The process isn’t pretty.

But somehow, through the smoke and heat of a long session, Democrats and Republicans on the committee were able to write a unanimous two-year state budget that is a vast improvement over the rough draft Gov. Paul LePage presented in January.

For progressives, the budget falls well short of the ideal. It allows to stand LePage’s skewed tax cuts favoring the wealthy, which helped to create a budget crisis in the first place.

In addition, local governments will be asked to shoulder more of the burden for important services, such as fire, police and public schools. And there will be reductions in supports for the elderly and disabled.

But the breadth of the Appropriations Committee compromise is incredible. Through the hands-on and good faith negotiations of veteran lawmakers on the committee, Democrats and Republican leaders were able to agree on a plan that balances the budget and avoids the worst of LePage’s ideas.

To be sure, there are elements of the budget I hate. I recently joined the parent-teacher organization at my children’s school as the fundraising director. The job just got a lot harder as we are considering an effort to raise money to replace reading teachers who were already chopped in the school budget for next year.

With more cuts possible as revenue sharing is reduced, we may need to do a lot more.

In one of the great ironies of LePage’s policies, the governor proposed a budget that would have been disastrous for K-12 education at the same time he unleashed a badly flawed grading system on public schools. Taken together, the policies are discordant and hypocritical.

Two-year budgets in Maine typically require two-thirds supermajority support. This year the requirement is even tougher.

With LePage wielding his veto pen like a stiletto in a dark alley, Republicans who support the budget compromise will need to be willing to withstand a vicious and sustained effort by the governor to turn their votes.

The governor’s strategy includes TV advertisements, and he will likely give his staff and allies as long as possible to twist arms of moderate Republicans who were willing to work cooperatively with Democrats.

That fact gave Republicans added negotiating strength in the process, but Democrats were still able to achieve concessions.

While Republicans stood fast on the LePage tax cuts that weren’t paid for and benefit mostly high-income families, they did agree to temporary tax changes.

Getting Republicans to agree to revenue increases is a major Democratic victory that will protect the state’s economy and save jobs.

The budget compromise will increase the state sales tax by half-percent and will increase the tax on meals and lodging by 1 percent. Both increases are temporary and will automatically sunset in two years.

The budget also seeks to close about $40 million in corporate tax loopholes, although it doesn’t contain any specifics about which ones.

Those are major concessions, and it has taken courage by Republican members of the Legislature to buck their governor and agree that the cuts LePage wants are bad for our economy and bad for our people.

In addition, the compromise budget restores funding for K-12 education, for Head Start, for medicine for elderly and disabled Mainers and for property tax relief programs.

The legislative process, particularly for the state budget, is about building a consensus.

While each of us can surely find parts of the budget we dislike, we must give credit to the men and women who have worked countless hours to find common ground and to chart a path forward, as imperfect as that path might be.

They have faced a LePage administration that has refused to work with them or provide reliable information, and they’ve done their work under intense time pressure to pass a budget before the end of the fiscal year.

Importantly, the Democratic and Republican members of the committee, with the support of their caucus leaders, have found a way to keep government open and to avoid a devastating government shutdown.

In the coming days, as the Legislature considers the compromise budget, LePage will open fire on Republican supporters, while Democrats will face pressure from progressives to make things better.

The push to vote against the budget will be hard to withstand.

But lawmakers should stand firm, pass this imperfect budget and then vote to override what will almost certainly be a gubernatorial veto.

It’s tough work, but the Legislature has shown that it’s up to the challenge.

We’ve cut teachers from schools with children who need them.

We’ve cut back on health care when people are sick.

And we’ve made impossible choices to balance state and local budgets during times of recession and hardship.

Today, things are a little different.

Our state is facing massive cuts in health care and education, and increases in property taxes, not because resources are scarce.

Instead, we’re facing these tough decisions because Gov. Paul LePage and his political allies have prioritized tax cuts, which largely benefited the wealthy, ahead of other things, including education, public health and safety.

Right now, Maine has an opportunity to improve access to health care in the state by accepting federal funding to provide insurance to nearly 70,000 people, many of whom have jobs but can’t afford coverage.

