But while politicians go back and forth on the question, students in Texas who’ve benefited from the law are hoping to change the conversation, and put a face on this suddenly controversial issue.

Texas A&M University student Adan Torres was born in Monterey, Mexico but he grew up in Cleveland, Texas. When he was eight years old Torres came to the United States with his family, and lived with relatives. His father worked as a laborer, and then in a lumber yard, before starting his own contracting business.

When his family moved, they were following the immigration of much of his father’s family who had already come to the United States. Most of his mother’s family still lives in Mexico, and because of their immigration status he has only seen that side of his family a few times since he left Monterey.

In 2000, his family applied to have their immigration status regularized, and since then they have been stuck in limbo, their case held up in a backlogged immigration system. Torres says that there is no real network of support for undocumented immigrants, outside of churches and religious organizations.

Jose Luis, a fellow Aggie, was born in Honduras, where he grew up in poverty and hardship with an abusive father. His brother died when he was just five years old, and their home was destroyed in 1998 by Hurricane Mitch. His mother fled her dangerous marriage in 2000, moving to the U.S. with his sister.

Luis was left with his father in a poverty and gang-ridden neighborhood. After being shot in both arms during a drive-by and having neighbors save him, his grandmother made the decision to take him out of the country.

In a 45-day journey that began in Guatemala, Luis saw the hardships that immigrants must endure to come to the United States. He saw a 12-year-old girl raped by the coyotes paid to smuggle her to safety. He saw an elderly couple left behind in the desert.

Luis was detained by the U.S. Border Patrol attempting to cross from Mexico, and his case slowly worked its way through the immigration system. So far, his application for political asylum has been denied, in part, he said, because the hurricane that destroyed his childhood home also took the medical and police records he’d need for his case. Today, he describes his immigration status as “frustrated.”

‘Skewed logic’

These two undocumented immigrants took very different paths to the United States. However, they are both currently fighting the same battle. Both worked hard despite their circumstances and graduated from high school in Texas, and were able to go to college where they faced new struggles.

In high school Torres was in a military style band which led him to want to come to Texas A&M, despite family and friends telling him that he wouldn’t be able to go to college because of his immigration status. However, he said he did his own research, and learned that S.B. 538 entitled him to register as an in-state student.

The process of applying for college wasn’t much different for Torres than it was for any other high school student. The only real difference was that he had to fill out an affidavit stating that he would pursue citizenship and have it notarized.

“It’s also a lot more common to find people [who] are trying to assimilate and work than people who are not.” Torres said that this is especially true among undocumented college students because college is “about opening up your mind.”

Critics who say undocumented students are getting an unfair tuition break are operating with “skewed logic,” Torres said. He has lived in Texas since he was eight years old, he said, and that if any other student had lived in Texas that long, they would pay in-state tuition too. “We’ve contributed to paying taxes here. Sales taxes, property taxes, school taxes — all that we’ve paid too,” said Torres.

Luis echoed those sentiments. “I don’t know any other home,” he said. “We aren’t taking resources away from other Americans, because we are Americans.”

“It doesn’t make sense for the government to invest so much education in undocumented students in grade school, and then not allow them to go to college,” he said. Preventing undocumented students from going to college has an economic cost, he said. Torres said it’s wrong to suggest that undocumented students are taking spots in college that should have gone to citizens.

Torres said he thinks the driving force behind the recent criticism is political. “It’s people trying to hold their Republican and ideological views against immigration, and then coming up with arguments trying to justify their positions.”

The public’s negative image of undocumented immigrants has also contributed to the criticism, and Luis said the media has played a major role in demonizing undocumented immigrants.

Most people, Luis said, “think of an undocumented immigrant as someone who is in jail.” He criticized Fox News for only focusing on stories about undocumented immigrants who commit crimes, and ignoring stories like his.

‘It’s like Jim Crow’

Once both students graduate, despite their degrees they will not be able to legally work in the country they call home. Torres talked about the importance of passing a national DREAM Act, because unlike the law in Texas, it provides a path to citizenship. Undocumented students like Torres who are about to graduate worry about this because since their immigration status is not regularized they cannot work in the field that they have gotten their degree in.

“It’s like the Jim Crow laws that were ignored at first,” Torres said, “but then more and more people protested against it.” He said he’s speaking out now, like other undocumented students and activists, because the issue can no longer be ignored.

