She has zero knowledge about running a private business and has relied on the public purse for her career.

Wouldn't you rather have someone who knows the trials and tribulations of running a small business, providing paychecks to local families for their livelihood, and most important, knows the realities of raising children and grand children?

At least Stephanie Hawke has those experiences and is a thoroughly local resident.

Running a nonprofit business is still running a business, it simply means you have different regulations to follow. And if Holly isn't "thoroughly local" then no one is - how many great grandparents have to have lived here and how many local schools must you attend before you are considered local? And never have I heard anyone suggest that a life of public service is somehow disqualifying for public office. If relying on the "public purse" is a deal breaker, then there will be no room for ex military, either. The real issue is this: we have two strong, talented women running for office - it's a good problem to have, all things considered. The only difference between them is that they have very different views on the policies that will best serve this community. Suggesting otherwise is pure partisanship and that is something we don't need. May the best woman win.

What are the policy differences?

I do agree we are fortunate to have excellent folks running for public office. However, its the private sector that is the bedrock of our economy, and having elected leaders from the private sector ensures that reality is represented in government. BTW: most military folks leave service to enter into the private sector.
Holly decided she liked being a taxpayer dependent. Fine. But that makes her blind to the realities of our economic realities.

Since we have had a public-private government in this state since the seventies, how can one say there is a big difference between the public and the private sector ?

Also, my father is retired Navy with 27 years in uniform and went on to serve another 25 working for the Federal government in D.C. It's one anecdote, for certain, but you find many such folks in D.C. for what it's worth.

I spent time with DIA from 68-74; so been there, done that.

Or you could say that someone who has actually worked in the public sector is in a much better position to make decisions on how to fund and sustain public institutions and to fully understand the downstream consequences of policy and funding changes. I would not want the legislature to be all of one thing or another, whether that is all one gender, all one religion, all one race, or all one kind of economic background. The voters will ultimately decide, but this should not be part of the test. Both women are hard-working and care deeply about the people they serve. Voters should consider their policy positions and vote for the candidate who most reflects their values. How these women have earned a living - honestly and with dedication - should speak entirely to their character, not whether they are more or less qualified as a result.

What are the policy differences in your view?

Stephanie voted twice to block Medicaid expansion that would ensure 60,000+ additional Mainers would have access to healthcare. That's one difference.

Because the legislators did not appropriate any monies for this expansion.

Is Medicaid Expansion in conjunction with Maine Care, which collects on the estate of the user? Over time Maine Care will extract all property ownership from the bottom of the economy.

The power to tax is the power to destroy; as many have pointed out throughout our history as a nation. Those saturated in the culture of government pay and support have little experience nor sensitivity to where all that money comes from; and willy nilly think raising taxes is of no consequence.
Congress in its "wisdom" slapped a 10% tax on luxury item of yachts and airplanes; thus killing off over 6t50,000 jobs in those industries within 5 year span of time. Most of those congressional miscreants had zero knowledge of economics nor business..

Our public private government uses its public side to procure public money to finance privately owned industry, justified as job creation.It is taxation hidden in combined refundable tax credits and tax exemptions.

Since 2017, Maine taxpayers will now be financing jobs created anywhere in the world thanks to the enactment of Lepage's Major Business Headquarters Expansions Program. It is hidden between refundable tax credits and Pine Tree Zone styled exemptions that the 2% tax credit on a global or national busiensses "unitary" business investments is really a tax on the Mane people of 2% of the global or national businesses total capital investments.

It has been studied and reported for many years that the Maine taxpayers lose on the Pine Tree Zone Tax exemptions. The only ones that benefit are a few who get the "quality jobs" and the private owners of industry which are receiving a lot of free capital from Maine taxpayers, free meaning no profit sharing or interest attached to it.

When are we going to hear voices from our political sector advocating for the repeal of Pine Tree Zone exemptions - and all similar exemptions. A one huundred percent tax exemption on investments in Maine small businesses is still not repealed from the Maine Capital Corporation although the Maine Capital Corporation has long been repealed.

To complement that, there need to be revisions of the socialist programs for the bottom, which oppress the bottom of the economy from rising to a higher economic status.

If the exploitative tax exemptions for the top were repealed, the refundable tax credits would not be so easily transformed into a reversible tax in which instead of the corporation owing taxes to the public,the public is being taxed by corporations with a lot of help from Maine's public-private government.