The governor has displayed an ever-changing rationale for turning these federal dollars down, including that he’s negotiating with the federal government (no evidence that he is or has), that it will cost Maine money (nonpartisan study says Maine will save $690 million over 10 years) and that it’s welfare (access to health care isn’t a handout, it’s a hand up).

The latest reason is the most hurtful and disingenuous so far.

“I will not entertain any discussions about welfare expansion until these 3,100 disabled and elderly Mainers are taken care of,” the governor said in a press release. “The Legislature has ignored the needs of these citizens for years, but now the Democrats want to expand welfare to able-bodied adults with no children. Not only is that bad public policy, it’s a disgrace.”

While the governor has not discussed in detail exactly whom he’s talking about, and it’s hard to verify his numbers, there are a number of individuals on waiting lists who are desperate for services.

The fact that they are forced to wait is a disgrace.

According to the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, there are 830 people on the waitlist for a Section 21 waiver, which provides home, community and work support for people with intellectual disabilities or autistic disorders

There are another 493 people on a waitlist for Section 29 waiver services. The program supports adults with intellectual disabilities or autistic disorders who either live with their families or on their own. The program is also designed to support members in the workplace.

Section 29 serves many of the same people covered by Section 21. In fact, as of May, of the 830 on the Section 21 waitlist, 459 are receiving services through Section 29.

There are other state funding programs that also have waitlists, including homemaker services.

I agree with the governor that Maine has an obligation to help people suffering from serious disabilities.

Members of the waitlist generally receive health care coverage through Medicaid, but those on the waitlist aren’t getting additional services that they need.

We should stand up and stand with these families, but that doesn’t mean that we should then turn our back on other people who also need assistance.

It’s a false choice, meant to pit one group of people against others. It’s divisive; it’s ugly; and it’s unnecessary.

The waiting lists have nothing to do with whether or not Maine should accept federal funding to provide health insurance to almost 70,000 people.

For the first three years, the federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost for the expansion and then slowly ramp that funding down to 90 percent over several years.

It’s a good deal that would save lives and provide more security to men and women who are working hard and playing by the rules but are unable to afford insurance.

While the governor seems to have found religion on waitlists, that concern may have been sparked by a lawsuit.

Earlier this year, several people who are on the waitlists filed a lawsuit against LePage and the Department of Health and Human Services for failing to provide services mandated under Medicaid.

In reaction, the governor has included increased resources for the waitlist in his budget. Even so, the additional funding won’t solve all the problems with the waitlist, and the governor has proposed no substantive solution to the waitlist problems.

In the same budget, unfortunately, the governor’s budget also includes dangerous cuts to programs that help seniors and adults with disabilities afford their medication. And he’s drawn a line in the shifting sands on expanding health care to others.

With one hand, he gives. With the other, he takes. Apparently, it is the governor – and the governor alone – who decides whom we help and whom we don’t.

There’s no question we should address waiting lists for people with severe disabilities, but the answer isn’t to force others to go without health insurance unnecessarily.

The specifics range from a temporary increase in the sales tax, to a delay in tax cuts that were passed in 2011 but never paid for, to an overarching tax reform package proposed by the bipartisan “Gang of 11.”

While the details of the recommendations matter – and matter particularly for the state as lawmakers work to find the best public policy, and various constituent groups try to determine how they will be affected – the recommendations are also significant because some Republican members of the Legislature say that revenue should be part of the approach to balance the state budget.

They have gone down the road less traveled by their party brethren. They have dared to speak the policy that must not be named: taxes.

Conservative Grover Norquist, who created a national no-tax pledge, must be smelling brimstone.

Republican legislators, and particularly party leaders including Gov. Paul LePage, have made cutting taxes the centerpiece of their rhetorical platform even as the policy has been shown as an ineffective way to grow the economy.

Unfortunately for them, hard facts and pesky math have intervened.

LePage has slashed taxes on the wealthy and top earners, but he never really paid for the largess. Instead, he hid the costs by pushing off the implementation dates. He cut taxes, but he didn’t have a responsible solution for filling the gap in the budget he created.

He’s delivered his plan to keep those cuts for folks with large estates and big paychecks, and it is ugly.

The budget LePage proposed is not really balanced. It includes gimmicks, one-day borrowing, a hidden tax increase of its own and a hatchet approach to state support for municipal government.

