Did Lewiston ‘Embrace Trump?’ No.

“How Lewiston, changed by refugees, embraced Trump” – is somewhat misleading. I realized this when I looked up the article on The Associated Press website, which used the words “A Community” instead of Lewiston, and featured 25 additional photos. One ran with this caption: “…Hillary Clinton won the election within the city of Lewiston, though by less than 1,000 votes, a far narrower margin than President Barack Obama.

It was in the rural communities circling the city, among voters who do not interact daily with the refugees, where Donald Trump got enough support to flip Androscoggin County red.” In other words, it was the rural towns outside of Lewiston, whose schools and communities are largely unaffected by refugees, who tipped the vote to Trump. This strikes me as typical of what happened in the November election: people whose own lives were not necessarily affected directly by America’s changing economy and demographics getting angry on behalf of an imagined group of sufferers. The wonderful writer George Saunders captured this in his July 4th New Yorker piece, “Who Are All These Trump Supporters?”

People in the outlying towns in Androscoggin Country might not appreciate how the influx of refugees has lifted the city of Lewiston, making the schools more robust, adding tax dollars from immigrants who get jobs and pay taxes once they’ve got their feet under them, creating businesses in a once-deserted downtown. Of course an influx of refugees puts some economic stress on a community, but in the long-run the benefits far outweigh them. We need immigrants in Maine, not because we are good-hearted, but because we are the oldest state in the nation and we need people to work and pay taxes. Jim Tierney, a former Maine Attorney General who at one point was in the legislature, representing Lisbon Falls and Durham, two towns in Androscoggin County, has been arguing this for years. I urge all Mainers to read his October 2014 address at Bates College, “Immigration and Diversity in Maine: From Opportunity to Necessity”

Jeffrey Fischer,

Bowdoinham

Subpoena Trump’s Tax Returns

It is an outrage that Mr. Trump does not release his tax returns. His stubborn, deeply unpopular and highly suspicious refusal to do so renders his administration and his presidency profoundly suspect and completely without legitimacy. There can be no confidence in any of his proposals, including tax reform, if We The People do not know to whom or what (even including hostile foreign actors) Mr. Trump is financially beholden, from whom and how he and his vast corporate family holdings benefit financially, exactly what tax loopholes he currently takes advantage of, and what proposed tax loopholes might benefit him and his family business even more. Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns is strong evidence in and of itself that he and his administration are corrupt to the core and that they are attempting to hide a great deal of illicit and potentially illegal and/ or treasonous activity. For someone who has so outspokenly called for the incarceration of his political rival, Mr. Trump himself is a long overdue subject for investigation and indictment. I further believe that Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns is grounds for impeachment, as it undoubtedly is motivated by a cover-up of illegal activity. If Mr. Trump has nothing to hide, he must release his taxes. If he is hiding something, then he must be investigated thoroughly and with immediate effect.

Janet Lynch,

Pownal

A Terrible Proposal

The Trump Administration proposes to eliminate the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which has provided federal funding for civil legal aid since 1974. If this terrible proposal becomes reality, Pine Tree Legal Assistance, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary, would lose $1.4 million, almost one-quarter of its budget.

Pine Tree provides free legal aid to help low-income and vulnerable veterans, elders, children, and families. When these Mainers are involved in civil legal cases (as opposed to criminal cases) the law does not require that they must have a court-appointed lawyer. LSC provides federal funds so that when their livelihood, health, and families are on the line, they have representation and a fair shot.

Civil legal aid makes fiscal sense and is a good investment. For example, everyone benefits when someone remains housed. Housing stabilizes families and helps them remain self-sufficient, ultimately saving taxpayers’ money. The public costs of sheltering families that become homeless are significant, as are the increased costs of providing public assistance, transitional housing and health care for families in crisis. Helping survivors of domestic violence reduces shelter costs. Early legal interventions prevent more serious problems down the road.

Gutting civil legal aid would devastate low-income families and vulnerable people in Maine and throughout the U.S. Especially hard hit would be rural areas, where legal help is scarce.

Funding for LSC is a minuscule slice of the federal budget — roughly one-hundredth of one percent. However, eliminating it would be devastating to many. Our nation’s extremely modest investment in LSC is an essential building block for assuring social stability and fairness in the justice system.

Across our nation, civil legal aid has long enjoyed broad bipartisan support for a reason: Americans believe in justice for all, not just for those who can afford it. I urge all readers to contact U.S. Senators Collins and King and U.S. Representatives Pingree and Poliquin about this important issue.

William Robitzek,

President, Maine Justice

Foundation

April is Alcohol Awareness Month

While Alcohol Awareness Month is a good time for people to reflect on their alcohol consumption, responsible drinking should be practiced year-round.

The 2016 Surgeon General’s Report on alcohol states, “the 2015- 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans indicate that moderate alcohol use can be part of a healthy diet, but only when used by adults of legal drinking age.”

According to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, moderate alcohol consumption is defined as up to one drink per day for women and up to two drinks per day for men. The Guidelines define a drink-equivalent as 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits (40 percent ABV), 5 ounces of wine (12 percent ABV) and 12 ounces of regular beer (5 percent ABV).

Most recently, a study of 1.9 million adults published March 22 in the British Medical Journal concludes that moderate alcohol consumption (beer, spirits or wine) is associated with a reduction in the risk of several cardiovascular diseases compared to non-drinkers or heavy drinkers. This finding is supported by four decades of studies with similar results.

It is not recommended that anyone drink alcohol products for potential health benefits. Alcohol abuse can cause serious health and other problems, and even drinking in moderation may pose health risk for some people.

If you have questions regarding alcohol and health, discuss the potential risks and potential benefits of consuming alcohol with a physician. Together, you can determine what is best based upon individual risk factors including family history, genetics and lifestyle.

Sam Zakhari,

Distilled Spirits Council,

Washington, D.C.