Growing up in poverty, Luis said that you are trained to only know that there is one type of life, and that is “a life of suffering.” His and Torres and many others journeys have brought them to this country to seek a better life. However, the immigration process has left them wondering if there is a place for them in the land that they call home. “The same flag that I pledge my allegiance to is the same flag that doesn’t give me freedom,” said Luis. “Isn’t this the land of opportunity?”

State and local government spending is less likely to be seen as wasted, but belief in how much of it is wasted has risen at about the same pace as belief in federal waste:

The elderly and people without postgraduate degrees are more likely to rate government waste as slightly larger, as well as self-identified Republicans, independents and conservatives.

The partisan difference over how much federal government spending is wasted is the reverse of what it was in 2001, under President George W. Bush, when Democrats on average thought more federal spending was wasted than Republicans did, suggesting who is in office affects perceptions of government waste.

The greater perception of government waste on average among those over age 65 contrasts sharply with the reality that a disproportionate amount of government spending goes to the elderly through Social Security and Medicare. As this graph from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities shows, federal government spending largely goes to defense and the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, safety-net programs and interest on the debt.

In the past, when pollsters have asked Americans which specific federal program they think should be cut, very little consensus emerges on which is most deserving. In January, Gallup found that bipartisan majorities of the public opposed cutting Social Security, Medicare, education and anti-poverty programs.

Foreign aid, which makes up less than one percent of the federal budget, was the most popular potential target of cuts. The biggest partisan difference was over defense spending, where Republicans are much less likely to support cuts.

As Gallup says in its own interpretation of the poll, “It is not clear whether Americans believe government wastes money because it spends on programs they believe are not needed, or because it does not spend money efficiently on programs, whether needed or not.” Nor does the poll say whether Americans believe mandatory or discretionary spending is more wasteful.

About two-thirds of state government spending is typically devoted to K-12 and higher education, Medicaid, transportation, anti-poverty programs and corrections. The remaining third varies by state, but is usually comprised at least somewhat by pensions for retired public sector workers.

The following CBPP graph shows average state government spending by area:

The speech has won plaudits from labor groups and most of the Democratic base for its extension of unemployment insurance benefits and direct jobs training and hiring subsidies for employers, while the package of household and business tax cuts has piqued the Republican Party’s interest as well.

Among the direct jobs spending the president called for, $30 billion would be spent on retaining 280,000 teachers as a counter-cyclical measure to wait out the sluggish economy. After a several-month period of 100,000-plus job gains in the labor market, hiring has slowed, with the most recent monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics noting job growth was completely flat, with net zero new hires.

Going into the 2011-2012 school year, nearly 85 percent of all school districts face budget cuts, according to labor groups; the depletion of 2009 stimulus money that relieved state legislatures from cutting even deeper into education spending meant more layoffs and school infrastructure neglect. The National Education Association, the largest teachers’ union in the country, have said the first round of stimulus funds helped 90 percent of school districts avoid spending cuts. Though with many state legislatures passing expansive tax cuts, school spending was on the cutting block.

Many states have dramatically thinned out spending streams to education. From Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

21 of the 24 states analyzed are providing less funding per student to local school districts in the new school year than they provided last year, and 17 of the 24 are providing less than they did before the recession, after adjusting for inflation. In 10 of these 24 states, per student funding is down by more than 10 percent from pre-recession levels. The three states with the deepest cuts — South Carolina, Arizona, and California — each have reduced per student funding to K-12 schools by more than 20 percent.

Though state contributions to school district spending varies by state, nationally, 47 percent of public education spending comes from state coffers. Since the start of the Great Recession, 229,000 teachers were laid off. And with the housing market at a standstill, local communities are strapped as their chief revenue stream runs dry.

Still, a few states upped their primary and secondary education spending: Alaska, Iowa, New Hampshire, Maryland, Massachussetts and Pennsylvania sent more dollars to K-12 education since the start of the recession.

Because public education allotments follow ‘formula’ spending as indicated by federal law — in which dollars are sent over based on district financial need — a disproportionate amount would flow to poorer neighborhoods, meaning middle-class zones would feel the squeeze. New Jersey, for example, is under court order to withhold any more spending cuts affecting school districts in low-income areas.

The remaining $25 billion would go to refurbishing school structures while funding new science labs, internet-ready classrooms, and modernizing rural school houses while bolstering public school facilities’ green bonefides across the country.

