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

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Maine's Gubernatorial Candidates: Michaud on Energy

The other day , I was asked, whom do I support for Governor  and I said "someone who has yet to emerge."

I am commencing an investigation into Maine's gubernatorial candidates, which started unofficially with my last post on LePage's "Open For Business: campaign; Here is a summary of the Open For Business  legislation, which I will be examining further in another post. There is much in the bill that was not mentioned in the Kennebec Journal article that I used as a source in my previous post.

I expect this to be a sporadically organized project - as  I work spontaneously - in the moment, on the go, in between other things that need to be done.

The gubernatorial hopefuls are listed here.The ones we usually hear about are Lepage, Michaud, and Cutler but there are three relative unknowns on the list others on the list:

Adam Eldridge (Independent) - Project EngineerLee Schultheis (Independent) - Retired Financial Executive David Slagger (Independent) - Ex-Maliseet Tribal Representative to the Legislature & '12 State Rep. Candidate

Starting off with Michaud on energy:

Here is the link to Michuad's campaign website:


Michaud on Energy

Michaud wants to continue the mandatory taxpayer investment in wind power and solar power. There is a currently a empowered business consortium composed of state and private enterprises which has stripped municipalities in any say over the 100 windmills the business consortium  plans to install in the Gulf of Maine.

On the surface, Michaud's idea of having energy efficient requirements on new homes doesn't sound like a bad idea but one has to examine the details. Will certain types of energy efficiency be given preference? The United States is hovering on the edge of becoming one of the world largest oil and natural gas providers which will drive down the cost of oil and provide a longer time frame in which to develop alternate energy technologies.

The rush to wind and solar is fueled by the business interests of quasis- a prevalent hegemony of power which is spun by the media as "public-private partnerships", but which becomes its own form of government, un-elected by the people and enabled to use government to write legislation to suit itself. The quasis-  have installed their own taxpayer funded lobbyists, going by such names as "legislative liaison for the DECD", as but one example. The DECD - Department of Economic and Community Development -serves special interests- other wise known as the legislature's "targeted sector"  and excludes the entire retail sector, which means it excludes Main Street from their narrowly defined concept of "community".

Conclusion: Although Michaud's idea of energy efficient standards for new homes sounds reasonable on the surface, if one factors in the special interests served by the  legislature's "targeted sector economics" and the un-fair play and power grabs currently functioning through public-private business consortiums, the possibility that such a program will be used to give special interests an unfair advantage over general interests is very probable. Before such a program is viable, the corruption risk report card of Maine has to get a whole lot better,

The state should not be forcing wind and solar use on the public at a time when new technology in harvesting oil is making the United States extraordinarily rich in oil and natural gas resources. The windmill and solar industries are being driven by federal and state subsidies which have resulted in many infamous bankrupt alternative energy investments and windmill grave yards.

And interesting to note the language with which Michaud spins his program"
“Technology is advancing at lightning speed, and we need to take advantage of that,” he said Tuesday in Yarmouth during an Earth Day celebration. 
Under Michaud’s plan, new homes would need report cards on how efficiently they use energy before they could be sold. That small step would empower homeowners to invest in new technology, Michaud said.
Exactly how does mandating energy efficiency report cards  "empower" the homeowner to "invest" in new technology? I think having cash in the hand empowers one to invest. This is Michaud's way of saying that creating energy efficiency regulations will "nudge" the public into "investing" in new energy technologies- which is more likely than not, when Michaud is speaking, wind and solar. There is another new technology happening in the harvesting of oil but the proponents of wind and solar would have us believe that we need to invest in those industries because the price of oil in on the rise. That may be temporarily true  but if the United States has a new administration, it is highly possible that regulations imposed by the current administration on the development of our oil resources will be dismissed, resulting in lower oil costs and an economic boom-as well as increased national security ( keeping Putin in check). The proponents of Maine wind and solar continue to act as though they live in a bubble world in which there has been no new technology impacting the oil and natural gas industries in the USA. If the power consortium of business interests does bring up the new technologies in oil production, it is usually to bring up the arguable claim that oil is more harmful to the environment than alternative resources. Maine State Inc is in bed with wind and oil business interests. That's the advantage of being a "quasi". One can force the public to buy one's product- not that different from the ACA.
Michaud blasted LePage’s opposition to renewable energy, including the governor’s recent veto of a bill that would have restored a rebate program that encouraged the purchase of solar panels. The Legislature upheld that veto last week.
The title on the page for the Michaud campaign's energy policy supports my view:

Michaud calls for Maine to cut heating oil use

When a state allows the legislature to grab central management of its economy, we can expect everything to be governed by the interests of warring business consortium and quasi collaborations of hegemonic power. The consortium that has the more powerful government faction will win.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Blocked ! for "Deep-Thinking" about Maine State Corporatism

Tweet This !

I have been publishing this blog since about 2007 , During this time , it has remained an off-the grid blog in Maine politics and elsewhere with exceptions going for the forums As Maine Goes and The Maine Citizen. I have never seen this blog included on any on-line listings of Maine political blogs, although I have written to various places that post Maine political blogs, including The Maine Heritage Foundation, The Other Side of Town, and Maine Politcs, Pine Tree Watch Dog, as well as other national investigative reporting organizations. For the most part my correspondence goes unanswered.

