71 Comments

I’m all for helping families to be a family.

But……..

If women are no longer going to be able to protect themselves when they don’t want to be pregnant, (Roe Vs Wade) I cannot foresee enough money, in this program, to take care of all the “Families” that it will create as well as all the children that are going to be born.

It also may encourage young teenage girls to get pregnant, because we are creating a paying alternative to working.

Just looking at all possibilities, that all.

Expand full comment

ever hear of the words birth control or abstinence? Roe vs wade just shifted the laws from federal to state is all, it has had no effect at all on Maine women! That is just another Democrat talking point(or should we say lie?)

Expand full comment

Ever hear of the word rape?

IF Maine has NO WORRIES, as it is being suggested here, by Mr Campbell, why are we voting on it this November?

After we vote in November and pass it, ONLY THEN will he be right.

I would urge all that are reading this, to PLEASE read the following.....

On 51st Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Governor Mills Calls for Passage of Reproductive Rights Amendment to Maine Constitution

January 22, 2024

In testimony submitted to the Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, Governor Janet Mills today called for the passage of a Reproductive Rights Amendment that would enshrine the right to reproductive autonomy in the Maine Constitution.

The Governor’s testimony comes on the 51st anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision establishing a U.S. Constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. In 2022, the Court overturned Roe in a ruling Governor Mills called a “fundamental assault on women’s rights.”

Later this morning, the Standing Committee on Judiciary will hold a public hearing on LD 780 Resolution, Proposing An Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Maine To Protect Personal Reproductive Autonomy. If passed with two thirds support from the Maine Legislature, voters would be asked to ratify language making clear that personal reproductive autonomy is a constitutional right in Maine.

“In the year since Roe v. Wade was overturned, more than a dozen states have enacted extreme bans on abortion. As a result, in America today, nearly one-third of women no longer have access to abortion. While it is easy to believe that these attacks on reproductive rights only exist beyond our state’s borders, there have been bills in this 131st Legislature to restrict reproductive rights by forcing ultrasounds, by mandating biased counseling, by taking away insurance coverage for abortion for low-income people, and by restricting access to abortion for rural women. We turned back these attempts to undermine reproductive rights in Maine and, instead, we have preserved and expanded reproductive freedom in Maine,” Governor Mills wrote in her testimony.

“However, no matter how strong our laws may be, they are subject to everchanging political tides and can be repealed. That is why, without any such federal protection, it is critical that Maine people be assured that reproductive autonomy be protected to the greatest extent possible in the state – through an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Maine. Indeed, many of us would argue that Maine’s Constitution already protects reproductive rights, but the language of L.D. 780 would remove any debate,” the Governor continued. “This action is needed now more than ever. That is why I support enshrining the right to reproductive autonomy in the Maine Constitution and urge you pass L.D. 780, so that Maine people can make their own decisions about their own fundamental rights.”

Under Governor Mills' leadership, Maine has not only protected but expanded access to critical reproductive health services. The Governor, in collaboration with the Legislature, has enacted laws that prevent protestors from blocking health clinics, that require public and private insurance coverage (PDF) of abortion services, and that made those services available to people in rural and urban areas of Maine. Last year, the Governor signed into law a series of bills to protect access to abortion, including legislation that puts the decision about whether to have an abortion later in pregnancy in the hands of women and their doctors – not politicians or lawyers, ensuring that patients can get care they need, when they need it

Governor Mills full testimony in support of LD 780 is attached (PDF).

Expand full comment

Of course, the patriarchy (AKA Republicans) should pass a law that if a woman gets pregnant due to rape or incest and cannot get an abortion, then the rapist should pay $10,000 per year until the child is 18 years old. And if they cannot pay they are immediately incarcerated until the child turns 18. The rapist would still be obligated to pay the $10,000 per year once they are in prison.

So far, there have been 66,000 pregnancies due to rape or incest reported in states that have outlawed abortion. These unwanted children (most often) should be taken care of by the state.

Expand full comment

Could you please share the source of this information?

Expand full comment

To arrive at the figure of nearly 65,000 rape-caused pregnancies, researchers first estimated the number of rapes that occurred in the states with abortion bans, while those bans were in effect — time periods that vary state-to-state.

"We used the best available research and data that we're aware of to come up with the fraction of women of reproductive age who are survivors of — and the terminology here is horrible — completed vaginal rape," Dickman explains. "The foundation was a survey that the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] conducted that we think is probably the most accurate estimate of not just the sexual assaults that were reported to law enforcement, but also those that weren't reported to law enforcement."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/01/24/1226161416/rape-caused-pregnancy-abortion-ban-states

This article says 65,000. I've seen 64K and 66K in other places. Unfortunately, it's been 3 months since this was published so it probably is over 66K by now.

Expand full comment

I support the expansion of a social safety net for families, similar to what’s in Europe. I doubt that it will make much of a difference in population growth, based on trends there.

Expand full comment

The family is the bedrock of civil society, but the family is irrelevant if we don’t control our borders - tens of millions more unvetted people will come to seek a better life and we will be doing all we can do to protect our family as the nation craters.

