The Ati-thesis , Marxism


"By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]"

Quoted from Wikepedia

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Government by Public Private Relationships.As Maine Goes, So Goes the Country!.



During the election campaign Trump advocates sold Trump as a better executive to appoint US Supreme Court Justices than Hillary Clinton. I responded by citing Donald Trump's support for the Kelo vs New London Supreme Court decision,which Trump praised as 100% correct.

 Kelo v. City of New London,1 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In effect Kelo vs New London says the big businesses like Trump Entertainment Industries, employing more that 1000 can override the constitutional property rights of other Americans for the purpose of economic development.

SUSOETTE KELO ET AL.
 V. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Argued December 2, 2002
Officially released March 9, 2004
Opinion NORCOTT, J.
 The principal issue in this appeal is whether the public use clauses of the federal and state Constitutions authorize the exercise of the eminent domain power in furtherance of a significant economic development plan that is projected to create in excess of 1000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas. 

Donald Trump was born and bred into the lap of what is sometimes referred to as a shadow government by public private relationships.Trump started out his real estate career with a generous loan from his father and access to his father's political connections to negotiate a forty year tax abatement for his first luxury hotel.

In my book, Public Private Relationships and the New Owners of the Means of Production, I follow the history of the statutory re-invention of Maine government from a government by the Maine Constitution to a government by public private relationships. My perspective is given as an outsider looking in and in so doing I make no claims to legal professional authority but rather speak through the voice of the governed applying a common sense analysis to uncover the meaning codified into law by the language of the statutes. State law is much simpler than federal law and so one has to only follow through on simple layers of the substrate to de-code the meaning hidden within statutory references.

Trumps justification that "the law in on his side" for simultaneously operating his private business empire while running the US government relies on a Congressional Research Service report issued on 10/14/2016. The report does not identify the names of individuals responsible for its authorship.

Upon reading the report, I was struck by the similarity of the exclusion of the executive employers to conflict of interest laws in the federal report and an identical exclusion, which to be found in the statutory charter for the Maine Venture Fund- a public private investment company chartered by the Maine Legislature. In Public Private Relationships and the New Owners of the Means of Production. I argue that the executive exclusion from conflicts of interest laws found in the charter for the Maine Venture Fund violates Article IV, Part Third, Section 14 of the Maine Constitution which states that all corporations, however formed are subject to general laws.

In Example: This is a quote from Congressional Research Service report which Trump relies on to justify a public private relationship operating at the top of the United States government:

Does federal law require the President to relinquish control of his or her business interests? Federal regulation of financial conflicts of interest is aimed at preventing opportunities for officials to personally benefit from influence they may have in their official capacity. As a general rule, public officials in the executive branch are subject to criminal penalties if they personally and substantially participate in matters in which they (or their immediate families, business partners or associated organizations) hold financial interests. However, because of concerns regarding interference with the exercise of constitutional duties, Congress has not applied these restrictions to the President. Consequently, there is no current legal requirement that would compel the President to relinquish financial interests because of a conflict of interest. 

This is how the same exclusion from general conflict of interest laws for the board of the Maine Venture Fund is arranged by the Maine Legislature in a charter created under the administration of Angus King who is now Maine's US Senator: (quoted from Public Private Relationships and the New Owners of the means of Production)

