Is saving some of Maine’s farms, preserving opens spaces and supporting our state’s long tradition of agriculture worth 32 cents a day?

We think so, but the real question is whether others agree.

LD 345 would require a 32-cent tax on every gallon of milk sold in Maine. It would raise about $13 million a year and return as much as $1.1 million to farmers each month when prices drop below $17 per hundredweight. Right now, the price is about $12 and farmers – as an industry – are on the brink of collapse.

Driving through Maine it doesn’t take long to recognize that the farming industry is in trouble.

Once-large tracts of farmland have sprouted housing developments and golf courses. Where hundreds of cows once stood, pastures are now home to mere dozens of animals. Is it worth $2.24 a week to preserve what’s left?

Past efforts to prop up the farming industry haven’t fared so well and, just Thursday, the governor signed emergency legislation to provide $725,000 in immediate relief to dairies. That, and the fact that consumers demand the lowest possible prices may make the tax seem unreasonable.

It isn’t.

A typical farm in Androscoggin and Kennebec counties of 200 acres pays between $3,000 and $5,000 in annual property taxes. Only about a quarter of that money goes to pay for town services.

An average single-family homeowner in these counties pays about $2,000 in property taxes and racks up $2,500 in municipal expenses each year.

Farmers are, in every county in Maine, subsidizing homeowners. As farms close and are replaced by homes the subsidies vanish and the need for services increases, which results in higher property taxes.

If a family consumes a gallon a day it will pay $116.48 more for milk every year if LD 345 is enacted.

If not enacted, it’s a sure bet the increase in property tax will dwarf 32 cents a day.


Played for pawns


The Center for Consumer Freedom lobbied hard to kill legislation that would have prohibited the sale of candy and soda in Maine schools, and shouted victory Tuesday when the bill was rejected by the Education Committee.

The center purports to be a coalition of “concerned individuals and businesses working together to promote personal responsibility and protect a full menu of consumer choices.”

That’s code for a coalition of restaurant owners and beverage companies.

Hypocrisy is afoot.

The Center for Consumer Freedom was on a tear last year, exposing the membership list of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and contributions made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, critical that so few physicians actually belong to PCRM and of PETA for funding eco-terrorist groups.

CCF would have more credibility if it revealed its members or identified its contributors. It refuses to do either as a matter of policy yet feels free to expose the membership and contributors of other lobby groups.

CCF promotes personal choice because restaurant owners and beverage companies that want consumers to buy their products are paying the center’s bills. There is no real desire to free consumers, just profit from them.
jmeyer@sunjournal.com