The governor’s plan would eliminate revenue sharing and funding for property tax relief programs while also including a new shift of costs onto local governments to pay for public education.

The budget is so bad that most Republicans probably wouldn’t support its most draconian measures if forced to vote on them.

Maine’s towns and cities have been in open revolt over the proposals, which would cripple their local budgets and mean massive layoffs and reduced public services.

Town government is the closest to the people, and city councilors and selectmen know well that taxpayers support their teachers, firefighters and police officers. They want their garbage picked up and their streets plowed. They value public education, public parks and after-school programs. And they’re willing to pay for them.

That’s why towns and cities have sent scores of official resolutions to the Legislature expressing their opposition to the governor’s strangling policies.

As we slip past Memorial Day and into the last week of May, the clock and the calendar are becoming the Legislature’s biggest enemy.

With a statutory adjournment date set for June 19 and a constitutional requirement for a new state budget to take effect by July 1, there’s not much time left to hammer out the kind of compromise our state needs.

And to make matters more difficult, the governor has moved his office – apparently to crazy town.

He says that he won’t allow his budget or policy experts to testify to legislative budget committees. Instead, he’ll answer all the questions himself.

He says he’s moving his office out of the State House over a silly disagreement about a TV. He then removed a transom from above his office and stuck the TV there, in a move that’s questionable from both a legal and safety point of view.

But mostly, worse than the theatrics or the bombast, the governor has demonstrated that he will not compromise, that he sees no value in the legislative process and that he doesn’t really care what other lawmakers – in his own party or another – think or care about.

He’s vetoed unanimously passed bills intended to make government work better or protect public health. He’s been spiteful, and so far Republicans in the Legislature have stood by him.

But with a deadline for action approaching, a few notable – and dare I say brave Republicans – have left open the door to a compromise that could put the state on better financial footing.

And that is a hopeful sign.

I see no evidence that LePage has a plan to lead the state through the budget dilemma he helped to create.

Instead, the job falls to Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature. They will need to agree to a fair and responsible budget plan, and then they’ll have to stick together to override a likely veto.

That’s a big job, but given the abdication of responsibility from the executive, it’s the only option because the alternative – a government shutdown – should be unthinkable.

She stood up to the governor of the state, in full public view, with the cameras rolling. She held her ground, and she did the right thing, not knowing exactly how it would be portrayed and understanding full well that the anger of Gov. Paul LePage would be directed right at her.

The next day, Sen. Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, a tough guy from Aroostook County who’s developed a reputation for taking on the governor and fighting hard fights, did something equally courageous.

During floor debate on a bill to pay old debts and expand access to health care for 69,500 Mainers, he laid bare his soul in a personal plea in defense of Mainers living on the edge without access to health care.

In a hyper-partisan world and made-for-TV politics, I’m not sure that most people understand just how hard it is to tell the governor of the state “no.”

From the comfort of my desk or your living room couch, it’s easy to talk about the governor’s policies or his performance. There’s distance. A buffer from the consequences. An immunity that comes from the fact that he’s not right there.

But I can tell you, it’s tough to deliver bad news to a governor, to stand up and tell him he’s wrong. There is power in the office that transcends the occupant, and that’s why in some administrations we see a staff that can’t deliver the hard facts or political allies unable to buck the boss.

On Sunday, LePage showed up unannounced to an Appropriations Committee work session. Just by being there, he influenced the outcome.

When a governor is in the room, it matters. It changes everybody’s behavior, and it can be intimidating.

At the end of the work session, the governor wanted to be recognized. No doubt, he planned to lob a few bombs into the proceedings and try to bully the discussion in his direction.

Hill, the Senate chair of the committee, politely and within the authority of her position, declined to play his political game. She didn’t allow the governor to speak.

The governor was irate, which was clear at the time and has become clearer in the days since.

While there are legions of folks who will stand up to the governor in the pages of a newspaper or from the safety of a bar stool, there are very few who can manage the job up close and personally – and do it in a way that is both respectful and firm.

A day later, Jackson took to the floor of the Senate and proceeded to break my heart and the hearts of anyone who was listening as he spoke.

Jackson is no softy. He earned his political stripes in the woods and logging communities of northern Maine.