Securing the borders is not a right or left issue - it’s the basis of America’s survival - with no borders you have no country.

Expand full comment

Trump's border wall has been breached over 5000 times so far. And it is being breached an average of 35 times in just a 3 mile section every single day.

Trump did NOTHING to secure the border for four years except to waste $20 billion of taxpayer money.

He promised thousands more border security agents and ended up with fewer than 100 more when he left office.

Did you write the same comments when Trump was in office?

Expand full comment

Congratulations. Don't forget about us Seniors as well. We have paid taxes for years on end perhaps a tax break would help!

Expand full comment

Congrats on the latest edition to your family!

Expand full comment

Jared, although I support the goal of supporting families, I think it should be directed at the less than five year old group as we are already subsidizing school children a US average of $14,000 per student per year. And also once a child is in school, the parent can more easily work.

Also one way I would support is through a maternity/paternity payment in at least the first few months as done in many countries.

My last point on initiatives for children is that in the past the liberal politics has been to subsidize day care but not stay at home parents, and I think this needs to be corrected, which would be with a child tax credit, I support allowing young parents the ability to stay at home for at least the first year of life as good for children.

Expand full comment

Passing the Federal Retirement Fairness Act (HR 5995) would allow many federal workers to retire at a reasonable age thus freeing up good, family supporting jobs for young families.

In many federal workplaces, like the post office, employees must start out part-time (even though they may be working full-time hours). These years spent as part-time do not count towards their pension and they cannot even contribute to the federal retirement savings account (TSP). The Federal Retirement Fairness Act would allow these employees to "buy back" time that did not count towards their pension thus, allowing them to retire at a reasonable age and freeing up a good full-time position for a younger person.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, Congress has allowed the Affordable Connectivity Program to lapse which directly impacts millions of low and fixed income families and households across the nation each month. This is counterintuitive to your message.

The ACP granted a $30 offset for low income households on their internet service each month. I understand that the cost of this program was 55 million annually, was already instituted at the FCC, didn't require changes to tax code, and was working as advertised.

Once again, we see where Congress' priorities lie in the recent budget that passed. Allowed this working and beneficial program to lapse, while funding 10 times this amount, 500 million dollars in additional funds to Ukraine instead of mandating peace efforts, and 50 times this amount, or 3 Billion dollars to Israel in support of the active genocide occurring in Gaza.

And briefly, let us review those two issues. We are "protecting the democracy” of a country, Ukraine, that just cancelled it’s elections, and is governed and militarized with known and admitted Nazi’s.

In Israel, we are feverishly building a port to “allow humanitarian aid” when we could simply direct Israel to allow the myriad currently available sources of aid to “drive in through the front door,” and enter from Israel to Gaza. We also just permanently cut funding for the UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, which provided humanitarian aid to Gaza. So, which is it? Are we providing aid or not? Or is “Port Gaza” just a precursor to the necessary infrastructure for financial development of Gaza by domestic and foreign investors once the genocide is complete?

And don’t say we can’t tell foreign governments what to do. Bullshit. Without our funding and weaponry, Israel doesn’t exist, and the genocide is over. Without our funding and weaponry, Ukraine negotiates peace with Russia. Both seem like we can pretty much tell them what we want to see or they don’t get funding, and then the music stops for both.

But that isn’t what we want, is it? What we want is forever wars and conflict to feed our war economy and in support of wealthy investors who capitalize and exploit war-torn regions for economic development.

Sending taxpayer money overseas while ignoring the most needful and directly impactful programs domestically. Supporting endless wars and violence instead of caring for our own. This is our current Congress.

I find it shameful and another indication to me that Congress and the Executive Branch have completely lost their sense of who they serve. I'm happy you're pecking around trying to find ways to benefit young families, but you and the rest of Congress just dropped the ball on a benefit that was already in place and working for the most needful Americans while simultaneously lavishing taxpayer money on foreign governments and in support of war and violence.

The words of Congress seem like hype and propaganda and ring hollow when faced with the reality of what they are actually DOING. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Expand full comment

I wish there was a way to live on a one family member income because the cost of living expenses have skyrocketed since the time I was a child in the 1960's. My father went to work as a blue collar worker and my mother was able to stay home to be there whenever we needed her.

Why can't a blue collar worker do his work and allow the mother stay home, or the mother works and the father stays home.

Why has the cost of living expenses exceeded a one parent's income?

Expand full comment

I agree families need help. Aside from income they also need access to affordable child care and affordable housing. But most of all workers need access to real income. We need programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit because many workers are not receiving a living wage. Rather than pay for federal support for families with personal taxes, why not add a corporate tax. These are the folks who should be providing the dollars in the first place. Exempt any company whose workers make a reasonable percent of the CEO pay. We have turned a blind eye to the billions of dollars being amassed by the 1% but all that wealth came from somewhere - struggling families and corporate generated inflation. Finally way back when 1 income could support a family, there were strong unions, most workers were paid well and the CEO made a fraction of what they make now.

