Democrats on Maine’s legislative council recently approved a proposal which would repeal Maine’s current law limiting town municipal spending.
The current law establishes a limit on how much can be levied in property tax by any town in a given year.
If any town wishes to increase their spending through the property tax levy beyond the limit set forth by law, then that increase must be approved by a vote of the people.
The current Maine law, known as the “Limitation on Municipal Property Tax Levy“, was initially established in 2005 in order to curb rampant spending and high taxes.
“LD 1 limits the growth of the State’s General Fund appropriations, county assessments, and local property taxes to rates reflective of Maine’s income and population growth. It ties school spending to the level of student enrollment. Governing bodies may surpass the limits, but only through an explicit, public vote,” a 2006 report on the law said.
The law allows for yearly budget increases, but ties the increase to the average increase in household income and property value.
In the November 9th meeting of Maine’s Legislative council, Democratic leaders approved a proposal from Sen. Teresa Pierce (D-Cumberland), which means the full legislature will debate the bill when it reconvenes in January.
Pierce’s bill would repeal LD 1, allowing municipalities to increase spending without consulting taxpayers.
The proposal passed with a vote of 6-3, garnering unanimous Democrat support, and united opposition from Republicans.
The proposal was put forward at the request of Anne Gass, a member of the Gray town council.
In recent years, Gray has sought to exceed the budget cap set forth in LD 1, but the people have voted down these attempts.
Before a 2022 vote to override the LD 1 cap, the town claimed that an override would not increase property taxes.
“When it comes to LD1, there is no direct correlation between increased taxes and passing the override,” the town claimed on its website.
Rep. Amy Arata (R-New Gloucester), a member of the legislative council, vehemently opposed the proposal.
“Voters in Gray have rejected the overspending twice in recent years, so now they are going to be punished by having their voices silenced,” said Rep. Arata.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="23397 https://www.themainewire.com/?p=23397">5 Comments
So just remove the voice and will of the taxpayer by going full Democrat tyrant?
Only thing more insane and evil than these putrid Democrat politicians are those the support them.
The college campus known as Falmouth HS already sucked up enough taxpayer dollars to churn out little socialists but that’s not enough for Pierce and her pals.
Let’s not forget, it was Pierce who co-sponsored LD 1619 (Full Term abortion) with 95 other Dems that Comrade Mills recently signed into law. She’s also for sexual mutilation of children and is fine with pornography books in school libraries.
These freaks don’t represent Maine people; they’re on a mission to destroy our Judeo-Christian values. Unfortunately, we have a fringe of useful idiots who keep them in office.
TAX & SPEND.
Margaret Thatcher once said that “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Depending on lefty infiltration in the local town government this could be a huge hit for taxpayers and bonus time for the liberal school system. Taxpayers are in trouble with these lefties controlling all three branches of our state government. People do rot realize that the lefties have been aggressively putting radical progressives in place in more and more positions of influence on the town governments. If people don’t wake up soon, we could soon reach a point of no return!!!!!
I am totally lost on this one. I was one of the principals involved in the TABOR Citizen Initiatives in the 2004 time frame, which was all about limiting the growth in Municipal Spending. The MMA, The Maine Chamber, and the RINO’s of that period coalesced to defeat the initiative. Out of the ensuing retry effort, the powers in control agreed to have a public vote to approve the proposed school budget each year. Which was a “concession” with out effect of any sort.
So I do not understand the reference to “limits on municipal spending” in place since 2005.
Is this another false flag being waved by those who want to be praised before the next election?
Absent clarification, I can only assume this is a rank political scam to curry undeserved favor.