Why I Support Troy Jackson

 

I was interviewed by Mario Moretto for his article in The Bangor Daily News, “Democratic congressional primary pits a progressive dealmaker against a blue-collar firebrand”  That article does not accurately or fairly represent my reasons for supporting Troy Jackson for US Congressional District 2.   The article says nothing about one of the most important reasons I support Jackson which I emphasized in my interview, my concern about compromise and the influence of money in politics.  I support Jackson not because he is “looking for a fight” as the article says, but because he is one who will not back away from a fight when the interests of workers, the poor, and the middle class are at stake.   He will not make deals with corporate interests that compromise away core values.  In Jackson’s own words, “I’m running for congress because of income inequality, poverty, unfairness, corporate greed, and political cowardice . . . [and] when the privileged elite try to keep me quiet with their checkbooks and their political machines, I sure as hell won’t back down.” 

There are many other good reasons to support Jackson.  Before you vote in the primary, listen to his speech at http://www.troyjacksonforcongress.com/video/troy-jacksons-speech-maine-democratic-party-convention.  I share many values in common with Jackson’s opponent in the primary, but she is a compromiser in values I hold dear, and I haven’t heard anything from her that assures me she understands and will protect the interests of the poor, the working class, and rural Maine as vigorously and passionately as Jackson has demonstrated he will.  

Published in Aroostook County newspapers June 4,2014

 



Money in Northern Maine Politics

How does money in politics affect the economic and social well-being of Northern Maine?  And by “Northern Maine,” I don’t mean Bangor.  I mean the vast areas of Aroostook County, Northern Penobscot, and Washington County.  There was already way too much money determining the outcome of elections when Supreme Court decisions dramatically compounded the influence of corporate greed in political decisions that vitally affect us.   The Citizens United decision defined a corporation as a person and money as speech; it struck down regulations that limited the amount of money they could spend on political campaigns.   The McCutcheon vs. FEC decision eliminated caps on how much people can give in total to federal candidates and party committees.  That means that our individual voices in Northern Maine are being drowned out by voices of greed coming from elsewhere.

We in Northern Maine have always had to struggle to have our voices heard in Augusta—let alone in Washington—where money and profit rule.  Giant corporations from outside Northern Maine have gradually taken over our farms, retail outlets, forestry industries, and government.  They were already controlling our lives, silencing our voices, and shipping out their profits to other areas.  They have not improved our economy.  We are rural, sparsely populated, and struggling to survive economically and to maintain what is left of our pristine environment and our quality of life which in so many ways should be a role model for Augusta, Southern Maine, and the rest of the nation, not a way station to be ignored.   

We have increasing numbers of organic farmers here who need and deserve public support in Augusta.  They show the way to improving our citizens’ health which corporate food producers have been undermining for many decades.  We still have forests, wild lands, and wild life that provide a quality of life necessary for personal happiness of local citizens, travelers, and tourists; these resources need protection from corporate greed that use up these resources for profit and leave our soils, waters, forests, and air polluted.  We still have some semblance of town hall government where diverse voices can be heard and respected.  This kind of government must be protected and strengthened to combat the power of money coming from outside interests and determining political decisions that affect our lives. 

Whether you are Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, Independent, or Other, arm yourself with information.  Do everything you can to find out how candidates are being funded. If you can’t find out from the media, ask the candidates and the party officials before you vote.  Ask them where their campaign funds are coming from. Ask them what kind of obligation they will owe from their funding.  Ask them if they will support campaign finance reform to restore the democratic principle of one person, one vote. 

The definition of a corporation as a person and money as speech is a travesty of justice.   We in rural Northern Maine have to speak even louder since that travesty, and our best megaphones are informed voices:  private speech one-to one in homes and neighborhoods, public speech in town halls and other public meetings, Letters to the Editor, and the vote.  The upcoming elections are an opportunity to make your voice heard, both in the primary elections in June, and in the general elections in November.   Think about what is best for Northern Maine and vote accordingly.   Don’t let our fate be determined by those who will use our resources for their own gain and take their profits elsewhere. 

MAINE VOICES ON THE ENVIRONMENT

from the Portland Press Herald, FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 2014:
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/Maine_Voices__Citizen_leaders_stand_up_to_protect_Maine_s_precious_natural_heritage_.html?pagenum=1 

"Alice Bolstridge, now of Presque Isle, was born in Portage Lake.

"She is a proud grandmother who has spent countless hours educating her friends and neighbors in Aroostook County about the environmental threats from Irving Corp.’s recent proposal to weaken Maine’s mining rules to go after gold, copper and other minerals at Bald Mountain, not far from her home.

Alice drove a total of 24 hours in the last year to testify at three public hearings in Augusta on this issue. She came to public forums, wrote letters to the editor and helped organize a presentation about mineral mining in her hometown. Alice is a force to be reckoned with and a champion for clean air, clean water and the health of future generations."