Recently, I received the following message from the Maine Conservative Patriots (Facebook):

Howdy, I want to thank you for your past contributions to The Maine Conservative Patriots, you are a very deep thinker... and the most of the time, way over my head and I feel over the heads of many others on my site. I think I want to simplify the information and posts, keeping them short and to the point so that I and others can benefit quickly and act on the info in a timely manner. Again Thank you for your contributions in the past but now I will hope for some new contributors that are not such deep thinkers. sincerely ~ The Maine Conservative Patriots

There after I was blocked from access to The Maine Conservative Patriots

I am told that The Maine Conservative  Patriots is  Gordon Colby's group administered by Maynard Stanley and John Frommer . In December 2013Gordon Colby was awarded the 2013 Freedom & Opportunity Award by The Maine Heritage Foundation, presented with a speech by Governor LePage

Tea party activist Gordon Colby received The Maine Heritage Policy Centers 2013 Freedom and Opportunity Award on Friday at an annual event in Portland. Gov. Paul LePage addressed the audience followed by keynote speaker William O’Brien, former Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
“For his immense and unwavering dedication to Maine’s conservative movement, I am pleased to award Gordon Colby with [MHPC’s] 2013 Freedom & Opportunity Award,” said CEO J. Scott Moody - See more at:

There are three types of conservatives. There are the fiscal conservatives, constitutional conservatives and the Libertarians. One can be a fiscal conservative without being a constitutional conservative but one cannot be a constitutional conservative without being a fiscal conservative. Libertarians can be said to be both fiscal and constitutional conservatives but, to my view they make far too light of the role of national defense in bringing the colonies together to form a union of states and forget that the first war fought by the newly formed nation was the Barbary War under the president and Commander in Chief , Thomas Jefferson , fought in foreign seas.The Libertarians combine the belief in small government on the right with a foreign policy view identical to that of the left.

I was not engaged in a discussion when I received the above message and there after blocked from further access to the Maine Conservative Patriots, which the Maine Wire article tells us is the Knox and Lincoln County Tea Party (KLTP)-"the largest and most influential group of its kind in Maine". Lincoln County is where I am located. Knox and Lincoln County are part of Midcoast- and Midcoast is supposedly now being redeveloped by the tzars of the state governed town of MRRA.

The last post I made on Maine Conservative Patriots was critical of Governor Paul LePage, comparing LePage to a stage magician who directs the audience to look at what he is doing with one hand to divert attention from what he is doing with the other. The hand with which LePage directs our attention is fiscally conservative, while the hand from which LePage wants to divert our attention repeatedly violates principals of constitutional conservativism and aggressively advances state corporatism.

Fiscal conservatives applaud  LePage for paying down Maine's hospital debt (or so it is projected, there has not been enough time to validate the projections) . LePage's plan  begins with re-instating the liquor industry as a government function. In 2003, The legislature, under Democratic leadership , had returned the liquor industry to the private sector. Re-instating a state owned liquor industry is, without a doubt, an expansion of government and can only be said to be fiscally conservative by factoring in projections of future earnings. In 2003, when the legislature voted to privatize the liquor industry, they did so with these words:

The Legislature finds that it is in the public interest to seek efficiencies and cost savings  from privatizing the State's wholesale liquor business.  Title 28-A: LIQUORS Part 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 3-A: ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION§88. Transfer of wholesale liquor activities

In 2003 a state controlled liquor industry had been tried and failed. LePage's theory is based on a belief that his administration can run a liquor industry better than past administrations. It begs the question- what does running a liquor industry have to do with government functions, especially from the conservative world view, which rests on the belief that the best government is the smallest possible government ?

My comments on Maine Conservative Patriots were in response to a Kennebunk Journal article reporting on a speech given by Governor Lepage at Maine's public charity, The Maine Technology Institute - the choice of the Governor's venue being significant in identifying LaPage's political alliances. Politics is, after all, much to do with imagery and perceptions, and so here we have the image of Governor Paul LePage presenting his new economic plan at The Maine Technology Institute, located at Brunswick Landing, or by another name, MRRA ( Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority )

Gov. Paul LePage outlined legislation Monday to create “Open for Business Zones,” which he says would attract major employers by providing generous tax incentives and exempting them from collective bargaining requirements – a proposal that already is drawing criticism from labor unions......... The major components would provide a 100 percent corporate tax credit for the first 10 years and a 50 percent credit for the next 10; offer sales tax exemptions and reimbursements for as long as 20 years; and offer annual reimbursement to businesses under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Trust Fund to lower energy costs.
Lepage introduces a Right To Work initiative by tying it to an aggressive expansion of corporatism. The controversy is over Right To Work, distracting from the bi-partisan plan to expand Maine's taxpayer redistribution policies. Democrats frame it as a plan to "allow CEOs the right to pay workers less and deny them access to health care and retirement" but nothing could be further from the truth. The legislature's "targeted sector" is defined as providing higher than average incomes. The assortment of taxpayer give-aways associated with jobs that provide above average incomes for the area where a company is located, incentives companies to target that above average mark. With respect to LePage's fiscal conservationism, the plan would allow corporations to pay at a lower rate if they locate in areas where the average income is lower, while the state has written"social justice" provisions providing all the best benefits for its targeted sector, all along. The Democrats must know this, they have been writing the bills, during their long tenure of political control. The term "social justice"( or versions there of) is a main-stay of Maine's government and /or "qausi" websites.