Expand full comment

"Businesses" don't pay taxes; they pass any cost increases along to their customers--or they go out of business. Have you not noticed that the minimum wage increased and now it costs $40 for 2 people to eat lunch at McDonald's? We're right back where we started, with lower-wage earners not able to afford to live.

Expand full comment

I don't believe raising taxes for top 10% earners is the answer, Jared. Us Americans as a whole already pay too much in taxes. This needs to change. How about you work on lowering everyone's taxes from the state to federal? That's what Americans want. If we didn't lose half our paychecks to taxes then this wouldn't be an issue, or atleast much lesser of one. There needs to be drastic changes in our government, and I don't mean making it bigger.

Expand full comment

why does everybody think the government is here to solve all your problems? They were created only for national defense and interstate commerce. Why don't you people solve your own problems and stop expecting government to fix it all. They have never and will never fix a thing, only make it worse!

Expand full comment

Congratulations on the new baby!!

I support giving new parents a stipend. They will use it for their best needs, and you are right, tax breaks and refunds are too late. The expenses around babies start way before their birth and I know of many young people who have said they can’t afford to have children. Helping children in their first 5 years is the way to have healthy and bright adults. With very few union jobs the middle class is heading to extinction. Jobs that pay $20/hr are not middle class, especially with the corporate greed that has caused such inflation.

Perhaps next you can turn your eagle eyes onto the nursing home crisis in Maine. They are closing at a fast rate due to low reimbursements by the US Government. We need to do better by our weakest.

Thanks for fighting the good fights.

Expand full comment

Shirley and Rosemary are very lucky girls, congratulations!

I applaud your out-of-the-box thinking and your efforts to support the young middle level families in our country; your consistent sharing of ideas, positions, and plans with us. A breath of fresh air in politics.

Expand full comment

💭 Wonderful news of your new family member!

I’m not in favor of further spending. Conceptually I get it that young families need extra money, but our deficit is appalling. I would restructure government if I had a magic wand and stop giving money to other countries and causes until we get this country on better footing regarding debt. Imagine running our personal bank accounts the way we spend and borrow.

Even the volatile border security issue and having an attitude of come one, come all. We aren’t even taking care of our many struggling citizens. If we could change this, it might make helping families in innovative ways more of a possibility.

Expand full comment

If we can't take care of our many struggling citizens, cutting spending is the opposite of what is needed.

The deficit has grown so large due to "conservative" measures. Each and every GOP president since WW2 has grown the deficit and the Dem presidents since then all decreased the deficit (by far the highest amount was cause by trump's rich-people tax breaks). I found some cool graphs showing more about this but I can't seem to post them here.

According to Wikipedia (I'm lazy and they post where their data comes from so I do consider them reliable when taken with care), "Since World War II, the United States economy has performed better significantly on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents".

The reason for this is that the GOP benefactors, who get what they want (from both parties, but much one is much worse than the other), do not want to pay taxes because they can afford whatever they want and don't want to pay for the riff-raff's needs, too. They want any all of their expenses to provide a return to themselves. This seems very reasonable to me, except that they now have the full power to make the dystopia of fiction into a reality, which is well on its way and getting more and more difficult to prevent.

I hope that you have seen how the border issue has been used as a political club against the Dems: when the most "conservative" bill was hammered out (with one of the most conservative Senators from the south), Trump ordered all the Congressional GOP reps and senators to kill any action on the border so that he can continue to use it for his campaign to stay out of jail.

What we really need is to claw back some of the trillion dollars that have been taken by the middle class in all of those tax and deficit battles and to use that money for the people that really make this country run and who are the ones that improve upon our productivity that the rich rely upon to lay off more workers. Productivity is being stolen from being a common good to being used to destroy the middle class. (That Matt Damon and Jodi Foster movie "Elysium" does a good job showing where this is now leading us to in about 100 years, I believe.)

Expand full comment

Foreign aid is around 1% of our budget. Meanwhile we spend over 50% in providing healthcare and financial assistance to people, mainly seniors. This idea that we spend too much abroad to take care of our own is misguided.

Expand full comment

I like what you have to say.

Expand full comment

Congrats on expanding your own family.

But, there are far too many people in the world already, and therefore, I don’t think the gov’t or society should do anything to encourage families to have more children: perhaps tax breaks and incentives for the first child, not for the second, and I would like to see disincentives for families with more than 2 children. I know this will be unpopular with conservatives, but it’s really what we need to do.

Expand full comment

There are not too many people in the world, and this anti-humanitarian perspective is neither left not liberal, it's just old and mistaken.

Expand full comment

just wait the politicians will have us in a new war soon to get our population down.

Expand full comment

If not for the technological revolutions in agriculture in the last century, the earth would not be able to support all those people, which were fewer than today's population. We will be needing new revolutions, and soon, to be able to support our continuing growth. Just facts.

Expand full comment

I agree, Coriolis!

Expand full comment