He took to the floor of the Senate and spoke for more than 20 minutes about why it’s critical for our state to expand access to health care for thousands of Mainers, many of whom work but can’t afford insurance.

Jackson told the story of two of his friends, neighbors, people just like him.

Both got sick but put off care, thinking they had acid reflux disease when the real issue was with their heart. Jackson, feeling a pain in his chest, thought the same thing, he said, or that maybe he had pulled a muscle.

But instead of playing the odds, Jackson went to the hospital, where a heart problem was discovered and treated with a pacemaker. His friends, without insurance, weren’t so lucky.

“Of the three of us, I was the only one with health insurance,” Jackson said. “ I could afford to get the care I need, and I’m the only one who is alive. I can’t help thinking that’s the reason: I had health insurance. We should be throwing people like them a line, not pulling up the ladder behind us.”

Breaking up as he spoke, Jackson said he was embarrassed. “It’s … embarrassment that I had health insurance, and they didn’t. It’s embarrassment that I’m alive, and they didn’t have the opportunity.”

If we, as a state, decide to turn our back on nearly 70,000 of our neighbors, if we aren’t willing to stand up to the powerful forces that would turn us against one another, then we all should be embarrassed.

That’s what at stake. We can change lives for the better. Or we can stay safe at our desk or on our couch. Hill and Jackson have set the example.

Democrats are moving forward with a plan to pass legislation that includes a massive payout to Maine’s hospitals coupled with a plan, paid for by the federal government, to expand access to health care to 69,500 uninsured Mainers, many of whom work but aren’t paid enough to buy health insurance on their own.

Maine’s hospitals obviously want their money, and there’s bipartisan agreement that they should get it. They also say that they support expanding health care, which would help reduce their costs and also help to resolve structural problems from reduced caseloads and patient visits.

But the Maine Hospital Association has made its deal with Gov. Paul LePage, and it will not cross him. The association has threatened war with Democrats if it doesn’t get its way. Of course, if you ask me, war was declared sometime ago, and it will continue regardless of what happens in the next few weeks.

LePage and some Republicans haven’t been clear on whether or not they support expanding health care.

Despite the fact that it’s 100 percent federally funded, would save the state $690 million in the next 10 years and change lives for the better, some Republicans – not all, mind you – have tried to hedge their position.

They don’t want to outright oppose expanding health care because it is wildly popular among voters. Statewide polls show nearly 70 percent support for expansion among Maine voters.

And the benefits of the expansion tend to skew toward rural communities where Republicans have their base of support.

But they also ideologically aren’t sure that they can support it, despite growing acceptance from other conservatives around the country.

So they’re all in the bind, and they’re making excuses.

Maine’s hospitals are in a position to make out like kings: big cash payment today, continued payments for providing health care to more people tomorrow and into the future.

But they’re stuck. They’re worried that the governor won’t go along with a bill that combines the two issues and that he might veto the whole thing.

Republicans are completely torqued up because combining the two issues forces them into an uncomfortable position. If they vote against the combined bill, they vote against one of their top political priorities: paying the hospitals.

If they vote for the bill, then they may be running counter to their tea party governor who says he hates the Affordable Care Act. Yet, somehow with a straight face, he says that he’s still considering one of its key elements, the expansion of health care.

What to do? What to do?

Democrats have demonstrated that they can think and act strategically around this issue. If they go through with their plans, they are going to force Republicans to choose whether or not they are willing to compromise to get what they want.

LePage and his allies have spent tens of thousands of dollars to promote paying the hospitals while ignoring almost every other substantial issue so far this year, including a budget left in shambles by an unserious gubernatorial proposal.

They’ve decided the issue is a political winner.

Democrats, who also support paying the hospitals, have decided to go along with the governor’s hospital plan despite the fact they have doubts about some of the payment mechanisms, including the scheme to promise future state revenues to borrow money for a current obligation.

The reason is simple: Democrats support paying the hospitals, and they want a deal with the governor to move the state forward.

But they also have priorities of their own, and one of those is reducing the number of people without access to health care and also reforming health care to reduce costs in the future.

