Mike Fisher

Democrat

Candidate’s Links:

Office Sought: Representative – District 136
Age: 64
Occupation: Retired
Education: BA, MA
Family: Married, twin sons age 30
Hometown: Sullivan

Political experience

None.

Why are you running for office?

I am running to fight for a state government that is fair and offers hope. Certainly I want a government that spends our money wisely and efficiently and preserves our rights while it protects us and our children from harm. But I also want a government that makes it possible for all our children to have decent food, decent housing, and decent schools that prepare them for good jobs; for seniors to stay in their homes; for students to graduate college without huge debts; and for all of us to have access to quality healthcare. I want a government that does not fall prey to businesses that make false promises. I want a criminal justice system that prosecutes and punishes cheaters: who avoid paying taxes; who accept or offer bribes; who use wealth and influence to evade the law; who exploit unsuspecting consumers; and, yes, who defraud our welfare system. I want transparent government to make sure our politicians are working for us, not for donors and lobbyists. I want a government that welcomes new technology—like solar power and broadband—rather than fails to support it; and that responds to climate change rather than denies it. I want to fight every day to prove that government can be a force for good, not a threat to freedom. Most of all I want to make this district I love, with its tremendous assets in people, landscape, and seascape, an even better place to live than it already is.

• Income Tax: Gov. LePage would like to lower Maine’s income tax rate and eventually eliminate it, by increasing the state’s sales tax and expanding it across a broader range of goods and services. Do you support this proposal?
  • No

    I do not believe our income tax is fair. Until our income tax is fair, we should not talk about raising or lowering it. I believe that sales tax is an unfair regressive tax. It forces lower-income consumers to pay a greater share of their income than the wealthy pay for goods and services. Until our sales tax is fair, we should not talk about raising or lowering it. I also believe that lower income tax by itself will not attract new businesses or new citizens to Maine. We need other things, among them: better infrastructure, universal high-speed broadband access, a well-educated, well-trained workforce that can qualify for high-paying jobs. Most of all we need more taxpayers who will choose to live in Maine for the reasons we love it. These reasons have nothing to do with tax rates.

• Background Checks: Do you support background checks for privately sold firearms in Maine?
  • Yes

    A survey conducted by Yale researchers in January 2016 found that 77 percent of Americans favored universal background checks. A poll in mid-September found that more than 60 percent of Mainers, many of them gun-owners, will vote “yes” on Question 3. Fear-mongering opposition advertising probably will change these percentages between now and election day. I think it is dangerous for our democracy that a simple measure to close a loophole in existing law may go down to defeat because of its opponents’ unrealistic fears: that it will make them felons and is the first step toward government seizure of all privately owned guns. Ten states, including Colorado, Oregon and Washington (where there are significant numbers of gun owners) require universal background checks on all gun sales, including private, unlicensed transactions. If a measure like Question 3 can pass in those states, what special harm can it do in Maine?

• Minimum Wage: In light of the ballot question facing voters this fall, do you support raising the state’s minimum wage from $7.50 to $12 an hour by 2020?
  • Yes

    I know that nearly 600 small businesses across the state support an increase in the minimum wage. But very few of those small businesses are in my district. So I am sympathetic with the view of a spokesman for the Maine state Chamber of Commerce who asserted that increasing the minimum wage “is going to be particularly detrimental to small businesses in rural areas.” If I had written the ballot question I would have tried to include a proviso that gives small businesses some flexibility without being unfair to their employees. Still, we also know that it is impossible to support yourself, much less a family, in a rural district or elsewhere, if you earn only the current minimum wage. So for me, the most important reason to raise the minimum wage is that, in a rich society like ours, it is the decent thing to do for working people.

• Marijuana: Do you support legalization of marijuana for recreational use?
  • No

    I would vote “yes” if the question had reached the ballot in the same way as the measure on the ballot this year in California. An earlier effort at legalization there—in 2010—was voted down. So supporters developed a new proposition based on the recommendations of a blue-ribbon commission that included specialists in law enforcement, tax law, medicine, and federal drug policy. The panel included members with deep apprehensions about expanding marijuana use, especially among minors. They crafted a measure that makes sense to me. If Maine’s ballot measure reflected the outcome of such a process and contained the same provisions, I would unhesitatingly support it. As it is, but admittedly speaking as someone who is about to enter the age group—over 65—that was most opposed to the measure in your recent voter survey, I think we are rushing into this. I will vote “no.”

• Addiction/Overdoses: Do you believe the state is doing enough in response to the rise in heroin/opiate addiction and overdoses? If not, what else should be done?
  • I cannot fault the state’s response. As of July this year, we have a new law that gives us some of the strictest rules in the nation governing opioid prescriptions. The state also is launching a pilot program to expand medication-assisted treatment for opioids and use public health nurses to help pregnant women get access to treatment. The state CDC’s Substance Abuse Prevention Team also offers funding and other resources. A new federal law that expands medication-assisted treatment will help, too. But the state always can do more. We can increase investment in the infrastructure for providing treatment. The Addiction Resource Center in Brunswick can be a model for this. We need to support police departments in trying to divert drug users away from jails and toward treatment. And we can work with the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to implement locally tailored evidence-based prevention programs in our schools. We have to do more to reduce the demand for addictive drugs. If we can succeed in reducing demand, it will be much easier to control the supply.