A statement from the American Federation of Teachers, the second largest teachers’ union, read in part:

President Obama also made it clear that the path to our future is through education. We have seen a loss of 300,000 education jobs since 2008 as well as long-delayed school repairs and modernization projects. We can’t equip our kids for the knowledge economy if we continue to slash education budgets. This robust plan will put people to work teaching and modernizing schools, and it will save money in energy costs that can be reinvested in education.

For a spending breakdown of the president’s proposed jobs bill, click here [PDF].

The John T. Walton Champions for School Choice Award was given to the professor by the American Federation For Children, which recently held its second annual National Policy Summit in Washington, D.C. Dr. Fuller was present during the summit, as was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Read The American Independent’s coverage of the event.

John T. Walton, a son of Walmart founder Sam Walton, sat on the Philanthropy Roundtable, a private, free-market, non-profit organization with ties to the Heritage Foundation and the George W. Bush administration. He also co-founded the Children’s Scholarship Fund in 1998, a charitable organization that supports needy students’ tuitions at private schools.

Fuller has rebuked Wisconsin elected officials for supporting legislation that would reform the Milwaukee school voucher program by providing public funds to any student, regardless of family income, to attend private schools. In an op-ed that appeared in the Journal Sentinel in April, he wrote:

It was not easy for me to stand before the state Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee and threaten to withdraw my support from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program… But if lawmakers approve Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to lift the income requirement that has maintained the program for children from low-income families, that is exactly what I will do.

The American Independent has reached out to Dr. Fuller but he has yet to offer a comment.

On Wednesday, the state assembly of Wisconsin passed AB 92, which would lift income eligibility requirements in the voucher program of Milwaukee. Leading Republican state senators have yet to put in their support for the legislation despite Gov. Walker’s push for the proposed law. AFC supports the governor and his backers in expanding the city’s voucher program without income eligibility requirements.

Gallup has the breakdown on its website, which includes the little-acknowledged fact that independents overwhelmingly want a third party and always have:

Interestingly, the poll also includes a potential barometer of ideological identification across the country. When asked to identify themselves by political party, 72 percent of self-styled independents called for a third party, compared to just 33 percent of Democrats. But when asked to identify themselves by general ideology, support for a third party among moderates dropped to 52 percent, while support among liberals rose to 51 percent.

Support for a third party held steady at 52 percent across self-identified Republicans and conservatives, suggesting that very few independents identified as conservative, while more than one in four independents identified as liberal.

If a quarter of independents consider themselves liberal and the rest are strictly moderate, it could move the 2012 presidential election in a number of directions. That bloc of liberal-but-not-Democrat voters could end up being a lock for President Obama, leaving it to the Republican candidate — already working with a smaller base than that held by the Democratic party — to fight for every last moderate’s vote. This would all but ensure an Obama victory unless more than two-thirds of non-party-affiliated moderates vote Republican.

Or the growing number of independent liberals disillusioned with the Obama administration over issues like the detention of Bradley Manning and the perpetuation of Bush-era anti-terrorism tactics could just stay home on election day, bolstering Republicans’ chances. Similarly, for the same reasons, staunch liberals may come out in support of a third-party candidate, to the detriment of the Democratic Party — though some have argued that the vote-siphoning effect of third parties is greatly exaggerated.

It’s simply too early to tell. But that large number of liberal and moderate independents fed up with the entire two-party system may very well end up deciding the election. Both parties would do well to start courting them, and soon.

PPP compiled the results from national polling in March, April and May. The findings come on the heels of four national polls showing the majority of the American public is in support of gay marriage for the first time.

The poll asked Republicans, “Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship?” Twelve percent said that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, 39 percent said they should be allowed civil unions, and 48 percent said that gay couples should have no legal rights. That means 51 percent of Republicans polled support relationship rights for same-sex couples.

Eighty-nine percent of liberal Republicans support either gay marriage (48 percent) or civil unions (41 percent). Fifty-seven percent of conservative Republicans said there should be no rights for same-sex couples. Still, 42 percent said there should be civil unions (35 percent) or full marriage (7 percent) for gay couples. That trend was almost identical among those that identify with the tea party.

Young Republicans were much more likely to support rights for same-sex couples. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 56 percent supported either same-sex marriage or civil unions; among 30- to 45-year-olds, that number was 54 percent; 50 percent for 46- to 65-year-olds, and 48 percent for those over 65.

Republicans in the Midwest and the South were more likely to oppose rights for same-sex couples at 49 percent and 54 percent, respectively.

