Jon Reisman

Two different complaints/problems are vying for political, media, and narrative dominance: affordability and fraud. Affordability is favored by the Democrats and the legacy media. Fraud is favored by the Republicans and the upstart internet-based media like the Mainewire.

As usual, neither side has much incentive to carefully define terms or explore and understand policy causes and consequences. Beyond the purposeful inexactness, there are substantial differences between political tribes as to what constitutes affordability and/or fraud.

Affordability means cheaper red meat, not cheaper gas and eggs. Affordability means that incomes and economic growth outpace inflation — except that when they do (third-quarter inflation was 2.7% and growth was 4.3%), affordability, at least in the legacy media, is something else entirely, but not anything we care to carefully define. 

Affordability includes general unhappiness with high electric bills, except it’s not politically convenient to recognize that high electric rates are a consequence of subsidizing wind and solar power to fight climate change. 

Unfortunately, the solar and wind subsidies do not avert any climate change whatsoever. In my view, Maine electric ratepayers are the victims of a massive fraud. I understand that for advocates to the left of me, it’s just a matter of proper citizen education/indoctrination. Fraud is such an ugly word.

To one political tribe, fraud means charging taxpayers for non-existent/unqualified Mainecare, health care, child care, SNAP, and assorted equity/fairness services. To a different political tribe, fraud depends on identity: oppressed protected class minorities cannot commit fraud, especially against oppressor taxpayers.

Half of Maine sees the Somali Lewiston/Gateway Community Services drama as fraud, waste, and abuse. The other half is doing a sorry imitation of Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes: “I know nothing.” I’m nominating that quote to replace “Equal justice under law.”

One unifying theme in the affordability vs. fraud drama is the realization that both problems are a consequence of government action/policies. Inflation spiking at 9% under autopen Biden led to the affordability issue. That inflation was the consequence of persistent budget deficits, $38 trillion national debt, and politically motivated lax monetary policy. National debt exceeding national income is a warning sign, but one all sides have chosen to studiously ignore. I guess it’s just a matter of how you define and understand fraud. As with the sustainability of Social Security, there is no leadership or appetite to address problems with policies that promise significant short-run pain in exchange for long-run gain. 

In 2005, a newly re-elected President Bush attempted to push a Social Security fix that entailed tax increases and benefit cuts in order to forestall the systemic problems that threaten much more serious benefit cuts by 2032. W’s effort was a spectacular failure and led to the current entitlements policy paralysis. 

Political accountability and consequences in the affordability vs. fraud drama, such as it is, will be forthcoming (or not) out of the 2026 midterms and the narrative and media that succeeds in convincing Mainers they’re telling the truth and can be trusted. The jury is decidedly still out, and justice hangs in the balance.

Jon Reisman is an economist and policy analyst who retired from the University of Maine at Machias after 38 years. He resides on Cathance Lake in Cooper, where he is a Statler and Waldorf intern. Mr. Reisman’s views are his own, and he welcomes comments as letters to the editor here or to him directly via email at jreisman@maine.edu.