LePage: Use big incentives to attract jobs to Maine

His proposal to offer massive tax breaks to lure businesses also includes a controversial exemption from collective bargaining.

The business zones would be wherever eligible companies decided to locate . Eligibility requires an investment of more than $50 million and the creation of at least 1,500 jobs. The article doesn't mention if the companies in Open For Business Zones will get the 80% payroll Pine Tree Zone tax credit ( meaning Maine tax payers cover 80% of a companies payroll tax) but a tax credit is a reimbursement and "reimbursement" is thrown into the paragraph above, as if to be read as a superfluous elaboration of "sales tax" but which can also mean any tax that is reimbursed especially in consideration of the speaking venue - the MRRA - prime real-estate for the "targeted sector"and the Pine Tree Zone tax incentives as well as the Maine Technology Institute investment matching grants. I haven't checked the Pine Tree Zone for restrictions such as those included in the Expanded and Improved Seed Capital Tax Credit.

The Improved and Expanded Seed Capital Tax Credit offers a the 60% tax credit on investments. When the Expanded and Improved Seed Capital Tax Credit was signed into law last year,Lepage refused to sign it because he said it was not impactful enough. When I went back to my own post to retrieve the link to verify that statement, I found that the link to the Bangor Daily News article had been altered to go to Page Not Found. (I have been writing on an off, on this blog about the links that are posted here in, which are then altered by an unidentified outside source.) I found the article by going into the code to retrieve the correct search term. Here is the quote from that article:

LePage is declining to sign the bill not because he doesn’t support the program, Butera said, but because he believes the bill could have been “more impactful.”
“When he puts his name on something, there’s ownership and shows he bought into it,” Butera said. “He buys into the concept, but he feels the numbers and the bill wasn’t impactful enough.”
The Maine Seed Capital Tax Credit program allows people who invest no more than $500,000 in a Maine business with less than $3 million in gross sales to receive tax credits equal to 60 percent of the investment. It also provides tax credits to venture capital firms.
So, if LePage had his way, it is possible that the investment terms for the Expanded and Improved Seed Capital Tax Credit would be inclusive of  investors in the $50 million dollar target range. As it stands today, it does not apply. If it did, that would mean a tax credit of 30 million dollars gifted by the taxpayer to the capitalist.

Both the "Open For Business plan and the Pine Tree Zone provide 100% corporate tax exemptions ( Pine Tree Zone also provides 100% personal tax exemption) The rational must be that the income tax on employees will justify the corporate tax exemption- but that means the owners of the means of production pay no taxes-and the workers do, and the taxes the workers pay are likely to become part of the next round of tax payer give aways to the owners of the means of production - all for the cause transforming Maine into a corporate culture, and with all that concentrated capital melded together with the power of big government and extracted from the rest of the economy, the corporate culture will be able to easily bull doze over anything that is in its way. The legislature justifies its re-distributive policies with clams of public benefit but the public has to pay twice for its share of the benefit- the first time in contributing each one's "fair share" of taxpayer gifts to private capitalists, and then again one has to earn one's "fair share" of the public benefit in an exchange of values within the free enterprise system.

A company coming into an area bringing 1500 jobs has the potential to completely transform that area in both predictable and un-forseen ways with less of an impact on urban areas than a rural community.

Back to Gordon Colby, key man in the Maine Conservative Patriots, which recently blocked this blogger for "deep-thinking":
He (Gordon Colby) believed progressive politicians, since even before Woodrow Wilson, had been advancing a philosophy that sees government as the solution to all of man’s problems. - See more at:

Meanwhile, one of the corporate states programs is the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development which statutorily excludes the retail sector, which makes up much of Main Street. Imagine our communities without Main Street, perhaps the state of things to come if the aggressive expansion of state corporatism is allowed to escalate, and LePage has demonstrated his very large appetite to do just that.

This might be called a massive population displacement plan being conducted by Maine's legislature and administration

I wish I could say there is a candidate in the race running on reversing Maine's headlong train wreck into corproatism- but I can't and so the choice is between who will do the least damage, who will be the least effective in advancing the corporate state? That is the question until a candidate appears in the field offering a more inspiring basis for a decision. I pray for that.