And the less money a family makes the more likely they were to oppose rights for same-sex couples. Fifty-seven percent of those making less than $30,000 a year opposed any rights for same-sex couples, while only 33 percent of those making more than $100,000 supported a complete ban on any rights. Thirty percent of those under $30,000 supported civil unions or same-sex marriage, while 66 percent of those making more than $100,000 support it.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee “would be the definitive favorite had he been more aggressive about this process, and thus not allowed candidates like [U.S. Rep.] Michele Bachmann to gain some traction, and lost the support of key evangelicals like Danny Carroll and Kent Sorenson.” In addition, now that it seems somewhat more likely that Huckabee will officially enter the 2012 contest, one of our panelists believe the advantage is handed to more establishment candidates like former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “because it will further balkanize the more grassroots-favored candidates.”

Such perspectives have been culled from our staff members, additional state political reporters, party activists, academics, elected officials, political consultants and other insiders to create these rankings. While unscientific, the ranks provide insights that cannot be garnered in traditional polling or from any one pundit as to a candidate’s organizational strength in the Hawkeye State.

All those invited to participate are asked to answer one question: “If the Iowa caucus was held tonight, what would be the results?”

The rankings below provide a snapshot in time based on educated guesses and “gut instincts.” Campaigns were evaluated based on personal perceptions and input from others as to the quality of shoe-leather activity, ability to motivate possible caucus attendees and second-choice support. Panelists aren’t provided a specific ballot of potential candidates, and are free to choose from any Republican candidate — rumored or actual.

With all of that in mind, if the caucus was held tonight, this is how we think it would end.

1. Mike Huckabee — The victor of the 2008 GOP Iowa caucuses returns to the top of our rankings for this edition, but only barely. Some of our panelists who had wiped him from their last rankings on a firm belief that he wouldn’t be running — and one panelists who had never listed him for the ranking series on a belief he wasn’t running — suddenly had to reconsider the pastor and why he continues to have so much of a draw with Iowa caucus-goers.

   Huckabee “has a name that people recognize,” said one panelist, while another noted that when you discuss Huckabee “what you see is what you get.” Although still viewed as wishy-washy when it comes to the 2012 contests, most of our panelists view Huckabee as both charismatic and consistent — two qualities seen as sorely lacking in the rest of the potential GOP field.

   “He should have the same support in Iowa, because he’s the same likable person, bringing the same message.”

   What seems to keep Huckabee from totally dominating our Power Rankings week after week is his own apparent hesitation when it comes to 2012, which has subsequently lended itself to many of Huckabee’s key Iowa staff members signing with other candidates. Now that those staffers have gone elsewhere, “he needs to act fast as the activists aren’t going to wait around forever.”

2. Michele Bachmann — Ten of our panelists use some variant of Bachmann “saying all the right things” to describe their justification for placing the Minnesota Republican near the top of their caucus night predictions.

   “In a lot of ways she is like the Sarah Palin of 2012 — coming out of seemingly nowhere and making a big splash, mostly due to her campaign rhetoric. The question is if she can hang on to the momentum or if she has already peaked.”

   Much of what happens to Bachmann in 2012 will not be self-determined, according to our panelists, but will hinge on Huckabee. If he stays away from the race, her fortunes could swell. If he gets into the race, our panelists don’t see this duo as garnering enough support between them to rank first and second on caucus night.

   “Think of Huckabee-Bachmann in Iowa 2012 like Huckabee-Fred Thompson South Carolina 2008. She drains just enough support from Huckabee to deny him the victory.

3. Tim Pawlenty — While many of our panelists spoke of candidate inconsistencies, or the feeling that several are trying to remake themselves publicly as we head into 2012, such feelings were most prevalent as panelists discussed former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

   Even while noting two more key Iowa staff pick-ups for Pawlenty — Tracie Gibler and Dane Nealson — and highly effective organizing around the Ames area (home of the Straw Poll) one our panelists notes that it is getting more difficult to look the other way as Pawlenty tries on different hats.

   “Pawlenty gets a plus for showing up at the Des Moines tea party rally in some bad weather. I was willing to given him a pass a couple of weeks ago for channeling Charlie Sheen when talking to the Iowa Federation of College Republicans convention, but he channeled both the “rent is too damn high” guy and Donald Trump (You’re fired.) at the tea party event. Some people can get away with that stuff. I’m not sure Pawlenty is one of them.”

   Most of our panelists agree, however, that the media perception of him being less fiery and uninspiring combined with his low national name recognition is playing a role in this seemingly never-ended persona revamping.

   “[Pawlenty is] still hanging around. Still not exciting.”

