In this clip, they discuss wheher Rep. Mike Michaud is the best bet for Democrats in the next race for governor. Is he their only hope and is the one LePage is most fearful of?

Plus, former Sen. Olympia Snowe’s has a new book out calling for change in Washington. Will she have more of an impact from the outside?

Ethan: This issue is definitely a significant problem if it turns out that they actually targeted groups based on ideology. I was glad President Barack Obama condemned it so quickly and then sought the resignation of IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller.

Phil: He did say all the right things. Facts, I predict, will prove that he didn’t do all the right things. Government power was abused and used to intimidate people exercising their constitutional rights well before the last election.

Ethan: Please tell me you aren’t insinuating that Obama was involved in this controversy? Even Bill O’Reilly has been slamming conservatives for this guilt-by-association McCarthyism.

Phil: Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am suggesting that policy is set by the president. Evidence shows that his appointed leaders knew of this and lied to Congress. Their inaction condoned this abuse.

Ethan: Apparently, I am not putting words in your mouth because you are still insinuating the president was involved. Every time there is a controversy, you folks seem to believe that all roads lead to the White House. You know what? Sometimes, most of the time, they simply don’t.

Phil: Does your opinion change when you learn that Obama’s half-brother was improperly running a tax-exempt organization for two years before he complied with the law? In his situation he was granted retroactive tax exempt status within 30 days!

Ethan: Do you also believe that singer Paul McCartney is dead and that former Cuban President Fidel Castro tried to shoot John F. Kennedy? Honestly, the bigger problem is that it appears the IRS spent a ton of time going after these small groups, while the big “non-profits” like Crossroads and Priorities USA were never investigated. These two groups, from both sides of the aisle, spent hundreds of times what the smaller groups spent.

Phil: Now you’re suggesting Obama appointees should have targeted other similarly minded organizations? All the while expediting Democratic progressive advocacy groups?

Ethan: “Obama appointees?” The entire IRS has only two political appointees, and the guy in charge was appointed by former President George Bush. But, whichever ideology or whichever administration, government should not focus on little fish and let the big fish slide. The IRS should be hard on all groups that want to be tax exempt. I run a not-for-profit, and I am happy to withstand the scrutiny.

Phil:  Obama’s two Treasury Secretaries Timothy Geithner and Jack Lew (also former chief of staff) are Obama appointees, and they both oversaw the IRS during the year and a half this abuse of power was happening and did nothing. Using your defense, the only people who report to Obama and take responsibility for his orders is Seal Team 6.

Ethan: You should have joined the CIA; you see operatives everywhere. Here is the bottom line; no one needs tax exempt status to exercise their constitutional rights. They want tax exempt status to avoid paying taxes and get donations that they don’t need to publicly report. If they want special status, they should be scrutinized.

Phil: Well, isn’t that the point here? Powerful government targeted people simply because they wanted to advocate smaller government and less taxes.

Ethan: It is a problem that certain groups were singled out. What isn’t a problem is whether the IRS should be scrutinizing 501(c)4 organizations across the ideological spectrum. Treat both sides equally, and be tough.

Phil: Well, the fact is they weren’t treated equally. Those who don’t agree with the president’s policies were targeted. Not only that, it looks like the IRS even shared confidential information with progressive and liberal groups.

Ethan: Well, that organization, ProPublica, is a government watchdog group that asked the IRS for the applications. The IRS certainly should not have sent them, but once they realized what happened, they immediately knew it was a mistake and tried to get them back.

Phil: Mistake? C’mon, Ethan. They sent nine confidential applications of conservative groups to a bunch of liberal journalists. If the tables were turned, you’d be demanding the president be held personally responsible.

Ethan: Why would I hold the president of the United States accountable for what the inspector general has determined was limited to “first line management” in Cincinnati? And look, ProPublica is run by the former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, so your ideological bent is a bit of a stretch. Your paranoia runs a little too deep.

Phil: What difference does it make who runs ProPublica (another tax exempt organization)? Step away from your political tactics, and consider the impact of what they did with their power to deny, intimidate and tyrannize. This behavior proves that Americans who believe government is trampling on their rights are right.

Ethan: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Look, no one is defending the IRS. But “tyrannical?” Whether it is Benghazi, guns or the IRS, your team always overreacts. Stalinism has not arrived in the United States.

Phil: Perhaps not, but maybe now you understand why we conservatives believe a small, efficient, less-intrusive government will make America better.

Ethan: Have no fear. I’ll be there for you when the black helicopters arrive.

http://560wgan.com/?powerpress_pinw=654-ken-mike-podcasts

But Republicans say linking it to expanding Maine’s Medicaid program isn’t the way to do it.  Now legislators are at a impasse over what to do; and time is running out.

Political analysts Phil Harriman and Ethan Strimling answer the questions people across the State are asking: Why does it seem the parties can’t sit down and hammer out something to which everyone can agree?  And why does it seem legislators spend more time getting their message out than getting the people’s business done?

Also, Dems start playing hardball with expanding health care, a gun control bill actually makes it out of committee, and the Governor’s school grades are out.

Click the link below to hear our political analysts Phil Harriman and Ethan Strimling analyze the above and much much more.

Is a state shutdown inevitable? News radio 560 WGAN.

Phil: We were definitely politically separated at birth. Tell me how this is a win-win.

Ethan: You get the hospitals paid immediately, and Democrats get 70,000 people covered for health care. Hospitals win. The uninsured win. Who loses?

Phil: Ethan, we have delinquent hospital bills going back to your man Gov. John Baldacci’s days, and you suggest that if we are going to pay that bill we must also expand welfare to 70,000 people with the free money out of Washington? The loser is Maine taxpayer Low Lee who has to foot the bill for all these new folks on welfare.

Ethan: Low Lee pays almost nothing. The federal government has agreed to foot 100 percent of the bill for three years and slowly drop down to a 90 percent reimbursement rate thereafter. Compared with the 62.57 percent rate we receive today, you don’t need an MBA to figure out this is a good deal.

Phil: When you make these pronouncements, do you forget that Washington borrows 40 cents on every dollar it spends, and the other 60 cents comes from people who actually pay an income tax?

Ethan: Even the right-wing Heritage Foundation says Maine would save $690 million over the next 10 years. Now I am thinking this is win-win-win — for hospitals, the uninsured and all Maine taxpayers!

Phil: Really? Do I need to remind you that all of the jobs, savings and milk and honey projected by think tanks and other political gurus most always turns out to be reductions in the rate of increase? Or wrong.

Ethan: Look at this thing politically from your side. LePage gets his big prize: paying the hospitals. He has said getting this money into the economy was his top priority. (Who knew he was such a supporter of government sponsored stimulus?) Plus, now he will get to slam Democrats for expanding government to all these undeserving, lazy, low-income people who should simply accept their lot in life and live unhealthy lives. Dude, this is a four-win scenario! Win-win-win-win!

Phil: You can’t help yourself, can you? Not paying our bills and expanding welfare is what created this $500-million problem, and you want the Democrats to force the governor to do it all over again?

Ethan: I want 70,000 people to receive health insurance, although I am ecstatic to see the Democrats playing hardball. Too often it feels like the governor sets the agenda, and we simply fold or lock horns. This time, Dems said, “You want yours? We want ours.” That is how politics should be.

Phil: And that’s what is so concerning in America today. The politicians get into the “let’s make a deal” mindset, driven by emotion and quest for power.

Ethan: Offering a compromise that covers 70,000 people with health care is a quest for power?

Phil: Making 70,000 more dependent on government isn’t what made America a shining example of freedom in the history of humankind. Instead, creating an environment where choice and quality come first will empower people to find the health care they want.

Ethan: Having the highest percentage of uninsured in the industrialized world does not make America a shining example in the history of humankind.

Phil: Paying our bills is something we expect of the private sector. Why isn’t that acceptable in the government sector?

Ethan: No one says it is acceptable to not pay our bills. The issue is whether we borrow money to do it or pay it over time.

Phil: So far it’s three years and counting. What would you consider an acceptable period of time for you to collect the money government owes your nonprofit?

Ethan: The money owed the hospitals is about 1 percent of what they have been paid over the past 10 years. If the government had paid me 99 percent and needed a few years to pay the rest, I think I could handle it. On the other hand, 10-15 percent of our population has been uninsured for much longer than three years. How long is it acceptable to you that people remain without health insurance?

Phil: Isn’t that their choice? When did you decide your oath of office empowered you to decide what another citizen’s health insurance, or the lack thereof, was your right as a legislator to purchase?

Ethan: Their choice to not be able to afford health insurance? Wow. Look, clearly Democrats think providing health care is a top priority. Clearly Republicans think paying hospitals is a top priority. I am willing to vote to pay the hospitals, as long as you vote to cover the uninsured. Can you do the same? Is providing health care that antithetical to Republican values?

Phil: I think Albert Einstein said it best, “Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Ethan: So, how about we try something different for the first time since the governor took office: Give a little to get a little. How refreshing would that be?

Governor LePage is also sponsoring a bill to limit food stamp users from buying junk food. He also wants to ban drug felons from receiving food stamps for anything. Fair restriction or an unfair limitation?

Our political analysts discuss and debate both. Click below to hear their insight and analysis.

Meanwhile, rumors abound over whether a prominent democrat will challenge LePage in the 2014 election.

We discuss these topics and more with our political analysts, republican Phil Harriman and democrat Ethan Strimling.

Professionally, I have programs working in some of the schools that got D’s and F’s. I can assure you, there is some remarkable learning going on that is not reflected in these scores.

But despite all these flaws, somehow LePage got it right. That’s right. I said it. Somehow, he got it right.

I am not sure how. Maybe pure luck. Maybe his system is better than I believe. Maybe he has simply outfoxed us all with some behind the scenes re-calculation that ensured accuracy. But somehow, he did it.

Let me explain. You see, we progressives have been arguing for years that low-income schools are at a severe disadvantage to schools from wealthy districts. Schools with large populations of diversity are more complicated than those that are homogeneous. Schools that have the resources to pay their teachers better, provide first class technology and fund arts and after-school programs achieve better academic results.

Conservatives, of course, always argue that resources have nothing to do with results. Schools don’t need more money; they need fewer unions. They don’t need additional resources; they need additional competition. They don’t need to add teachers; they need to fire the ones they have.

But now LePage has proved our point. According to his system, elementary schools that received an A grade had, on average, a student body with only 25 percent who were poor enough to need free and reduced lunch. Those who received a B had 37 percent who were poor. Those who earned a C had 52 percent. A D averaged 59 percent. And, for schools that received an F, better than two of every three kids were poor (67 percent).

For high schools, the disparity was even worse. The top schools have less than 10 percent who are poor. The worst had almost seven times as many kids who are low income (61 percent).

Now that a Republican has confirmed what Democrats have known, maybe we can stop debating whether resources matter and start figuring out how to get those resources to the schools that need them.

Phil: So far, so good. They must be reading our columns.

Ethan: In a nutshell, the plan significantly cuts income taxes to 4 percent and offers a little property tax relief through an expanded homestead exemption. It pays for this through $700 million worth of raising and broadening the sales tax across the board. In true bipartisan form, it gores everyone’s ox a little bit but has some tantalizing treats for everyone, too. I certainly have lots of thoughts, not the least of which will be whether the changes ultimately make our code more progressive, but what are your initial thoughts?

Phil: What you are leaving out is that it also raises about $160 million more than Gov. Paul LePage’s proposed budget — to replace the cut to municipal revenue sharing. Or, as some of us like to say, it feeds the spending addiction of the Augusta monster.

Ethan: True, it is not quite “revenue neutral” in terms of cutting as many taxes at it raises.

Phil: Here are my thoughts. In no particular order, a fair tax system won’t be simple, and a simple tax system won’t seem fair. The authors expressly acknowledge the goal is to tax visitors more, even though Maine’s harsh taxes chased so many Mainers out of here in the first place, including former politicians who voted for the tax increases they now avoid. (See former Democratic Gov. Ken Curtis.) They are proposing taxing car repairs, basic necessities like food and heating and advisory services, including legal and accounting fees. If we’re not careful, we might just manage to do to tourism what we did to the paper industry.

Ethan: I think wiping out all our sales tax loopholes is a great idea. They are mostly just legislative prizes given to powerful special interests.

Phil: What you call “loopholes” is established law by the Legislature, signed by the governor. Also known as legal tax exemptions.

Ethan: What I call loopholes is a nice way of saying “corporate welfare” doled out by weak legislators.

Phil: I will give them some credit for slashing the income tax so dramatically. Although, I will say I am a little confused. Haven’t Democrats spent the last decade slamming former President George W. Bush, LePage and every other Republican for cutting the income tax?

Ethan: Indeed. Remember Steve Forbes and the flat tax we Democrats hammered? This plan is essentially modeled the same way.

Phil: Ah, the irony.

Ethan: Sen. Dick Woodbury, I-Yarmouth, one of the architects of the plan, and I have had a longstanding difference on this issue. He is a believer, like Republicans, in a trickle-down tax code. That is, reduce the top income tax rate, and the wealthy job creators will come to Maine (as you say, very “George Bush”). Unfortunately, evidence just doesn’t support this theory. Much better to take the revenue generated from the sales tax increase and get it directly back into the pockets of middle-income families through property tax relief and/or invest in education, roads and the economy.

Phil: Using your logic, we should be celebrating all of the jobs and new business start-ups created by low- and middle-income earners as a model for the rest of America to follow.

Ethan: Indeed. Sadly, at initial glance I am just not seeing these values reflected. I will reserve judgment until I get more of the analysis, but this plan appears heavily weighted toward the trickle-down theory and not the fairness theory.

Phil: Another thought that jumped up for me was why do politicians seem to require taxpayers to swallow their dignity to fill out a form, so a bureaucrat can determine if you are poor enough to get some of your own money back?

Ethan: Actually, this tax package makes a much needed change that you will like. It gets rid of the circuit breaker program, which requires people to fill out a form declaring how poor they are, and incorporates a fully refundable credit onto the income tax form.

Phil: Ah, me of so little faith. I recall the tolls would be removed once the turnpike was paid for. How’d that work out? Circuit Breaker eligibility has morphed so many times, I don’t recognize who gets it anymore. And more recently we’ve seen changes in the original homestead exemption, such that it is meaningless today. When is Augusta — and, for that matter, Washington — going to realize that simply controlling spending is the path to prosperity that we both seek?

Ethan: Probably at the same time we realize cutting taxes on the wealthy is not an economic growth strategy.

Phil: Heck, if we could just get you to stop punishing them for success, that would be a step in the right direction. Any final thoughts on the plan?

Ethan: As I said earlier, I will reserve judgment until I can see the clear impact on who gets the relief and whether our tax code is more or less progressive at the end of the day. However, I am concerned that the plan focuses so much on reducing the income tax, which is the most progressive and least out-of-balance part of our tax code. You?

Phil: Just one. Until we bring spending under control at all levels of government, we will never see the end of creative tax reform plans being written by “gangs.”