This is a summary of the actual bill, in which I discovered three important provisions which were not covered in the Kennebec Journal article which I have been using as a source: They are:

  • Provides employment tax increment financing benefits for qualified investments. The reimbursement under this subsection is equal to 80% of Maine income tax withheld each year for which reimbursement is requested and attributed to those qualified employees for a period of no more than 10 years. In years 11-20, the certified business is eligible for a reimbursement of 50% of Maine income tax withheld each year for which reimbursement is requested. Reimbursement under this paragraph may not be paid for years beginning after December 31, 2034.
  • Enable access to a pool of up to $500 million in bond funding from the Finance Authority of Maine for transformational Economic Development Projects. Financing assistance for any one major business expansion project may not exceed $400,000,000. This program would provide long-term, credit-enhanced financing up to $400,000,000 at taxable bond rates for businesses creating 1,500 jobs and investing more than $50 million
  • Provides access to extensive workforce development assistance, training and recruitment by empowering the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Economic & Community Development and the Commissioner of the Department of Labor to work with agencies across state government involved in employment or skill training to identify and marshal financial resources to help a certified company recruit and train workers. The proposal also identifies available funding for the Governor’s Jobs Initiative Program, as defined in Title 26 §2031, so that qualified businesses can access it for training. (emphasis mine)

  • I will have more to say later
From the Maine Constitution:

Section 14.  Authority and procedure for issuance of bonds.  The credit of the State shall not be directly or indirectly loaned in any case, except as provided in sections 14-A, 14-B, 14-C and 14-D.  The Legislature shall not create any debt or debts, liability or liabilities, on behalf of the State, which shall singly, or in the aggregate, with previous debts and liabilities hereafter incurred at any one time, exceed $2,000,000, except to suppress insurrection, to repel invasion, or for purposes of war, and except for temporary loans to be paid out of money raised by taxation during the fiscal year in which they are made, and except for loans to be repaid within 12 months with federal transportation funds in amounts not to exceed 50% of transportation funds appropriated by the federal government in the prior federal fiscal year; and excepting also that whenever 2/3 of both Houses shall deem it necessary, by proper enactment ratified by a majority of the electors voting thereon at a general or special election, the Legislature may authorize the issuance of bonds on behalf of the State at such times and in such amounts and for such purposes as approved by such action; but this shall not be construed to refer to any money that has been, or may be deposited with this State by the Government of the United States, or to any fund which the State shall hold in trust for any Indian tribe.  Whenever ratification by the electors is essential to the validity of bonds to be issued on behalf of the State, the question submitted to the electors shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the total amount of bonds of the State outstanding and unpaid, the total amount of bonds of the State authorized and unissued, and the total amount of bonds of the State contemplated to be issued if the enactment submitted to the electors be ratified.  For any bond authorization requiring ratification of the electors pursuant to this section, if any bonds have not been issued within 5 years of the date of ratification, then those bonds may not be issued after that date.  Within 2 years after expiration of that 5-year period, the Legislature may extend, by a majority vote, the 5-year period for an additional 5 years or may deauthorize the bonds.  If the Legislature fails to take action within those 2 years, the bond issue shall be considered to be deauthorized and no further bonds may be issued.  For any bond authorization in existence on November 6, 1984, and for which the 5-year period following ratification has expired, no further bonds may be issued unless the Legislature, by November 6, 1986, reauthorizes those bonds by a majority vote, for an additional 5-year period, failing which all bonds unissued under those authorizations shall be considered to be deauthorized.  Temporary loans to be paid out of moneys raised by taxation during any fiscal year shall not exceed in the aggregate during the fiscal year in question an amount greater than 10% of all the moneys appropriated, authorized and allocated by the Legislature from undedicated revenues to the General Fund and dedicated revenues to the Highway Fund for that fiscal year, exclusive of proceeds or expenditures from the sale of bonds, or greater than 1% of the total valuation of the State of Maine, whichever is the lesser.
Section 14-A.  Authority to insure industrial, manufacturing, fishing, and agricultural mortgage loans.  For the purposes of fostering, encouraging and assisting the physical location, settlement and resettlement of industrial, manufacturing, fishing, agricultural and recreational enterprises within the State, the Legislature by proper enactment may insure the payment of mortgage loans on real estate and personal property within the State of such industrial, manufacturing, fishing, agricultural and recreational enterprises not exceeding in the aggregate $90,000,000 in amount at any one time and may also appropriate moneys and authorize the issuance of bonds on behalf of the State at such times and in such amounts as it may determine to make payments insured as aforesaid.  For the purposes of this section, a documented fishing vessel or a vessel registered under state law shall be construed as real estate. (emphasis mine)

Glad to see this:
  • Reference Committee Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development
    Last House Action 4/14/2014 - Reports READ.
    On motion of Representative HERBIG of Belfast, REPORT A Ought Not to Pass was ACCEPTED.
    ROLL CALL NO. 699
    (Yeas 91 - Nays 55 - Absent 5 - Excused 0)
    In concurrence. ORDERED SENT FORTHWITH.
    Placed in the Legislative Files. (DEAD)
    Last Senate Action 4/11/2014 - TAKEN from the Table by the President. 

    Subsequently, Report A Ought Not To Pass ACCEPTED 
    Roll Call Ordered Roll Call # 574
    22 Yeas - 13 Nays- 0 Excused - 0 Absent PREVAILED 
    Ordered sent down forthwith for concurrence.

Monday, April 14, 2014

FaceBook Blocking- in-Q-Tel and the Private Hegemony Of Power


Recently a message appeared  on my screen , being identified as from Facebook. It brought up the Facebook login screen and warned against sending friend requests to people that one does not know in one's circle of friends , family, work, and classmates

I first received the message several months ago. The first message included a list of twenty names of people who did not respond to my friend request over all the years that I have been on Facebook. It asked that I delete all the requests and suggested that I stop sending friend requests for a week.