   But while acknowledging why Pawlenty is struggling, our Iowa panelists aren’t willing to shrug it off. Most don’t understand why Pawlenty isn’t willing to grab and hold the potential “moderate middle” that seems his natural base.

   Just like Barack Obama during 2008, “Pawlenty will be able to mobilize many volunteers” from Iowa’s neighbor state. “Key places in north Iowa have already been seeing his ads for years.”

   Another panelist notes that he could be “the ‘conservative next door,’ the trustworthy Boy Scout in the race” and that such a strategy “may make a lot of sense when all the dust settles and the moderates are looking for a place to go.”

4. Mitt Romney and Donald Trump — Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney and real estate mogul turned reality television sensation Trump are currently in a dead heat, according to our panelists.

   Romney returns to the rankings for the first time since our first edition in mid-March, largely due to recent polling that shows he continues to be favored by Republicans despite the fact that he hasn’t had much of a presence in the state for 2012.

   “There is obvious loyalty and name recognition that lingers for Romney among Iowans — and I also think that many view him as the one candidate who could effectively run a campaign against Obama’s national machine in 2012. So, as much as Iowa social conservatives would like to put an ideologist out there for the nation, they want to win back the White House even more.”

   Romney’s Achilles’ heel, say our panelists, is the fact that he pushed for a won health care reform in Massachusetts — something that was viewed as a mostly positive talking point for him during 2008.

   “Romney’s solid video announcing his Presidential Exploratory Committee made a good impression on a lot of folks. Romney still has a lot of explaining to do about ‘Romneycare’ and he needs to reassure conservative voters about some of his positions, but the opening is there for him to make some progress. He may not put as much emphasis on Iowa this time around, but he may still do well if the social conservatives are split among several other candidates.”

   “I was surprised by this week’s results of Public Policy Polling, in that between moderates Romney and Pawlenty, voters were more interested in Romney, even though he hasn’t visited the state much this year, and despite Pawlenty’s presence in Iowa he hasn’t made much impact … I will caveat this selection with the fact that once Romney’s name gets tied to Romneycare, as it likely will, I expect he’ll fall in the rankings. That said, the question is if the caucuses were held today, so he makes my list.”

   The same polling that elevated Romney seemed to diminish an Iowa standing for Trump and, in many ways, our rankings show similar results. There was not an overwhelming majority of our panelists who placed Trump in their top five, but those who did overwhelmingly ranked him high — a situation that could be an indicator that Trump is viewed as a viable second-choice by Iowa caucus-goers.

   “We laugh right now [at the thought of Trump becoming president], but a lot of us laughed when Arnold Schwarzenegger ran in California. What Trump is saying right now in the news appeals to both the hard right and the fiscal right.”

   “Despite the slings and arrows of the terrified Republican establishment, the Donald has now surged to or toward the top of most polls. The more the establishment attacks him, the better he looks. Americans are sick of slick and Trump is the beneficiary d’jour of that revulsion. Republicans will turn out in big numbers at an upcoming Republican dinner. This turnout will be the first test of Trump’s appeal to the activist base.”

5. Newt Gingrich — What keeps Gingrich in the Power Rankings week after week isn’t a surge of high-placement by a handful of panelists, but a steady flow of mostly fourth and fifth place predictions from a very diverse group that isn’t convinced Gingrich can claim support among social conservatives so focused on marriage.

   “Gingrich seems very serious about being a candidate, particularly given that he recently hired some Iowa folks for his team. He has the name recognition and gravitas to be a favorite among Republicans. The big question mark with him will be how his political and personal baggage will play. The personal issues will bother some Republicans and both will be used as points of attack by Democrats. The question will be whether Republicans will see him as too vulnerable to such attacks.”

This edition of Power Rankings also so the most mentions ever of Sarah Palin, mostly due to her appearance in Wisconsin. “Sarah again followed up a great week with a low-profile week. This follows a strange pattern in which the biggest Republican celebrity since RR (Ronald Reagan) appears ready to sweep the nomination field with long periods of little apparent activity. But the public is still talking about her appearance before the hostile crowd in Madison and this keeps her in third place.”

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas also continues to have his following among our panelists, but not enough for this edition to keep him in the top five. “I’m sticking by my prediction that there remains a libertarian bent to some GOP activists in Iowa and I can see Paul galvanize them.”