EARTH DAY 2014

To our Legislators,

I have concerns relevant to climate-change legislation that must be addressed in order to make substantial progress in reversing the damage already done to our climate.  The influence of money and corporate power in political decisions has hampered efforts to protect our environment for at least a century and led to the predicament we are in now with global warming and all other damages to the environment.  That influence has greatly increased with Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC.  Right here in Maine, the influence of Irving, Inc. is only one example of many political decisions being made in Augusta that favor the profit of corporations over the protection of the environment.   What is your position on these decisions and on the increasing income inequality that reduces the power of the people to take care of the earth, our home?

I am increasingly alarmed about the influence of climate-change deniers, and those who see big profits for corporations as the only means to improve the local economy and create jobs.  This is a short-sighted view which has only worked in the last hundred years to hinder progress in protecting the environment, to send profits outside of the local area, and to prevent the growth of green energy and of stable, sustainable economic opportunity for all local citizens.  Please prioritize protection of the environment over corporate profits. 

More on Mining in Maine

Published in The Star-Herald, 1-22-14

           MINING RULES NEED TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION

            Bravo to the organizers of the public meeting on Mining in Maine on January 9 in Ashland for bringing in geologists who directly addressed environmental risks and attempts to mitigate them.  And thanks also for encouraging unlimited questions and comments from the audience.  The presentations focused on the difference between “legacy mines” and modern mines; the former operating in the days when there was not sufficient scientific understanding about pollution, nor adequate regulations, and the latter operating with advanced knowledge and technology.

            Important questions posed by audience members did not get reassuring answers.  What about the possibility of leaks in liners supposed to contain the toxic elements?  Yes, there is potential for leaks.  In addition to liner flaws, flooding, earthquakes, or other natural disasters can cause the tailings ponds containing the toxins to fail.  Is there potential for harm in using bactericides to clean up the chemicals used in processing the metals?  Yes, just as there is in the use of pesticides.  Hydro-geologist Carol White explained, “Inherent in any of these studies is uncertainty . . . nobody can guarantee water quality in the future, the idea is to draw up the rules in a way that minimizes negative impacts.”  

            Asked to provide a specific example of a modern mine using the advanced technology, Geologist Robert Marvinney referred to the Flambeau mine in Wisconsin.  Another audience member googled “Flambeau Mine” on the spot and asked about the toxic materials from that mine that are polluting surrounding waters after closure in 1997.  Marvinney said that there is conflicting scientific opinion about the success of that mine in reducing risks and it depends on who you believe.   

            So should we believe the scientists who work for the mining industry (http://www.flambeaumine.com/) or the scientists used by a site like miningtruth.org that provides an overview of the technologies used and of the pollution problems that remain (http://www.miningtruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Flambeau-Mine-fact-sheet-Final-1.pdf)?  Nick Bennnet, a scientist for the Natural Resources Council of Maine explained to me some of the serious environmental risks the Board of Environmental Protection has passed in its new regulations that you can read below.*

            There are important advances being made in the scientific understanding of risks, and some technologies are being developed that might help mitigate the risks.  But there is not enough evidence to warrant the relaxation of environmental safeguards.  Instead, there is sound evidence that these rules increase the risks. 

            It’s true, there is plenty of uncertainty in all areas of our lives, but when we can choose to reduce the uncertainty by writing more rather than less rigorous protections, it is socially irresponsible to increase the negative impacts and the uncertainty as these regulations do.   We need to err on the side of caution and remain vigilant about the motives of those who seek economic profit without serious regard for the health and safety of the environment, humans, and wildlife.  I look forward to further educational meetings promised by organizers and hope they will bring in alternative scientific viewpoints about current success in managing the risks.  

*Nick Bennet, scientist for the Natural Resources Council of Maine lists some of the most serious problems of the new mining regulations passed by the Department of Environmental Protection:

1.      They allow perpetual treatment for wet mine waste units as long as the applicant defines the time frame (i.e., 1000 years is okay) and DEP determines that wet mine waste units are the most practicable way of dealing with mining waste.  The thing is, DEP put in sections about wet mine waste units because they think they are the most practicable technology for mines in Maine, so it’s clear that any mining applicant will get the okay to use them.  This is a just a poorly disguised way of allowing perpetual treatment.

2.      Many Land for Maine’s Future and other public lands are not excluded from mining or protected by any buffer for surface mines.  Thus, mines – both underground and surface – are allowed on many Land for Maine’s future lands depending on who owns the mineral rights.  TNC and AMC have said they will work on a map of what lands this actually means.

3.      They don’t require full payment of financial assurance prior start of mining.

4.      They don’t have a clear definition of mining area, which means mining companies can likely pollute large areas of groundwater. 

He adds:

            “Every mine needs maintenance forever, especially mines that have tailings dams, which break if you don’t keep them up and that’s an environmental disaster.  Mines without tailings dams need maintenance of caps, also potentially the scooping out of wetlands that may get filled with sediment, etc.  But mines that require active wastewater treatment in perpetuity are a special problem that we have been fighting against as hard as possible.  That’s because if you need active treatment after the mine is done operating, it means you have particularly reactive waste or you have done a poor job of putting the waste to bed in a sound way.  Active treatment also often fails when the power goes out, when the weather is very cold, or if there is no one around to pay the monthly electric bills, add chemicals and do maintenance.  And active treatment is really expensive!
            “While the trust fund will be ‘fully funded’ under the definition of ‘fully funded in the rules, that definition stinks.  There is an incredibly complicated calculation the needs to be done at the start of each year figuring out how much money it would cost to clean up the mine a year from that point (this is actually from the existing rules).  My definition of fully funded is: you do an estimate of how much it costs to completely remediate the mine under worst case conditions and put that money in a trust up front.  Very different.”

Maine Mining Regulations

October 17, 2013

To Maine Board of Environmental Protection

Subject:  Testimony, Mining Regulations

Chairman Jeff Crawford, members of the board, thank you for this opportunity to testify.  My name is Alice Bolstridge.  I was born and grew up in Portage Lake, Maine, not far from Bald Mountain.  I remember the debate of the 90s about the feasibility of an open pit mine at that site, and I remember the conclusion then that an open-pit mine there would be an environmental disaster. 

My memory is supported by files of the Department of Environmental Protection from that time which state that open pit mining of Bald Mountain would likely pollute rivers, lakes and streams with sulfuric acid runoff and arsenic pollution and would produce only 80-130 jobs at best, not the estimated 700 that JD Irving promises.

 I have heard an Irving spokesperson and other proponents of the proposed new mining rules claim that technical progress makes open-pit mining safe now.  I am not a scientist, but I am a good researcher.  I have been researching this issue for over a year and have not found evidence that supports those claims.

The DEP denies in a BDN article that they hid this information from lawmakers and the public, but they do not cite any evidence there that they provided the information, and they do not cite evidence that the claims about pollution or the economic consequences are untrue.  All evidence I trust indicates that we in Aroostook County will bear the environmental consequences of an open-pit mine at Bald Mountain and that all Maine taxpayers will bear the economic consequences of clean up long after the miners and the corporate profits have gone.  Indeed, we will be paying the costs for generations to come. 

The tobacco industry denied for generations that smoking is hazardous to human health, to preserve profits.  The football industry denies mounting evidence that concussion trauma causes permanent brain disease to football players, to preserve profits.  The fossil fuel industries still try to deny that carbon emissions cause global warming, to preserve profits.  If these proposed regulations are passed as written, the DEP and lawmakers who vote for them are in denial about the environmental hazards, for the hope of corporate profit. 

Please, look at all the evidence.  The proposed mining rules from DEP do not adequately protect water, air, or wildlife from mining pollution. nor do they protect Maine taxpayers from the cost of cleanup.  

If the claims about environmental safety made by the proponents of open-pit mining are really true, why do we need to weaken the environmental protections written in the rules of 1991? 

Alice Bolstridge

Medicaid Expansion to “Provide for the General Welfare.”

In The Star Herald, June 5, Representative Alexander Willette uses welfare pejoratively 6 times.  He calls it “irresponsible” and the cause of “hospital debt.”

But the United States Constitution has a very different view of welfare.  In the preamble, “promote the general welfare,” is used as one of 6 reasons for establishing the Constitution.  In Article 1, Section 8, “provide for . . . the general welfare” is listed as one use for Congress’s  “Power To lay and collect Taxes.”  Medicaid expansion is a good way to “promote and provide for the general welfare” for tens of thousands of working poor in Maine who won’t be able to pay their hospital bills without it.

It benefits hospitals, taxpayers, and job seekers as well.

Willette accuses Representative Robert Saucier and his Democratic friends of reneging on their promise to pay the debt and of playing party politics because they attached Medicaid expansion to the bill to pay the hospitals.  But there was a good reason to combine the two issues.  According to Matthew Stone in the Bangor Daily News April 2, 2013, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis “projects Maine’s hospitals would see $348 million more in payments from Medicaid over the next decade if the state expanded the program. Hospitals also would have to provide less care for which they aren’t paid.”  Both the Maine Hospital Association and the Maine Medical Association support Medicaid expansion. 

I can’t agree with Willette’s assertion that past welfare expansions “caused the hospital debt.”  Providing health care to those who can’t afford it may have contributed to unpaid  hospital bills, but it was the Maine state government’s inability or refusal to pay that caused the debt.   

Willette’s accusation that Saucier, in supporting Medicaid expansion, broke his promise to bring jobs to Aroostook County is contradicted by a statement of Gordon Smith from the Maine Medical Association:  “A Medicaid expansion could support the creation of about 2,000 health care jobs” (Matthew Stone. BDN.  March 5, 2013).  To create the most jobs, Maine needs to pay the hospital debt and expand Medicaid. 

Willette’s attack on Saucier is unreasonable and unjust. 

Shorter version published  June 10,   Bangor Daily News.