The next was a list of 7 names - some of them very recent requests, which I did not think were given adequate response time.

The third message to appear  told  that I am blocked for a week from adding friends and displayed a list of five names- all very recent requests- all in response to those with whom I interacted on Facebook- and one within the last hour of receiving the message

This is the message I sent to Facebook:

I do not respond to Facebook friend requests ( I meant facebook invitations to add a Friend)  as I only send requests to those who have responded favorably to something that I posted. If one could only be friends with people one knows in the real world Facebook would be a tiny fraction of what it is and also would have no purpose as I cannot discuss many interests that I have with people that I know in the real world.

After sending me invitation after invitation to befriend people that I know nothing about- You are now blocking me for sending requests to people that I do know- in cyberspace. There are about five people very recently sent requests- one of them sent within the hour and for this you are blocking me for a week-

What you are telling me just does not add up/ makes no sense - and one has to wonder what is motivating Facebook.

HOWEVER  After looking at the Facebook Rules And Responsibilities Page- which was updated at the end of 2013- and finding no mention of the specifically stipulated rules that I am being told that I violated, I am weighing in with the speculation that this message is not from FaceBook but is generated by some other source that has figured out how to gain access to some of my online activities. For the last several months, my computer has been plagued by an inexplicable data processing sound going on in the background and unrelated to any activity that I am doing. I found that I can temporarily stop that sound by switching out browsers but recently I allowed it to go on longer than usual. Co-incidentally, I thereafter received the alleged FaceBook message.

The message specifically states that Facebook is meant only for connecting with people that one already knows -specifying friends, family, work, and classmates and claims that sending a singular friend request to someone whom one does not know through such circles can be considered to be "harassment" . The recent message then told me that I was blocked from sending friend requests for a week.

I googled this message and found reports of others receiving the same message and a conversation about these rules on what appears to be a Facebook message board, However there is no official correlating rule posted on FaceBook .

It is well publicized that the CIA has a venture capitalist fund called In-Q-Tel which invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping  intelligence agencies equipped with the latest information technology (spying tech) . This means that the same technology that is available to the CIA is available to other private sources. I don't think the CIA is bugging my computer and to Facebook I am just a grain of sand on a huge beach, but to the power hegemony in Maine I am a spanner in the works and a loose canon voice and here we are entering another election season. The power hegemony loves the word "world class" and it is heavily invested in the 21st century gold rush to make the next billions or trillions in the next high tech revolution and/or to become the controlling hand in the next technological power house and so it is likely that the tzars of the hegemony  have access to the latest spying technology, the development of which is being capitalized by the In-Q-Tel. and their own access to those functions being capitalized by taxpayers every where.

And so- it is reasonable to speculate that spying technology is out there which is accessible not only to the CIA but to the hegemony of power, who may also have an interest in retaining such technology in their own hands- unavailable to others who could then use it against them- and the hegemony does not like to have their own activities to be transparent to the general public.

( Unfortunately as I am typing- the date processing sound has now found my way back into my system after switching to a way off the known grid browser- if you have ever used Quickbooks and pressed "enter" - this is what it sounds like)

I just can't see the very restrictive rules as being generated by FaceBook- which would never have become the most used social networking in the world if  FaceBook were dictating the use of its network in such a limiting way. However the very idea of such rules being implemented- especially being implemented on targeted individuals and organizations- extrapolates on how FaceBook could be manipulated if ICCAN is taken out of United States governance and handed over to the"world community" as President Obama plans to do in 2015. If you think the recent activities of the IRS are a threat to free speech, wait until you see what happens when the hypothetical "global community" is controlling ICCAN ! Enjoy what is left of free speech while you can!

Maine passes Government Transparency Bill After Receiving Low National Grade For Corruption Risk

Tweet This

While I was researching the University of M, I came across a thesis written by Shelby K Lane:

State-Level Government: An Evaluation of Maine's Conflict of Interest Laws and Amendments to Improve Transparency Through Financial Disclosure

The paper is dated 5/1/2013. It became the basis for a bill passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Lepage on 7/3/2013

Co-incidentally during 7/2013  I was researching the statute for the Department of Economic and Community Development, which led to further questions about the Maine Technology Institute. During the process, I contacted the State Ombudsman, Brenda Kielty, at the Attorney General's Office where there is a published  introduction promoting government transparency. I suggested that if the government really wants to be transparent and keep things honest they should have the data base online and allow the public to search the data base themselves and create their own reports. The information that I wanted could be readily available by applying search terms to a data base. Since MTI is all about new tech it is inconceivable that they do not have state of the art data base functions available to them.- not to mention that it would save the bureaucracy time and the taxpayer money. This is the response received to that suggestion, just a little more than two weeks after the Governor signed the Transparency Act.


1.Information made available on an agency website but not in a searchable database format may not provide the research and investigative tool needed by the public. The Freedom of Access Act does not require that public information be posted online in any particular format, just that public records be made available. While there is a strong argument for increasing the accessibility and usefulness of information, there is no current requirement that the technology in place achieve that objective.