 Under §390. Conflicts of interest is written the following:
Notwithstanding Title 5, section 18, subsection 1, paragraph B, each member of the board, and each employee, contractor, agent or other representative of the board is deemed an "executive employee" solely for purposes of Title 5, section 18, and for no other purpose. Title 17, section 3104 does not apply to any of those representatives. If a member does not participate in an action or deliberation with respect to a particular project, that member is presumed not to have personally and substantially participated in a decision of the board with respect to that project. Every interest of a board member in any matter before the board must be disclosed to the board in writing. [1995, c. 699, §3 (NEW).] (emphasis added)
Title 5, section 18 subsection 1, paragraph B "Executive employee" has the same meaning as set forth in section 19, subsection 1, paragraph D.
 Section 19, subsection 1, paragraph D. "Executive employee" means an appointed         executive employee or an elected executive employee. [1979, c. 734,§2(NEW).]
 Title 17 §3104. Conflicts of interest; purchases by the State No trustee, superintendent, treasurer or other person holding a place of trust in any state office or public institution of the State shall be pecuniary interested directly or indirectly in any contracts made in behalf of the State or of the institution in which he holds such place of trust, and any contract made in violation hereof is void. This section shall not apply to purchases of the State by the Governor under authority of Title 1, section 814. [1975, c. 771, §164 (AMD).]
(author's interpretation) Title 5, section 18, subsection 1, paragraph B, which defines executive employees does not have standing except for the purposes of Title 5, section 18. Title 17, section 3104, which says any person holding a position of public trust may not profit thereby does not apply to any of those defined as executive employees by Title 5, section 18, subsection 1, paragraph B! The wording is interpret-able as meaning that conflicts of interest only applies to the substrate and does not apply at the executive level. In other words, if it can be substantiated that there is no direct involvement in the decision-making process any member of the board, and each employee, contractor, agent or other representative of the board can be an investor in a project and can profit from projects undertaken by the Maine Venture Fund. As Title 5, section 18, subsection 1, paragraph B states that Title 17, section 3104: Conflicts of Interest does not apply.

Similar presumptions of innocence were sufficient for the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. It was sufficient for Clinton to merely sign a document stating that she would not be engaged in Foundation business. During the election campaign, Trump told us that his family would run his private business interests. He neglected to say that they would also be helping him to run the government in the tradition of the public private hegemony into which Donald Trump is born and bred.

The Congressional Research Service report on conflicts of interests suggests that it is assumed that the conflicts are addressed by the electorate Although Mr Trump bragged during the debates that he made campaign contributions to negotiate favors from elected officials, he refused to disclose his tax information. The CRS report on financial disclosure is worded like this"
High-level officials in all three branches of the federal government are required to publicly disclose detailed information concerning their financial holdings and transactions in incomeproducing property and assets, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and real property, as well as information on income, gifts, and reimbursements from private non-governmental sources.
Covered federal officials must disclose this information not only for themselves, but also must disclose much of the same required financial information with regard to their spouses and dependent children. 
As explained above, the language of the report excludes the presidency. Unlike the October 14, 2016 report, the authorship is identified to be Jack Maskell,Legislative Attorney August 22, 2013.

One last chance remains for Americans to enforce disclosure law on Trump. He is not yet the president. It is now or never.



Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Public Private Relationships And the New Owners of the Means of Production Available In Print


Public Private Relationships and the New Owners of the Means of Production is now available in print- in time for the start of what is currently looking like Amerika's first fully open public private federal government with globalist Trump and family seeming apparently unaware as to any conflict of interest between running their global business empire in conjunction with administering the US government!

As in Maine, public private relationships are surrounded by a fluid relationship to  general laws governing the rest of society. Here is a post-election link to a story about Trump and family's business dealings in India,
Trump’s extensive deals in India raise conflict-of-interest concerns

Here is a link to my book documenting how government by public private relationships has been aggressively and incrementally replacing government by the Maine Constitution in Maine over the last forty years:

GET THE BOOK_ PUBLIC PRIVATE RELATIONSHIPS AND THE NEW OWNERS OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION

Globalism - like Agenda Twenty One, is planned globally and implemented locally. I do not know of another documented record which provides such an in-depth look at how a global agenda is implemented locally in the USA as is to be found in Public Private Relationships and The New Owners of The Means of Production. If my book has any influence, I hope it will be to encourage many such in-depth investigations at the local level.

