because one person, an adult, a legislator, chose to use a child to score political points,' Mitchell said. Other Democrats echoed this sentiment in their remarks, arguing lawmakers should 'keep the kids out of it.' 'Before social media coarsened our civic discourse, it was pretty much universally accepted,' Rep. William Bridgeo (D-Augusta) said. 'Any effort to ignore or undermine that principle is unacceptable and it does need to be condemned.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine House casts party-line vote as Legislature remains deadlocked on budget
Feb. 25—The Maine House of Representatives voted along party lines Tuesday to advance a plan to close a state budget shortfall, lacking the necessary two-thirds support needed for the proposal to take effect immediately and avoid potential delays in payments to hospitals for care provided to MaineCare patients. House Republicans were unified in opposition to the proposal and sought to send the $121 million spending proposal back to the Legislature's budget-writing committee to try to reach a compromise. The committee previously endorsed the proposal in a unanimous vote of those present, but a Republican committee member who was absent at the time of the vote later rallied his party to oppose the deal. Democrats rejected the effort and called for a vote to pass the budget package as a bipartisan emergency measure so it could take effect immediately. But it only generated Democratic support and was unanimously opposed by Republicans, falling well short of the 101 votes needed to enact the budget as an emergency. Democrats then tabled the bill before coming back into session Tuesday evening and voting 75-68 to pass the measure with a narrow majority. It is expected to go to the Senate next week. If ultimately passed without the two-thirds support, the budget adjustments will not take effect until 90 after the Legislature adjourns. That would mean the proposal does not take effect until September, unless the Legislature adjourns ahead of schedule. Historically, the Legislature has passed compromise budgets with bipartisan support. But twice in recent years, the Democratic majority has adjourned early after passing budgets without Republican support. Republicans vowed to withhold support unless Democrats agree to cut the state's General Assistance program, which is a safety net program of last resort for people who can't afford basic needs, or to enact work requirements for MaineCare, the state's Medicaid program. House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham, R-Winter Harbor, said Republicans agree that providing funding for hospitals and approving funds to control a spruce budworm infestation in northern Maine are important objectives. But he said his party would not "sign a blank check without seeing some fiscal responsibility in the form of cost savings." "If that doesn't come in the form off General Assistance reform or work requirements, we are open to suggestions form the other side," Faulkingham said. "But we have yet to see any proposals that suggest a willingness to put cost savings into the budget." Democrats criticized Republicans for reneging on a deal negotiated and endorsed by the party's own members who were present for the budget committee's vote. Rep. Drew Gattine, D-Westbrook, said the proposal is a stripped-down version of Gov. Janet Mills' original version — which included GA reforms and a suspension of cost-of-living increases for direct care workers — that also includes several other Republican priorities. Both sides initially agreed to put off the debate on more contentious issues until the Legislature debates a new two-year budget in the coming weeks. The supplemental budget includes $118 million for the state's MaineCare program. The administration and Democrats warned that failure to pass with the required two-thirds support needed for it to take effect immediately means health care providers would see a delay or reduction in MaineCare reimbursements from the state, which could reduce access to care, especially in rural areas. "Real Mainers," Rep. Michele Meyers, D-Eliot, said, "frankly don't give a damn about our political squabbling. They care about their kids, their aged parents, their disabled parents, their foster child, their patients." Gattine said payments to MaineCare providers could be cut or suspended beginning in March. The supplemental budget received a unanimous endorsement from the Legislature's budget-writing committee, signaling smooth passage. But committee member Rep. Ken Fredette, R-Newport, missed the meeting and later tried to register a vote against the deal. Fredette's opposition prompted his Republican colleagues to withdraw their support and demand additional changes. Republicans offered a series of floor amendments, outlining their budget demands, but Democrats said those policy discussions should be taken up within the context of the next biennial budget. Senate Democrats signaled a willingness to add cost-of-living raises for direct care workers if the Republicans would support the budget, but it was clear the minority party wanted additional concessions. The budget faces an additional votes in both the House and Senate, before it can be sent to Mills, who has urged Republicans to back the spending plan. "I want to be clear: There is absolutely no need to obstruct a two-thirds passage of this bill," Mills previously said. "It will only hurt Maine people," she added. "Republicans would be wise to support passage of the supplemental budget now and ensure that Maine health care providers receive the payments they need in a timely way. Once the supplemental is done, I will join them in vigorously pushing for much-needed reforms to General Assistance — something that I agree needs to happen — during negotiations on the biennial budget." Copy the Story Link