If opportunities were encouraged at the bottom and exploitation discouraged at the top, the result might be a resuregent growth of the middle class. The middle is the most accessible opportunity zone for the botom. When policies are in place which oppress opportunities at the bottom, of course general welfare increases, but if the middle class were to have a resurgence, one can expect welfare rolls to decrease, especially if the agressive growth of corporate welfare were also restrained.

Tis the private sector that takes the risks and generates the taxes needed to keep government running. Way different psychology and culture. Civil serpents are guaranteed jobs for life. Which is why when you call up a state government agency, no one answers the phones.

You have that backward. Take a look at the Seed Capital Tax credit- called by the Legislature the "Expanded and Improved Seed Capital Tax Credit" when it was renewed a few years ago. It was expanded and improved for the private capitalists who are the receiving end of the taxpayer burden. The credit is written in one act and the tax exemptions in another such as the Pine Tree Zone exemptions studied and reported to be a loser for the taxpayers for many years now.

As Lepage was creating what amounts to new Pine Tree Zone exemptions for global capitalists, the OPEGA Report on the Pine Tree Zone for 2017 has a notice in large letters on the top of it which says "–Program Design Does Not Support Intended Goals; Whether Program Is Achieving Results Despite Design Is Unknown As Adequate Data Is Not Readily Available to Assess Outcomes" . This lack of government transparency has been reported for years, The media refers to the tax credit in the Seed Capital Tax Credit and Lepage's new Major Business Headquarters Expansions Program as mere "tax credits" but they are both "refundable tax credits" meaning if the holder owes no taxes, the public owes the holder the amount of the credit, Refundable Tax Credits would better be named a reversible tax credit because they reverse the roles of who owes whom a tax. Refundable Tax Credits allow corporations to tax the public and now we will be taxed 2% on the total business investments anywhere in the world of corporations in the Major Business Headquarters Expansions Program. The statute explicitly uses the word "unitary" which has a specific legal meaning that it is not restricted by state and global borders.

These tax credits are available only to the Legislature's "targeted sector", not to the whole of the economy. These programs distribute free capital to the upper crust of the economy under the rubric of "job creation". This is requiring the workers, and all taxpayers NOT in the targeted sector to capitalize on privately owned businesses in exchange for creating jobs which the private business needs to be filled in order to make a profit. The state even pays for their job training, A few years back, a bill referred to in the media as "Jobs for Me", was pulling the wool over the public's eyes. Only 25% of the funding in that bill went to job training, which was barely needed because, through refundable tax credits, the public was already covering the costs of targeted sector job training.

Private entrepreneurs not included in the public-private government's targeted sector take risks, but the risk-taking is removed from the State's targeted sector programs and passed on as a burden on the general public. It's outrageous. and has been since the public-private government was created in the 1970's. From what is reported on Bill Search, there was no opposition to the new Major Business Headquarters Expansions Program. That is why it is important to bring these issues up in respect to the candidates. I haven't found any coverage in the media on Major Business Headquarters Expansions Program. Maybe it exists but I have not found it.

Very few businesses use government seed monies. Mostly used by marginal businesses that have been turned down by banks for good reasons. Most folks who rely on government financing are dead beats to begin with.

When the centralized economy was first entrenched in the 70's the idea was that Maine was a state in which the fastest growing part of the economy were businesses employing 100 or less and that sector exceeded the growth in the rest of the nation. The problem was that businesses of smaller sizes have much greater difficulty finding capial than larger businesses, and so the state would step in to find ways to capitalize small businesses.

In the Major Business Headquarters Expansions Program enacted in Decenber of 2017, the intent is to lure global or national corporations to Maine- businesses employing 1500 or more, The businesses are required to have locations in three other states or countries . The refundable tax credits are worth 2% of their "unitary" business investments. These are not the kinds of businesses which have problems getting capital which small businesses have, I don't think they are being turned down by banks.

This act is for military redevelopment zones such as MRRA. Go to MRRA's website and you will see that it brags that it has exceeded the growth of other military redevelopment zones across the nation. The entire town is a Pine Tree Zone.

You can also read "Investors Drain Maine Seed Capital Tax Credit with three and half months yet to go in 2017", published by Maine StartUp Insider, which verifies the level of existing and expanding corporate welfare in Maine. The artical is written to advocate raising the cap on the Seed Capital Tax Credit, yet again. The percentage of this refundable tax credit started at 30% in the eighties but by 2011 it was inceased to 60% of the capital investment made. These credits never decrease, they only go up, both in the percentage and the cap.