The history of the replacement of the Maine constitutional form of government is narrated through a discussion of political philosophy and what makes the American political philosophy exceptional, separating the American political philosophy from totalitarian political philosophies such as communism and fascism.


Sunday, October 16, 2016

Two Round Abouts in Boothbay Plan ?






This is a comment posted in response in the lobbying video for the Boothbay Round About, which the video reveals to be two round abouts: The first shown above and the second shown below;
Or if I am mistaken and they are the same round about, then the round about is not located where the much discussed four way stop is situated . It is the four way stop and the "traffic from the botanical gardens, which I have never even noticed which is said to be a "nightmare" of a congestion problem" (wishful thinking!)
Not intended as a comment on the quality of the video production, which is well done, but this is a propaganda video because it is presenting only one side of the question and is clearly intended to sell the round about to the public.
One of the quotes is "No matter what the volume on the road- it is constantly moving". That is true for the roundabout. It is not true for the four way intersection which has four stop signs.
The statistics made about crashes applies to an area that "encompasses the common" and states that there were 29 crashes since 2010- one of them fatal. The area that "encompasses the common" then must include the area around the railroad museum which is where a fatal crash and others occurred. However the section of the road by the railroad museum is not included in the tiff district although we are told that this is about dangerous traffic conditions and or traffic congestion and not about Coulombes development which is included in the tiff area. In fact the tiff area ends with the golf course. The area around the railroad museum is outside of the tiff district which begins at the industrial park. . A round about at the commons and a second round about entering Coulombe's development does not affect traffic safety around the railroad museum, where most accidents are occurring.
The fatal crash that I am aware of was caused by a reckless driver traveling on the wrong side of the road. Crashes caused by reckless drivers or by drivers who are suddenly struck by a medical condition will not be stopped by a round about. In fact in terms of drivers who may suddenly have a health condition occur a four way stop sign is actually safer than a round about in which traffic is constantly moving.
The sales point made about greenery in the center of the round about keeping drivers focused on where they are- is an absurd stretch, Drivers need to be focused anywhere and on much more than where they are.

The point about pedestrians crossing a widened road in two parts and that pedestrians have the right of way is fluff. Pedestrians have the right of way no matter what and the existing cross walks are short. I do not see an advantage in pedestrians being able to stop at a point in the middle of a widened road between traffic lanes in an area where the speed limit is thirty miles an hour. If there is an accident a pedestrian could get hit standing in the little area between traffic lanes.


The mock up shown at 7:20 right before the discussion of the articles shows should be a a second round about if the first one replaces the four way stop signs, located on the other side of the town office. It is identifiable as being on the other side of the Town Office by the location of the Town Office parking lot. The perspective is coming from the harbor toward the commons and there is pictured a large landscaped circle in the configuration which will include an exclusive exit for the village of Coloumbe and yet we have sales people for the Round About, including State Representative candidate Wendy Wolf telling us that it is being "objective" to occlude any issues surrounding Coulombe Village from our considerations. What then is the purpose of the second round about? What dangerous traffic problem is the second round about solving? How much does the second round about add to the bill paid by state and town of Boothbay taxpayers?



If you pause the video at 8:04 you can read the text on the screen that says that the bond can be recalled at any time. The question is who is the party with the authority to recall the bond and what kind of power does that grant to that party? The purpose of the bond does not mention the round about.It mentions normal maintenance functions and "other improvements " which can mean anything. Terms are left to be negotiated after town people agree to the bond.
It is not just our local taxes that may go up- state costs are paid by state taxpayers. I was looking at the annual report for the town of MRRA which was chartered by the Legislature as a municipal corporation serving as an instrumentality of the state so that its development can be financed by state and national taxpayers. The state grant is applied to the interest on the debt owed by the municipality of MRRA and it does not even cover all that interest debt. Much of state economic development is based on leveraging and re-leveraging debt.That can eventually all come tumbling down and the state can re-neg on its funding as well.

Friday, October 14, 2016

Public Deception Used to Sell Boothbay Round About


This report comes by way of the Boothbay Committee Opposed to the Boothbay Round About:

Yesterday I met with the Boothbay town manager to obtain a copy of the 2002 “State Route 27 Corridor Study” and to question him about the town’s relationship with Paul Coulombe’s limited liability corporation (PGC5), the entity the selectmen propose the town partner with in the creation of the roundabout project. The selectmen refer to the “Corridor Study” as the Bible on which they base their conviction that we have serious safety and traffic problems and that a roundabout is the answer to them. What I learned in the conversation and by reading the “Corridor Study” astounded me.

 1. Only four of the 2002 corridor study’s 48 pages discuss the Boothbay Common area. They contain not one word about traffic safety. The study makes no claim that an unsafe situation exists. It recommends a roundabout at the Corey Lane intersection in order to relieve traffic congestion. It provides no statistics about traffic congestion. It doesn’t quantify or evaluate the degree of congestion. It doesn’t distinguish between summer event days, all other summer days, and the rest of the year. It provides no analysis to support the recommendation for a roundabout. What astounds me is that this is the report our selectmen reference as the basis for their view that a roundabout is necessary for safety reasons.

 The 2016 study by PGC5/Knickerbocker/Paul Coulombe failed to document a safety or congestion problem. The authors subsequently withdrew their safety claim. The independent evaluator employed by the town threw cold water on both claims, reducing the safety claim to a small number of “fender benders.” The selectmen have apparently dismissed the independent expert’s evaluation as if it didn’t exist. PGC5’s paid experts attempted to do the same at the most recent town meeting. Their rebuttal was totally unconvincing. YES ROUNDABOUTcontinues to claim in its Register advertisements that there is a safety issue.

 Is there a safety problem? The only evidence is anecdotal, and it goes both ways. Anecdotal evidence is not a sound basis for a huge investment of taxpayer money ($1.5+ million) and a major alteration in the town’s infrastructure/appearance. It is impossible not to ask, why, given the above, our selectmen are so determined to push through the developer’s proposal? Why do they disregard the facts? They have no answers to the objections to the proposal other than to repeat falsehoods. My guess is that their arguments in support of the PGC5 proposal are rationalizations: they start by sharing Paul Coulombe’s vision for the town. And they have convinced themselves that it is a “bargain” for the town rather than a Trojan horse.

 2. In response to my question, what guarantee does the Town of Boothbay have, if the revenue stream into the TIF from PGC5 decreases or ends before the town’s 20 year $1.5 + million bond issue is paid off, that the taxpayers will not have to pay the obligation through an increase in real estate taxes? The answer: No guarantee at all exists. There is no contract yet between the town and PGC5. The selectmen are asking the town to approve articles that will allow them to enter into a contract with PGC5 without any of the details of that contract available at this time. Will it contain a provision that requires PGC5 or some other party or entity to cover the costs of the bond issue if the revenue stream into the TIF declines or disappears? Or if PGC5 itself goes out of business? If that happens (if there is a fire, a death, an estate with no interest in Boothbay) the town will have to rely on the ordinary rules governing contracts. Those rules can be porous. It is commonplace for one party to a contact to break it in the expectation that, having considered the possible consequences, it is in its interest to do so.

 There are numbers of reasons for voting no on articles 2, 3, and 4. But there are now two more in place: we have been misled, whether intentionally or not, about the content of the “State Route 27 Corridor Study” and there is not now and not likely to be a provision in the town/PGC5 contract to guarantee that the taxpayer will not in the end be stuck with paying the bond out of general tax revenue from our real estate taxes.
 