With divided government, neither the Legislature nor the executive branch can make law without the other. If you want to get things done, you have two choices: You can try to bull things through like the governor is doing, or you can find a compromise.

Democrats have given the governor an opportunity to win on the issue he’s made his top priority. They’ve given the hospitals a clear path to settling an old debt. And they’ve crafted a plan that would make sure thousands of working Mainers have access to health care.

And in so doing, they’ve left Republicans to argue about process. Because they’ve lost – and lost big – on the policy.

My mother, herself in the beginning stages of dementia, provided what support she could, but my uncle still qualified for what’s now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which was then just called food stamps.

The program is 100 percent federally funded and helps low-income individuals and families buy food through a small, monthly benefit.

The average person in Maine who qualifies for SNAP receives less than $125 per month, which translates to less than $1.50 per meal per day to help them buy food.

The limitations on what you can buy are pretty strict: no alcohol or tobacco, no diapers or paper towels, no toothpaste, soap or laundry detergent, no prepared or hot foods, and no vitamins or medicine.

Maine’s Legislature is currently considering a new restriction that would prohibit using food stamps to purchase “junk food.”

The bipartisan bill has the support of Gov. Paul LePage and would direct the Maine Department of Health and Human Services to request a waiver from the federal government to allow the new restriction.

To date, no such waiver has ever been granted, and for good reason. Such a ban would be hard to implement, expensive to administer and is unlikely to have the desired impact. In fact, there’s not even a consistent definition of what “junk food” really is.

Giving the supporters of the bill the benefit of the doubt, their stated goal is to encourage low-income individuals and families to make better food choices and to mandate that taxpayer dollars can’t be spent on things like candy and soda.

Despite the good intentions, the ultimate outcome of the debate – which, again, isn’t likely to lead to a change in the federal guidelines – is to further shame and punish low-income families, as if being poor isn’t bad enough.

The mythology of lazy people gaming the system has been used for decades to attack programs like nutrition assistance and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Perhaps it goes back to our Puritan roots – when the notion prevailed that God rewarded the righteous and was punishing the poor for some deficiency.

We see this notion play out every time there’s a criminal charge brought against someone for “welfare fraud.” I cringe every time someone gets caught dumping bottled water – purchased with food stamps – in an attempt to collect the bottle deposit for cash that can be spent on booze or cigarettes.

The reaction has consequences for every honest person just trying to feed their kids or an elderly relative.

According to an analysis of the data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, 64 percent of Maine families who receive food assistance have children in them. About 34 percent are families who include an elderly or disabled member.

And, it’s important to know, almost half of them have at least one person in the family who is working. They just don’t make very much money, with the median income less than $17,000 a year, according to the USDA.

Poverty in Maine is real, and its causes are complex.

If we want to encourage low-income families to buy healthier foods, there are better ways to do it, including increasing access to local foods and providing higher monthly benefits that are specifically directed toward fresh foods, such as produce, and better education on how to identify and prepare healthier foods.

But more importantly, we should not target families for ridicule because they might not always make the best decision about diet and grocery shopping. It’s as if we expect poor families to show repentance for accepting aid by subsisting on a bland diet free from sugar, salt or caffeine.

It’s as if we’re willing to admit that people are poor and need help but that the help means they have to agree to suffer to get it. Only quinoa, cold rice, day-old bread and lima beans.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can gorge ourselves on 1,500 empty calories of sweet and salty goodness, content that we’ve helped the poor to live a healthier life.

For the second straight day my email wasn’t working right. The calendar on my computer started going crazy. I found a stack of bills in a new, secret hiding place on the desk. I forgot my lunch.

It was just one of those days.

Then I looked at Facebook, where a friend of my posted this: “12 month CAT scan results: Nothing growing in me that shouldn’t! One year cancer free!”

It was great news, and all those other things just seemed silly.

The small problems – as we call them when talking to my son – that had kept me preoccupied for much of the day, that had made me cross with my family and friends, moved back into perspective.

If we’re lucky enough to be healthy, to have people we care about and who care about us in our lives, and if we can manage – sometimes as tough as it may be – to make ends meet, then we’re doing OK.

Unfortunately, too many of our friends and neighbors don’t have their health and can’t make ends meet. They’re one illness or accident away from ruin.

Minor computer glitches and the niggling little challenges that tie many of us up in knots just aren’t that important. For thousands of Mainers, those little things don’t stack up against joblessness, lack of access to health care, chronic illness, disability or hungry children.

Right now, lawmakers in Augusta can do something that will help people facing real obstacles and directly improve the lives of nearly 70,000 Mainers.

Through the Affordable Care Act, the federal government has set aside funding to pay for expanding access to health care in Maine.

The expansion would help many people who are working but who don’t earn enough money to afford health insurance. It would protect them from an accident or illness that could send them into bankruptcy. It would help them to better manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease. And it would make sure that they have access to a doctor for regular checkups and preventive care.

Part of my work includes helping the Cover Maine Now! Coalition, which supports expanded access to health care.

Cover Maine Now! includes more than 85 organizations around Maine, ranging from AARP, to the American Cancer Society, to the Maine Medical Association, to Catholic Charities and the Catholic Diocese of Portland.

The facts make a compelling case: Accepting federal dollars for expanded access to health care will save Maine an estimated $690 million over the next 10 years. It will stimulate nearly $350 million in economic activity and help create an estimated 3,100 jobs, according to the Maine Center for Economic Policy.

It’s a good deal. The federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs of the program for three years and then slowly reduce its share of expenses to a still-high 90 percent over the next decade.

One of the primary drivers of health care costs in Maine – and nationally – is bad debt and charity care. It’s the cost, born by all of us, when people without health insurance and without the means to pay for care end up in the emergency room.

By providing health insurance to more people, we can reduce the overall costs in our health care system and help to restrain the price of care for everyone, including people with private insurance.

The opportunity to expand access to health care makes financial sense. But that’s only part of the equation.

In a recent poll conducted by the nonpartisan Maine People’s Resource Center, more than 68 percent of Mainers said they supported expansion. A deeper look at the numbers explains why.

More than 65 percent of people reported that either a close friend or family member has lacked health insurance, and nearly 50 percent said that they or a family member had delayed medical care for fear of the cost.

Lawmakers in Augusta can do something about that. They can make life better, less scary and lot more healthful for thousands and thousands of Mainers.

The biggest hurdle is whether or not members of the Legislature and the governor can put things in perspective and put aside the small things – and some large things – that keep them apart and do the right thing.

There are plenty of issues to fight about. Here’s one where lawmakers can come together and change lives.

He picked two men who have unimpeachable credentials: George Jabar, an attorney in Waterville and a Kennebec County commissioner, and Daniel Wathen, a former justice on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

Both men have excellent reputations and careers marked by public service, and in almost any forum they can hold their own. Six months ago, they would have been perfect to lead a real commission trying to improve unemployment in Maine.

But now, it is simply too late.

Too late for a Blue Ribbon Commission.

Too late to undue the damage that has been done.

Too late to hit the reset button on appropriate process.

Some mistakes have to play out before they can be fixed, and that’s the case with LePage’s questionable interference with the hearing officers who judge appeals on unemployment claims.

As the Sun Journal was the first to report, in March LePage summoned hearing officers at the Department of Labor to a meeting at the Blaine House. The meeting was mandatory, and attendance was taken.

During the meeting, the governor allegedly made it clear that he thought the hearing officers, who adjudicate appeals on unemployment benefits, aren’t doing a good job and too often find in favor of the people who have lost their jobs instead of the employers who fired or laid them off.

Regardless of his intent – and it seems clear that his intent was to put his thumb on the scale for employers – the hearing officers got the message, and at least some of them felt like the lunch meeting was an inappropriate attempt to interfere with their work.

As further reporting by the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram has documented, there doesn’t appear to be statistical evidence that supports the governor’s contention.

The paper found that there is “little or no evidence to support the administration’s contention that the system is broken, or that unemployment appeals decisions have been skewed against employers. In fact, the records illustrate that employers consistently win most appeals, and that Maine’s hearing officers perform near the national average.”

And e-mails obtained from the Department of Labor under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act document that employees felt intimidated by the governor and thought that he was trying to skew the outcomes of appeals hearings.

No Blue Ribbon Commission chairs, no matter their personal prestige and integrity, can undo what the governor has already done.

And it seems clear to me that the governor’s intent is not to reform a system that’s broken – evidence shows it’s not broken after all – but instead to deflect attention from his own deeds with a personally appointed cover-up committee.

Not for a moment do I believe that Wathan and Jabar would play such a role intentionally, but there can be no other analysis of the governor’s actions than to realize he’s trying to hide behind the credibility of these esteemed leaders.

The U.S. Department of Labor is looking into the situation around the forced meeting, and I would expect that the Legislature’s Government Oversight Committee and the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability will look deeper into the matter as well.

Eventually, Maine’s Attorney General may also become involved.

Under Maine law, it is against the law to privately address any public servant who has or will have an official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding any representation, argument or other communication with the intention of influencing that discretion on the basis of considerations other than those authorized by law.

Whether the governor’s actions meet that threshold, I don’t know. It’s a high bar, and we should all be cautious when it comes to accusing someone else of a crime. I’m not willing to go that far without a proper investigation and more evidence.

But I do believe that his actions were ill-considered and inappropriate. They represent a breach of trust and a coordinated effort to tilt the playing field against Mainers who have already lost their jobs.

An attempt at undo influence? I don’t know. Wrong? Absolutely.

No Blue Ribbon Commission, no matter the prestige of its leaders, can fix that.

The tree of this commission is poison, and we should all be wary of any fruit it bears.

For now, the best outcome would be for an independent and thorough review – one that protects the state employees who rightfully fear retribution – and stronger regulations that ensure that everyone can trust that they are being treated fairly by the unemployment system.

The word keeps running through my mind as I try to digest the terror of the attack in Boston.

It’s a powerful word that can mean a lot of different things – to seek atonement, or, in a religious context, salvation. It can mean the payment of an obligation, as in debt or redeeming a bottle for the deposit.

But it can also mean deliverance or rescue, and that’s that definition I cannot shake.

Carlos Arredondo is the man in the cowboy hat.

He’s the man, covered in someone else’s blood, taking care of someone else’s son in an Associated Press picture taken after two bombs exploded Monday near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

He’s a man, with his own story of loss and grief and perseverance who has become one of the heroic faces of a murderous attack.

According to numerous reports from the scene, after the bombs exploded, Carlos immediately jumped to the aid of Jeff Bauman, a spectator who was horribly injured by the explosions.

Speaking to the New York Times, Bauman’s family was clear: “The man in the cowboy hat – he saved Jeff’s life,” Csilla Bauman told the newspaper.

“There’s a video where he goes right to Jeff, picks him right up and puts him on the wheelchair and starts putting a tourniquet on him and pushing him out,” Jeff’s father, also named Jeff Bauman, continued.

In 2004, it was Carlos who was pulled from the flames, literally. He received the knock on that door that every military family fears. His son, Alexander, a lance corporal in the Marine Corps, had been killed during his second tour of duty in Iraq.

Overcome with grief, he jumped in a Marine Corps van and set it ablaze, badly burning himself in the process. The Marines who were there to tell him about his son’s death pulled him from the fire, likely saving his life.

Since that dark day, Carlos has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, even as he has suffered the death of a second son, who committed suicide.

According to the Bangor Daily News, he was in Boston to honor his son as part of Run for the Fallen, a group that recognizes members of the U.S. military killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was handing out American flags at the finish line.

Without the death of his own son, it’s unlikely Carlos would have been at the finish line of the marathon on Monday.

But for the quick actions of the Marines who pulled him from a flaming van, he might not have been there.

Without his own suffering and grief, without the motivation to remember his son, Jeff Bauman might not have survived the attack that cost him both of his legs.

Through one person’s death, another is delivered nearly a decade later.

Through tragedy and horror and chaos, the man in a cowboy hat rescued another man’s son.

In his book, “The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress,” former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges talked with Carlos about the death of his son and the anguish that combat had caused him.

Carlos described his son as being upset about the death and destruction of the war. Typically, Carlos said, his son would ask him not to forget him. But near the time of his death, he described remorse for the violence in Iraq and the toll the killing was having on him.

“It’s not normal to kill. How can they do this? How can they take our children,” Carlos says in the book.

It’s a question that we keep asking after Monday, after Newtown, after Virginia Tech.

At least three people were killed by the bombs in Boston, including 8-year-old Martin Richard and 29-year-old Krystle Campbell, and 170 were injured.

There were many brave people – firefighters, paramedics, police officers and other bystanders – who ran into the disaster to help people.

And the help continues, as communities around the country wrap their arms around the city of Boston and all the families affected by the bombing.

Through his bravery and selflessness, through the life he saved, I hope Carlos Arredondo can find some new measure of peace, that by delivering another man’s son, he, too, can be delivered from the burdens he has carries.

God bless the man in the cowboy hat.

Even the best parents – and I’m not putting myself in that category – need help.

Our kids are bombarded with mixed messages and marketing, all designed to change their behavior. Most of the time, it’s not for the good.

I have daily conniption fits over the way my kids dress. If I have to tell my son one more time to pull up his pants, I’m attaching suspenders to all of his jeans.

And when I go to the mall with my 9-year-old daughter, I try to keep the freak-out factor over the clothes controlled. I’m praying for a style revival from the 1980s, when the pants were baggy, the collars were up, and the layered look was in.

Even as an aspiring grumpy old man, I’m not going to go on about fashion or “kids today.”

Instead, I’m going to talk about science and the clash of science with a very good political talking point.

State Sen. Geoffrey Gratwick, a Democrat from Bangor and a doctor, sponsored legislation this year that would ban teenagers under the age of 18 from indoor tanning.

The bill passed the Legislature largely along party lines. The governor vetoed the bill, and Republicans in the Maine Senate voted to sustain the veto.

In his veto message, Gov. Paul LePage wrote: “This bill does one thing: it tells Maine parents that Augusta knows better than they do when it comes to their children.”

It’s a great talking point, and it plays straight to the Republican base and to those who might be of a libertarian mindset.

As a parent, my ears perk up, too. I don’t want Augusta telling me how to raise my kids.

But as a parent, I should know better than to allow my kids to use a tanning bed. If I don’t, somebody needs to tell me that it’s dangerous.

And as a parent, I need help from the state to make sure things that put my kids at an unacceptable risk aren’t allowed.

Currently, parental consent is required for minors to use a tanning bed.

Unfortunately, some parents don’t understand the risks or ignore them, and they allow their kids to tan, enough so that the industry doesn’t want to lose this prime market.

Congressional investigators found that tanning salons often mislead teens – and their parents – about the health affects of indoor tanning.

A February 2012 report found that of 300 tanning salons contacted nationally, 90 percent state that indoor tanning did not pose a health risk, while more than half of salons denied that indoor tanning would increase the risk of skin cancer.

In fact, nearly 80 percent of salons said that indoor tanning is beneficial to health, and some said it would prevent cancer.

At least one salon said: “It’s got to be safe, or else they wouldn’t let us do it.”

We shouldn’t let them do it.

The science is shocking.

A study released last fall by the University of California-San Francisco estimated that indoor tanning is responsible for more than 170,000 new cases of skin cancer a year just in the United States.

“The numbers are striking – hundreds of thousands of cancers each year are attributed to tanning beds,” said Dr. Eleni Linos, an assistant professor of dermatology at UCSF and senior author of the study. “This creates a huge opportunity for cancer prevention.”

The Centers for Disease Control warns that people who begin tanning before the age of 35 have a 75 percent higher risk melanoma, the most dangerous type of skin cancer.

And the industry is coming after our daughters. Really.

Investigators found that salons target teenage girls with their advertising, offering student discounts, prom discounts, homecoming specials and “back-to-school” deals.

The 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, a survey that monitors behaviors, found that 21 percent of high school girls and 32 percent of girls in 12^th grade report indoor tanning.

We don’t let kids smoke. We force them to sit in car seats. We don’t let them drink. If you’re under 18 in Maine, your driver’s license has restrictions: No driving after midnight, no cell phones, only family as passengers.

Tanning shouldn’t be different.

Tanning is all about vanity. It helps to instill unhealthy attitudes, and, by our inaction, we are implicitly saying that it’s OK to trade your health – to greatly increase your risk of cancer – for the right look.

Despite the governor’s great talking point, if you’re letting your kids tan, then you need somebody to tell you what to do.