2.The collection of data and reports generated from that data may be public records but the agency is not required under the law to create a new record or report in response to a FOAA request. If the dataset you request does not exist, the agency may choose to produce it for any number of reasons but not because they are legally required to take such an action. I appreciate your comments on this topic and I will continue to bring attention to the need for accessible, useful public data.
Brenda Kielty
I had not made any reference in my correspondence to legal requirements but that was the way Ms Keitly chose to respond, clearly sending the message that the government is not going to be transparent with the public unless they are required to do so by statute.

Shelby K Lane introduces the subject of his thesis with this statement:

In March of 2012, the State Integrity Investigation published a Corruption Risk Report Card for each state, giving them a grade on 14 different areas relating to government transparency. Based on those grades, the states were then ranked 1-50, with 50 being the worst in government transparency; Maine ranked 46th.
And later says:
The bill topic stemmed from a Corruption Risk Report Card and the work of the State Integrity Investigation. The State Integrity Investigation is a project pointed at “keeping government honest.” 
The major players who facilitated this project were The Center for PublicIntegrity, Global Integrity, and Public Radio International.

One of the considerations on which states are rated is the following
The access that citizens have to those mechanisms, such as access to public records at reasonable cost and within a reasonable time

However the latter consideration is not included in the bill passed by the legislature which focuses only on conflicts of interests of the legislative body- and not on public transparency regarding the activities of our government"- giving the apearance of a minimum effort made motivated by improving the states low grade in a national report- as opposed to a sincere willingness for the activities of the state to be transparent to the public
Bill Summary:
This bill amends financial disclosure laws applicable to Legislators and certain executive branch employees. Annual income received of $2,000 or more must include a description as to the nature of the income. Ownership interests of 5% or more in business entities must be reported. Involvement as a responsible officer of a political party or political committee by the Legislator or executive employee, or by a member of that person's immediate family, must be reported. The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices is directed to adopt rules that require reporting of income of $2,000 or more in ranges. Finally, Legislators and executive employees are required to file their disclosure statements electronically and those statements must be on a publicly accessible website
 "Certain executive branch employees" are members of the legislature and their families. 

Shelby K Lane writes that "
Maine prides itself on “the state’s citizen legislature composed mostly of amateur legislators” who perform their civic legislative
duties on only a part-time basis.   
This echoes a similar line used by Steve Mistier used in a Portland Press Herald article that touched on conflicts of interest:
The Maine Legislature is a part-time, citizen legislature. Many of its members have jobs or interests that intersect with public policy that they, as lawmakers, are either voting on or proposing.
As of this writing, I have not been able to find the publicly accessible website but it is fair to say that most of the Maine legislature are in business and that people in business know about the state's economic development polices which redistribute public wealth to private corporations and capitalists. These policies have been in existence and expanding since at least the late seventies. Anyone in business knows that if they are in the legislature, they can have a hand in centrally managing the state economy and in constructing the terms by which the public's wealth is re-distributed to the "targeted sector"- such as The Expanded and Improved Seed Capital Tax Credit  that was passed with a unanimous vote in 2013. That means that the legislature can write laws to benefit any special interest and to even benefit themselves once they leave office. There is no way of knowing what private deals might be taking place behind the scenes even if there is no direct and transparent conflict of interest readily identifiable. Corruptibility is in the very nature of targeted sector economics. The bill passed is restricted to the legislature and members of the legislature's family and does not apply to the unelected tzars and boards that have the authoritative positions in the wealth redistribution process- nor does it apply to any other member of government.

Another statement by Mr. Lane is this:

It appears obvious that at least some people do think changes need to be made; the opposition is either avoiding the challenge of creating such change or believes that because Maine has not yet had any major corruption that we will never have any in the future
I beg to differ with that analysis. All of the economic development programs are a corruption of our state constitution, which I have written about repeatedly in this blog. The legislature is not an uneducated lot. They have legal advisers. They take an oath to uphold the Maine Constitution and the United States Constitution, They cannot claim ignorance of the law - and  the ultimate foundation of the law- the constitution -  and it is inconceivable that those involved in politics are ignorant of basic political philosophy including that which distinguishes the Maine and United States political philosophy from the philosophy of Marxism.

It is the culture of Augusta to ignore the Maine State Constitution. Mr Lane pays reverence to the culture of Augusta when he provides this definition

Political Culture
-the system of empirical beliefs, expressive symbols, and values
which defines the situation in which political action takes place; grounded in the states historical experience and dominant traditions about what constitutes proper government faction
The state constitution is more than a tradition or an historical experience - it is the consent of the governed- but over and over again we see that those doing the governing in Maine rarely mention the word "constitution" (with an exception for when they are campaigning for office) as if the word has been vanquished from their vocabulary and thus vanquishing the constitution its-self! Taking an oath to uphold the Maine Constitution is interpreted by the Augusta culture as taking an oath to uphold the statutes, and thus once a statute is passed, it is effectively constitutionalized without going through a constitutional process to do so.

I decided to search the Shelby K Lane's thesis for the word "constitution" (since I don't have time to read the whole length.) There is found some discussion of  Jame's Madison, and constitutional conventions and even a mention of the Maine constitution:
Maine operates under its original 1819 constitution, which has been categorized by Daniel Elazar, an expert on state politics, as a“commonwealth constitution.” He notes that this type of constitution “is usually brief and concerned mostly with setting forth the essentials of government.”
I researched this description  and came upon the same words in an excerpt from Maine Politics and Government by Kenneth T Palmer. Reading a little bit further down the Kenneth T Palmer book extract, I found this paragraph:

Among the amendments particularly restrictive to the legislature are the sixth ...and the fourteenth (1876) which promises that acts of incorporation will be established under general laws and not not under special legislation.
Mr Lane's paper discusses the influence of scholars and academics on the legislative process. Mr Palmer is clearly an established scholar in Maine Politics. Any scholar of Maine  politics should first of all read the Maine Constitution themselves and also read scholars such as Mr Palmer. Considering all the scholarly and legal advisers to the legislature- such as Professor Powell who will be conducting a new minor in leadership at the University of M and whose credentials include grooming the youth for legislative positions - so how then, can the hegemony of power in the state of Maine not be cognizant that the legislature is in violation of the Maine State Constitution in chartering corporations to serve as "instrumentalist of the state' ? And how can they not understand that a corporate state is part and parcel to Marxist political philosophy ? Especially when one factors in that in 1981 the Legislature passed a statute deeming the University Of Maine to be a corporate instrumentality of the state and in 1995 The Maine legislature granted itself jurisdiction over the curriculum at the University of Maine and that sometime around 2004 a minor was established at the University Of Maine in Marxist and Socialist Studies , which remains in place to this day. How then, can the legislature feign ignorance about the political philosophy which they are implementing in Maine?

Support this blog and get A Maine Citizen's Journey Through The Statutes of Transformation Timeline by sending a contribution via PayPal to suggested minimum $10.00

An amendment must be proposed by two thirds vote of each House. It was the 1876 legislature which imposed the restriction against chartering corporations by special acts of legislation on its own body. 1876 was a little more than a quarter of a century since Marx and Engels issued the Communist Manifesto in 1848 , prior to which the American Constitution was the most revolutionary political doctrine of the western world. If the 14th Amendment of the Maine State Constitution were honored, it would be very difficult for centralized management of the economy - in other words-  the government controlling the means of production (capital) -in other words Marxism - to become entrenched in Maine as it is today. I submit that as a purposeful intention of Article IV part Third Section 14 of the  Maine State Constitution is to protect Maine from encroachment by Marxist philosophy:

Section 14.  Corporations, formed under general laws.  Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created by special Acts of the Legislature, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained; and, however formed, they shall forever be subject to the general laws of the State.
The hegemony of power in Maine knows that it is operating outside of the Maine State Constitution. To say this does not qualify as corruption is to occlude honoring an oath to uphold Maine State Constitution from the measure of corruption.

Once again I submit that there is need for  a constitutional  requirement that members of the legislature takes yearly classes in Maine and United States Constitutional law and the Federalist Papers.


Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Update Letter To Maine Government Oversight Committee

Update on letter to Government Oversight Committee:

To date none will address the issues I raised -  not even from my own Senator Chris Johnson. This does not surprise me when our state is run by a hegemony of power. Its been ions since the Maine state legislature granted onto themselves the authority to centrally manage the economy and have been decreeing for years that the transference of taxpayer money to private interests is for the public good. How could anyone think otherwise? The legislature is incapable of dealing with views outside of their own hegemony and they have stopped governing by the consent of the governed decades ago. I know there are many among the governed who do not agree that the redistribution of wealth currently implemented by our legislature serves the "public benefit"- but we are not among the "targeted sector" served by our legislature. I know there are many that do not like the direction that the University of Maine is going and the way that institution is being used as a tool of the state's central management of the economy, which is trending increasingly toward global capitalism- in other words transferring the public resources of the people of Maine to the new owners of global production. The University of Maine is another tool being used toward that end- and a powerful tool it is- that of indoctrination.

Amid all this news about cut backs - there is an announcement of a new "leadership minor" at the University of Maine

About Professor Powell it says "Powell, who also serves as advisor for UMaine’s Legal Studies minor, director of the Institute for Leadership and Democracy, director of the Peter Madigan ’81 Congressional Internship Program and Kenneth Palmar Maine State Legislative Internship Program, said inspiration for the Leadership Studies minor came from the Maine’s distinguished history of leaders.
 “This wonderful list of people who’ve been very influential also tended to exercise a kind of leadership that’s different from what you find elsewhere,” Powell said. “They’re civil, thoughtful and respectful of others and are willing to sit down and talk to people that differ from them and work out agreements and compromises.
Since my letter was not deemed worthy of a response by the Government Oversight Committee, I also sent it to the two professors who will be conducting the new minor in leadership at the University of Maine. I do not anticipate that the new leadership who is "willing to sit down and talk to those who differ with them" will extend that sentiment so far as to a member of the general public which is assigned the role of being the beast of burden and no more.