Former Godfather’s Pizza chief executive and radio talk show host Herman Cain also received more widespread support from our panelists than he ever has previously, but it wasn’t enough to pull him into our top five. “Cain has a small but devoted and hard-working grassroots organization, and might be the most dynamic speaker of the bunch. I don’t think he can win, but he can certainly play spoiler and play a role. He will be heavily courted for his endorsement (and to drop out) down the stretch like Tom Tancredo was in 2008.”

Others that received only passing mentions by our panelists were:

• Ambassador Jon Huntsman — “Huntsman doesn’t stand a chance. He’s too close to the Obama administration.”
• Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — “He could potentially make a bigger impact if Huckabee weren’t in the race, but the network of pastors across the state he needs to do that is still pretty loyal to Huckabee and/or impressed with Bachmann from what I understand.”
• Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour — “Seems to have fallen off the face of the earth,” and “if anyone sees him they should signal with a flare.” Another panelist joked that Barbour was obviously hanging out with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and “arguing over what cabinet position they’d like to hold.”

Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty – despite the slew of GOP prospects for 2012 (most of whom have at one point said they are exploring the idea of setting up an exploratory committee to explore a presidential run), only Pawlenty has officially started such a committee, which he announced March 21.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation announced Wednesday that it was pushing the debate (to be moderated by Politico and NBC) from May 2 to Sept. 14

Actually, there is one Republican who has officially filed his candidacy for 2012 — and that’s Fred Karger, a little-known political activist who made his announcement March 22 and submitted his papers to the Federal Election Commission the next day. Karger, who is openly gay and has been excluded from numerous Republican events, formed his exploratory committee in July 2010 and has already done a bit of campaigning around the country — but the odds that he would be invited to a highly publicized debate are still slim.

Karger announcing his candidacy on CBS:

The latest story coming from the state is that newly elected Republican Governor Paul LePage has ordered the removal of a mural in the state Department of Labor building that portrays the history of the labor movement in Maine. The mural, by local artist Judy Taylor (the complete image of which can be found below), begins with a cobbler training an apprentice, then depicts growing child labor and deplorable conditions for women working in factories, before depicting votes, strikes and demonstrations that earned rights for Maine laborers. It ends with a panel of an old-fashioned worker handing a hammer to the next generation — ostensibly inoffensive stuff, advocating workers’ rights and celebrating skilled labor.

Not so, according to Gov. LePage. LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt told local paper the Lewiston Sun Journal that the mural was a piece of “one-sided décor” that “some business owners” had complained about.

“The message from state agencies needs to be balanced,” said Demeritt.

LePage also intends to rename conference rooms at the Department of Labor, which are currently named after labor figures like New Deal labor secretary Frances Perkins and protest leader César Chávez. The state will hold a contest to rename the rooms; Demeritt suggests naming them “after mountains, counties or something.”

The news comes on the heels of several new Maine bills seeking to do away with labor protections in the state. A bill that has the support of Maine restaurant and hotel owners would raise limits on working hours during the Maine school year for 16- and 17-year-olds. It would increase the weekly work hour limit for minors from 20 to 32 hours; the daily limit from 4 to 6 hours; and the time at which minors’ workday must end from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. Business owners say that Maine is unfairly restrictive when it comes to working minors, but educators and Maine Democrats have said that such a policy could help big business at the expense of education. The bill is due for a discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives on Friday.

Meanwhile, two bills aimed at weakening unions are currently in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development. One would make membership in public unions voluntary but preserve the unions’ representation of public workers in a given industry. The other would block the enforcement of membership dues by all unions in the state. Both bills could cripple public and private unions in Maine by enabling non-members and non-paying members to use their services without contributing to them. There are no hearings scheduled imminently for the bills.

Below is the 11-panel mural by artist Judy Taylor that is responsible for the latest battle in the war against labor in Maine. Click to view full-size.

Image courtesy of Judy Taylor. Photo by Imbrogno Photography.

MPR’s Bob Collins put together a handy then-and-now Pawlenty accent comparison tool to let listeners judge for themselves:

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank noticed the same thing, parsing Pawlenty’s March 7 speech to the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition in an editorial:

“This ain’t about easy; this is about rolling up our sleeves and plowing ahead and getting the job done,” he said, pronouncing “getting” as “git-ing.” “We, the people of the United States, will rise up again.” “United” became “yew-nah-ted” and “again” became “a-gin.” Perhaps he thought he was in South Carolina (Pawlenty pronounced it “care-lahna”) as he spoke about the other “kinds (kahns) of things” he’s done.

Video of the portion of Pawlenty’s speech that Milbank cites can be seen below: