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, September 22, 2011

The Math of "Fair Share" as defined in The United States Constitution

There is another excellent discussion started by John w k on As Maine Goes. This one is about what the United States constitution says about "fair share" and points out that the math is provided for with in the constitution.

Here is a quote from the first post by John w k

But let our founding fathers speak for themselves with regard to the importance of applying the rule of apportionment:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion3 Elliot’s 41

You can follow or join this discussion HERE on As Maine Goes.

This discussion is also relevant to the formation of the House of Representatives, which is a structure followed by the state of Maine in forming its own constitution. There is talk today of eliminating the House from the Maine government.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Obama's "Jobs" Bill ends state sovereignity

If you love America- DEFEAT THIS BILL!

(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act.

(B) DEFINITION- In this paragraph, the term `program or activity’ has the meaning given the term in section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a).”

Complete story over at Noisy Room

Monday, September 19, 2011

The Maine Economic Development Foundation

As I started out to tell the story of how I became involved in researching Maine's economic development legislation,on the Page titled , The Turning Point, I was stalled by trying to locate the legislation that created The Maine Economic Development Foundation, which is to be found all over the "innovative economy", often stating that it was created by the legislature but falling short of providing a link to that legislation.

I contacted Elaine Apostola, Reference Librarian, at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library. Elaine provided a PDF file of the original text. I then searched for the statute online, was unable to find it with the information that I had and so wrote to Elaine again and she provided. This a link to the statute as it is written today

The first thing that attracts attention is that the original purpose Title 10, Chapter 107: §917 is REPEALED , with no further information about what the original purpose stated, and replaced with Title 10, Chapter 107: §917-A. written in 2007

I cross referenced the PFD docs and located the original purpose, which is here in presented:

§ 917. Purpose
The Maine Development Foundation is authorized and directed to provide services to the State and to quasi-public, public and private entities, and to foster, assist and participate in efforts for economic growth and revitalization, including, but not limited to, providing for or stimulating the provision of:

1. Management and technical assistance. Management and technical assistance to businesses and to communities for economic growth and revitalization, with a particular concern for assistance to the state's existing small and medium size businesses; (emphasis mine)

2. Debt and equity capital. Debt and equity capital, with a particular concern for assistance to the state's small and medium size businesses;

3. New product development and marketing. New product development and marketing, with a particular concern for the most productive use of the state's human and natural resources;

4. Industrial land and buildings. The development of industrial land and buildings;

5. Economic opportunities. Identification and development of specific economic opportunities in the State;

6. Climate for economic development. Promotion of an improved climate for economic development in the State; and

7. Coordination of development efforts. Coordination of development efforts for more successful project development through serving as a broad liaison with diverse groups and parties in all sectors and bringing together needed resources for particular projects.



It is important to note that the original legislation was premised on a forecast in which the role of government would decrease over the years as the role of the private sector increased. - Note added later-This is the way I read first read the sentence- upon re-reading the original statement- I realize that the word "solitary" implies that the state had already assumed in 1997, that it is the role of government to manage the economy, - it is the "solitary" nature of that role that the state forecasts decreasing, as if without a partnership with government, the private sector plays no role in creating the economy. How ever when government partners with selected factions of the private sector to become an expanded management sector- it is not government that is decreased- it is the nature of government that is transformed into special interest policy makers that together manage the economy as an elite privileged class that is granted special access to power and concentrated wealth and of course the tax payer's money.

§ 915. Legislative findings and intent
The State of Maine has long had serious conditions of unemployment, underemployment, low per capital income and resource under utilization which cause substantial hardships to many individuals and families, impede the economic and physical development of various regions of the State, and adversely affect the general welfare and prosperity of the State.

There is a need to establish a new basis for a creative partnership of the private and public sectors for economic development, a partnership which can capitalize on the interests, resources and efforts of each sector, but which does not compromise the public interest or the profit motive. The state's solitary burden to provide for development should lessen through involving the private sector in a leadership role
. ( emphasis mine)

The role of government and its extended network of quasi public corporations and non-profit organizations has grown every year since.

Here is the growing list of government economic management legislation that I have thus far accumulated. All except the Maine Public Employees Retirement Fund (1947) have come into being since the above words were written.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The Curious Repeal of TITLE 13-A: MAINE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT

I was recently browsing the internet when I came upon a list of Maine statutes, which included TITLE 13-A: MAINE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT

I was most surprised when I clicked on the link to find that the act has been repealed in its entirety with no further information - such as a replacement for the act and the date that it was repealed. Most links to the Act found on the Internet report only this meager information.

This appears to leave Maine incorporated business without a rule of law to govern them and yet I cannot find any news written about this mysterious occurrence. A search on Maine Biz comes up with nothing.

Is not this business news? Does it not create major business uncertainty in Maine when the entire act that governs Maine business incorporation repealed?

The only timeline I have been able to locate is this cache page on Google which says all data was extracted in February of this year. Was it extracted by Google? -or another party?

What is going on and why am I the only person asking?


Here is a rare link I found to the content of this repealed statute. I am wondering why it would be repealed in its entirety rather than simple revised with strikeouts as is the common practice.

UPDATE:

I have received PFD documents provided by the Legislative Librarian which reveals that the change was around 2001.

This amendment replaces the bill, which was a concept draft.
1. It repeals the Maine Revised Statutes, Title l3-A and replaces it with a new Title 13-C,entitled the "Maine Business Corporation Act." The language of Title l3-C was developed by the Corporate Law Revision Committee of the Business Law Section of the Maine State Bar Association, in association with the Office of the Secretary of State, collectively referred to in this summary as "the revision committee."

The revision committee also submitted a comprehensive report to the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, dated November 14, 2001, that reviewed the reasons for the revision, why the Model 42 Business Corporation Act was chosen, the drafting principles that guided the revision committee and the highlights of principal differences between the proposed legislation and current Maine law. The report was placed on the web site of the Office of the Secretary of State and was widely disseminated by the Maine State Bar Association.

This is a link to the current Law.

It is beyond the capabilities of my informed background to draw any conclusions other than that it is very poor policy for the legislature to provide the information that the law has been repealed, while omitting all information pertaining to the statute that replaces it and the date when this occurred.It is a very simple matter to include this information in the former statute, which is floating around in cyber space- so - especially being that this change was explained by MaineBiz as a simple change made to accommodate electronic communication. If it were not for electronic communication I would not come across the unexplained repealed law.

MaineBiz's source is MaineCapitalNews, which, I am surmising, is likely the accepted source of most of the Maine media on legislation that is passed or pending.
MaineCapitalNews wrote this in an email which was forwarded to me via MaineBiz

It was billed as an omnibus modernization bill. I only did a radio story on it focusing on bringing the corporation act into modern times by allowing electronic communications among stockholders and management and use of e-signatures for various corporate documents. It sailed through with no roll calls. Did the reader raise some issue?
"

The comment does not appear to be about the change made in 2001 replacing 13-A with 13-C. It seems that MaineCapitalNews is referring to the 2006 Amendment , which was what MaineBiz first said was the replacement for the fourteen chapter bill.

The legislative explanations refers to changes made in the relationship between the board, the directors and the share holders. It also removes the former requirement for a minimum number of directors. The explanation is written in generalized statements. To understand the impact and implication of the changes one needs a greater knowledge of the historical context than I process.

The Good News- Maine Incorporated Businesses are still governed by the Rule of Law.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Governor Rick Perry's Most Significant Phrase was "Unconstitutional"

I was amazed during the debate that Governor Rick Perry exhibited the emotional courage to state that the social security system is unconstitutional. Governor Perry then went on to say that social security is a "ponzi cheme", which is a point that goes to statutorily law, which is governed by the constitution.

Thus far, from my limited viewing of the media, the focus has been on the "political" advisability of using the phrase "ponzi scheme" while the words "unconstitutional" are largely ignored.

However there is a discussion taking place on As Maine Goes which takes a well examined look at the constitutional issue. I recommend reading at least the first post, if not further for an excellent examination of what the Supreme Court did wrong when it ruled social security was "constitutional" and what our framers actually said about the powers of the Federal Government in the Federalist Papers and beyond. John w k, the author of this thread has an impressive knowledge of constitutional law and history. Please click and read this excellent discussion and if you are so motivated- join it as well.