The Statutory Powers of the Municipal Bond Bank

As with other financial corporations in the corporate state network, the Municipal Bond Bank is authorized to accept money from any source.  
§5954. Corporate powersI. Accept gifts or grants of property, funds, money, materials, labor, supplies or services from the United States or the State or any other state or agencies or departments of those entities, or from any governmental unit or any person, and carry out the terms or provisions or make agreements with respect to any such gifts or grants, and do any and all things necessary, useful, desirable or convenient in connection with procuring, accepting or disposing of those gifts or grants; [1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); 1989, c. 6, (AMD); 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
In the section above, there is no limitation placed on agreements which can be made in exchange for pecuniary gifts. In the next section the Maine Municipal Bond Bank is granted autocratic and almost unlimited power:

§5904. Liberal construction of chapter…This chapter shall be construed liberally to effectuate the legislative intent and the purposes of this chapter as complete and independent authority for the performance of each and every act and thing authorized in this chapter and all powers granted in this chapter shall be broadly interpreted to effectuate that intent and purposes and not as a limitation of powers. [1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); (emphasis added)

Once the public private partnership recieves voter approval, the terms of agreement which can then be negotiated are wide open.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Public Private Relationships And The New Owners of the Means Of Production now available on Kindle for Amazon





( note- an update is being processed to fix mismatched title pages but if one clicks on the title links it gets you there anyway
Public Private Relationships and the New Owners of the Means of Production tells the story of the transformation of Maine from a state to a development corporation following the history and records of economic development statutes.

In 1876 an amendment was added to the Maine Constitution which prohibits the Legislature from chartering corporations by special acts of legislation.

In 1968 Maine became a constitutional Home Rule State as authority was granted to municipalities to fund economic development projects with municipal bonds approved by a public referendum. Previous to Home Rule, general obligation bonds in which a particular industry received tax revenues was struck down as a violation of The Maine Constitution, Article IX, Section 8 which mandates that all taxes be apportioned and assessed equally. Home Rule grants authority to issue general obligation bonds for economic development purposes only at the municipal level of government.

However, in 1976 Governor Longley called together the heads of Maine industry and the Maine Legislature declared that centrally managing the economy is an essential government function which must be done through public private relationships and the Maine corporate state was born. Public Private Relationships and the New Owners of the Means of Production compares the political ideology and its associated structure of government put into place in Maine, USA, in the late seventies with Mussolini’s fascism as implemented in Italy by overwriting the Italian Constitution with statutory law.

First on the agenda was to set a mission to eliminate public referendums. Next was to charter the Maine Capital Corporation, a private investment company which would be authorized by a special act of legislation to use tax credits to sell stock. Written into a subsection of the charter for the Maine Capital Corporation was a general provision exempting all investment companies investing in Maine small businesses from taxation, thus establishing the tax credit as a refundable tax credit, one by which if no taxes are owed, the public owes the capitalists a refund on his investment.
Refundable tax credits came into use in the USA in 1975 at the onset of a rapidly escalating inflation which remains unabated to this day. In the subsequent years Maine aggressively expanded a corporate state network as the legislature declared that a corporation is not a corporation if it is an instrumentality of the state.

Throughout the decades the Maine media supported the growth of state capitalism and targeted sector economics. If the media asked the public for their opinion, the question was asked of those on the receiving end of redistributed public wealth. Today the Maine public subsidizes the targeted sector, which is definitively the upper crust of the Maine economy. The media seldom asks the opinion of those outside the orbit of the state’s redistributive policies.

Public Private Relationships and the New Owners of the Means of Production gives voice to a view opposing Maine’s centrally managed economy. Mackenzie Andersen compares the rhetoric, structure and means of implementation of Maine’s corporate state to Mussolini’s fascism and contrasts it with the philosophy that founded the United States of America and the Maine Constitution. Through analysis of the language written in the statutes as if in code, and the history of the implementation of the corporate state structure in which the design of the whole is concealed by its parts, Mackenzie Andersen tells a shocking history of public exploitation by those elected to serve as the people’s representatives.

Whether it be called Agenda Twenty-one, global capitalism, or some other name, the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few is implemented at the local level. Public Private Relationships and the New Owners of the Means of Production is one case study of how a global power agenda benefitting an overlord society of the few is implemented locally.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

A Chapter by Chapter synopsis of Public Private Relationships and the New Owners of the Means of Production


The author's definition of conservatism told in the context of the political grass roots environment of 2015 influenced by the alt right as Donald Trump was gaining political momentum. A discussion of the Kelo vs New London Supreme Court decision.

In 1951 the Justices of Maine delivered a constitutional interpretation of Article IV Part Third Sections 13 & 14, that did not use the text of the Constitution as their measure but instead cherry picked words from Governor Connors Inaugural Address.

Governor Longley’s Architects of Transformation

In 1979 Governor Longley invited the heads of Maine's most prosperous industries to produce a report and to lead the Legislature in reinventing Maine government. The Legislature declared that centrally managing the economy is "an essential government function" and that it must be done by public private relationships. The  plan  to achieve the desired transformation.

The Maine Development Foundation

A discussion of the legislative justification for chartering the Maine Development Foundation Corporation and the conflation of  "public benefit" and "profit motive" in interpreting "common good" and "general welfare".

The Fame Corporation

The Maine Legislature charters the Finance Authority of Maine corporation  to concentrate and redistribute capital  and centrally manage a wide agenda  from health and environment to manufacturing and education.  Introduction of the premise  that a centrally managed economy organized through public private relationships is  identical in structure to Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism.

Governor McKernan Doubles Down

Various new financial tools and strategies are put into place. The Department of Economic and Community Development corporation is chartered, A court rewrites the Constitution. The argument continued that targeted sector economics is identical with the ideology of  fascism. Observations about the inflationary effect of targeted sector economics, public benefit vs common good and global capitalism.

To Be or Not to Be Sovereign

The Legislature charters three former military bases as municipal corporations serving as instrumentalists of the state. The Legislature charters a region of municipalities as an economic development corporation making the municipalities responsible for the corporation's debt. The towns of Gardiner and Rome try to get out from under the burden of debt created by the KRDA corporation.

The City States

Washington County is Maine's poorest county. This chapter tells the story of manipulations devised by public private partners to transfer the valuable real estate property at the Washington County Naval Base to a private non-profit corporation  leaving the base, newly chartered as a municipal corporation and instrumentality of the state, empty handed

The Angus King Years: Back Room Dealings

Examination of ambiguous language used by the Maine Legislature to structure private wheeling and dealing into publicly subsidized state corporations and the codification of intellectual property rights streamed through the public private network via the Maine University system.

The Baldacci Era: A New Class Society

Governor Baldacci markets  "the creative economy" lead by "the creative class". A comparison made between the philosophy embodied in creative class rhetoric and the  Mussolini's belief that society should serve quality over quantity. The Pine Tree Zone Tax Credits are passed, State manufacturing is expanded via the Advanced Manufacturing Center at the University of Maine. A short history of the University of Maine from its origins as a land grant college under the United States Morrill Act. A short history of MPERS from its mysterious origins to socializing the risk and privatizing the gain with a MPERS venture capitalist fund.

Governor Lepage, Tea Party Corporatist

A closer look at the Legislative session of 2013 and beyond. The far reaching impact of a bill called "Industry Partnerships" and the financial manipulations used to fund it. A comparison between the inner mechanisms of the Cate Street Scandal and the inner mechanisms of the State  Lepage sabotages a multi-billion dollar investment and then seeks a radical expansion of the Pine Tree Zone tax incentives. Changes are made in the Seed Capital Tax Credit and  appropriations are dispersed disproportionately. Legislation defines Maine's relationship to China and the Confucius Institute is instituted at the University of Maine.

Remembering James Madison

A quote from James Maddison about government works when consistent with the American political philosophy.

Conclusion

Suggestions on how to return to a free enterprise system and governance by the Maine and United States Constitutions.