Whoever we elect to represent us will likely be casting a vote on raising the cap again. Hopefully not on raising the percentage again. Can it go any higher? Next notch 80%?

Sorry for the length of this response but I am researching this as I write. You can see the 2018 advocacy for expanding the cap of the Seed Capital Tax Credit by searching 'What’s next for the Maine Seed Capital Tax Credit Program?" published by the Maine Venture Fund. When the Seed Capital Tax Credit was renewed in 2013, the Fiscal Note for the bill stated how much would be taken from Municipal Revenue Sharing to finance the Seed Capital Tax Credit for the years 2014-2015. It has to come from somewhere- it is the taxpayers money!

I do appreciate your scholarship. It shows diligence on your part.
However, the idea of taxpayers funding a private business at the expense of other businesses is a very flawed concept. Letting Government pick and choose who will be allowed to operate as a profit making business at taxpayers' expense is a gross perversion of market economics.
I laughed at your allusion to the Brunswick NAS redevelopment as an example. By having the area under the thumb of government, it has been a failure. Better to have just sold the area off to private interests and be done with it. by now it would be a thriving community.

I was not saying it is a success, especially since along with the New Gloabl Business Headuarters Bill ,which was passed in 2017, many changes were made to tax privacy laws which I have not yet read. In conjunction with that OPEGA gave up on doing a report on the Pine Tree Zone because there is not enough available data, which is impacted by tax privacy laws.

So MRRA can publish anything it wants on its website, There is no real way to check it. Sure if you are giving away free capital using public money, the base will grow. The only good news is that if Maine is one of the fastest growing military redevelopment zones, it means that other states are not employing such exploitative practices on the publc our government is supposed to serve.

OPEGA's rational for not bothering with a report is that the Pine Tree Zone is in its sunset years. When that happens it will probably be renewed with full midia support as was the Seed Capital Tax Credits, which was covered by the media exclusively from the perspective of businesses on the receiving end of the tax credit.

The Major Business Headquarters Expansions Program is Pine Tree Zone styled legislation so when the Pine Tree Zone is phased out, a bigger meaner Pine Tree Zone is already in place.

On the other hand all of these programs are in competition for public funding so maybe the Pine Tree Zones for smaller businesses will give way to the Pine Tree Zone for global corporations. The corporate state never grows small it always grows bigger. Enough is never enough!

I call the MRRA an occupied territory zone. It does not operate by the rule sof the free enterprise system, which is the only system consistent with the US and Maine Constitutions It is sad that these bases used to defend the American way against totalitarian regimes are now used to grow a totalitarian government- which is consistent with a centrally managed economy.

If a person can not make it on their own in the private sector, then go to work for the government. If a business can not succeed in the private sector on its own, don't rely on taxpayers to succeed. Basically for a company to belly up to the public trough for its survival means its really a dead beat company that probably deserves to go out of business.

I find it quite telling that you spent your professional career in public/city/state government, yet you label people working in that sector as not being able to make it in their own businesses. I'm not impressed.

Two items: 1. Market economics really works wonders. Perverting it by having government pick and choose who will get to compete destroys what makes market economics works.

2. Yes, I have had decades of experience working in government so know the system very well. at all levels of government including the military, a presidential appointment from Gerald Ford, and working hand in hand with large scale developments including resorts, infrastructure projects, and housing.

Virtually all projects that have relied on government funding to get into business have been failures; political payoffs; or marginal value to the communities that had to suffer from this waste of taxpayers' monies.

I think you are over-simplifying. A government by public-private relationships is an oligarchy, which creates unfair advantages for itself over the private sector. There is the FAME corporation, which concentrates and redistributes wealth and like all of the corporations chartered by the Maine Legislature has a provision which says it can accept money from any source. I am not intending to make any claims when I say this, but given that the statutory wording is "any source" without restrictions, it could be taken as an open invitation to money launderers at worst and as pay to play at best. The public-private government can hide so much of its activities in tax privacy laws that the public cannot know what is actually transpiring. The public-private government can offer deals with which the private sector cannot compete. It is essentially giving away free capital. The private sector cannot do that. The public-private government was originally enabled with rhetoric about the small business sector having an unfair disadvantage to large businesses in acquiring capital. With the new Business Headquarters Bill, the public-private government is blatantly helping the largest businesses dominate over smaller businesses. LePage called it a "transformational" act. It is transformational in the sense of replacing the free enterprise small business economy, which was used to enable the public-private state, with a global corporate economy and government.