REMAKING MAINE

Over the next 10 months, the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, will use $450,000 raised by GrowSmart Maine to develop ideas that this state already has considered repeatedly in its recent past. Given the evident problems with Maine’s economic struggles, their reappearance shouldn’t be surprising. But if all Maine does is look at those proposals absent the rest of the Brookings work, they will have the same effect next year as they have previously – none. Were state leaders to dig into the report behind the recommendations they would likely see the immense value of this work.

We base this on Brookings’ work in Pennsylvania, which was overseen by Bruce Katz, a vice president at the think tank. He was in Maine this week to start similar research here, beginning with asking Maine residents what kind of changes should be made to improve Maine’s economic health while preserving its high quality of life.

In the Pennsylvania report, called “Back to Prosperity,” the action steps include demanding smarter land use and restricting sprawl, investing in education and in older urban areas and promoting regional cooperation and coordination among levels of government. Toss in tax relief and virtually any first-term state legislator could have written that list.

What that legislator could not have done is craft the long, persuasive argument that is the body of “Back to Prosperity,” which says why these issues matter, how they hurt Pennsylvania and how they ought to be changed. The report is written as only outsiders could write, with no reason to shade the painful truth about government mismanagement and the harm narrow-minded political decisions produce.

It points out flaws in governance and investment that help the very few at the expense of the many; it calls for picking winners and losers among the infinite number of interests competing for tax dollars.

In an interview this week, Mr. Katz said what Maine must have to compete successfully in a brutal global economy is “an adult conversation” about its choices. This means, at some point, state leaders explaining why Maine should invest in one area and not in another, how some of its current policies hurt its ability to compete, what will no longer be subsidized by government. It also means appreciating and encouraging Maine’s strengths – like, for instance, the fact that many young, successful adults are eager to live here if only they could find a good job.

Alan Caron, president of GrowSmart Maine, says these changes represent a three- to five-year project. That’s likely too optimistic. Maine will require sustained, firm leadership over many years to consciously reshape its governance and economy. It has begun this process countless times and failed for countless reasons. Perhaps this time, with outside guidance, the results will be different.