How is it that there is a new minor being added at a time of cut backs? One can't help but notice that Richard Powell has this in his resume:
In 2010 he was a Fulbright Lecturer at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China (one of the top five universities in China), where he taught graduate-level courses on American elections and political institutions. He has also lectured at some of China’s top universities including Tsinghua University (Beijing), Fudan University (Shanghai), Sichuan University (Chengdu), Northwest University (Xi’an), and Xi’an International Studies University (Xi’an)
As with the states economic development policies- each part is presented separably to the public but all the parts work together as a single system. Professor Powell's background will make a smooth fit with the Confucius Institute- recently installed by the Chinese government at USM and said to be the first at the University of Maine. Out with the old- In with the new! What's a budget got to do with it?


This is the message added to the most recent request to the Maine House of Lords, Government Oversight Committee :

Amid all the controversy of cutbacks- how is it that there is a new leadership minor at the University of M?

Could Professor Powell’s close relationship to the Maine state legislature and China have anything to do with it? 

Why was my letter to the Maine Government Oversight Committee deleted from the student newspaper and why did Face book classify the announcement of the new leadership course a “product review” and then say my letter was not relevant to that product review- in which Professor Powell praises past leaders of Maine as “willing to sit down and talk to people that differ from them and work out agreements and compromises.” -implying that these are traits that his leadership minor will develop?

Why then was my letter which addresses Professor Powell's area of influence – specifically grooming the youth for the Maine State legislature and the United States Congress- and advising the political science department at the University of M- deleted?

Actions speak louder than rhetoric! 

Is the University of M merely an institution of indoctrination ? I would like a response to my letter which includes any courses currently offered at the University of M that covers the Federalist Papers, The Maine State Constitution, and the United States Constitution- you can get that information from Professor Powell !

Update on KickStarter project:

I cancelled the Kickstarter project on the second day but all was not lost. During the short period of time that I ran it , I received tweets about resources not yet launched which could make a difference and I am continuing to work on developing a stream of income from this blog to which I devote far too much time for an unpaid avocation - It all takes a lot of time and research.

Update on Website

 I don't have a lot of time to work on website. It is plagued by phoney registrations. I installed a google capcha program but It hasn't stopped the phoney registrations yet and so  I'll have to keep on working on that.

I am beginning to understand the website's value- one being that I have started a discussion on the Federalist Papers - an education that is vanishing from our educational institutions. I do hope that the website catches on but for the moment it is just a structure and a vision.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

A Letter to the Maine Government Oversight Committee Concerning The University Of Maine

Today I learned  that there is a limited OPEGA report in the works, focusing on economic development funds going to the University of M. It isn't clear from this description if the cost of operating The states Advanced Manufacturing System at the University of M is covered but I have a number of questions I would like to have answered .<>;;;;;;;;;;;;

Dear Senator Cain and members of the Government Oversight Commitee,

I am writing to you in your capacity as the Chair of the Government Oversight Committee regarding the Opega Report of the Maine Economic Improvement Fund.
I could not get the online audio to play also I do not know if my questions are answered there.

The review of that report does not make it clear if questions I have regarding the states manufacturing center ( Advanced Manufacturing Center) located on the University of M campus and employing student labor (as reported in Maine Biz) , will be included in the report.

The review says that you will examine how the funds are used to determine if the use reconciles with Maine statutes.

The review says nothing about reconciling the use of public funds with the Maine State Constitution, which represents the people’s will and the consent of the governed You took an oath to uphold the constitution- not the statutes !

It is my conclusion, based on years of independent research , that the economic development statutes do not reconcile with the Maine State Constitution, particularly Article IV , Part Third sections 13, 14 7 15, where in the legislature is prohibited from chartering corporations by special act of legislation with an exception for municipal purposes and if the object of the corporation cannot be done another way. Clearly the object of the plethora of corporations serving the purpose of being “an instrumentality of the state’ is economic development. Economic development CAN be done another way- through the private sector. “An Instrumentality of the state” is clearly a state purpose and NOT a municipal purpose- and on that basis most of the economic development statutes through which the state centrally manages the Maine state economy and redistributes the public’s money to private interests -are not reconcilable to the state constitution.

Also particular attention needs to be paid to the Home Rule Amendment and laws pertaining to equality of taxation

The measure against which the report should judge the legality of the economic statutes is the state constitution- not state statutes which are irreconcilable with the state constitution.

As an example in 1981 the legislature passed the non-profit corporation act in which the legislature re-defined the meaning of a corporation- to say in essence that if a corporation serves as an instrumentality of the state- it is not a corporation. There is no rational for writing such a statute except to do an end run on Article IV Part Third Section 14 which prohibits the legislature from chartering corporations. As a legal authority the legislature sited the Secretary of State, who is part of the administrative branch of government. The legislature should have sited an authority from the judicial branch of government- ie the legislature should have sited an Opinion of the Justices.

I would like to know if and how student labor employed at the University of M is paid- Does the state manufacturing center at the University of M pay its fair share of payroll taxes –or did the state grant its own manufacturing center tax exemptions pursuant to the Pine Tree Zone tax exemptions for the legislature’s “targeted sector”?

I would also like to see a clear diagram of the relationship between the states public charity, The Maine Technology Institute which financed the building of the states manufacturing center at the University of Maine and represents 25% of the business that the state manufacturing center does- according to MaineBiz, which also writes that the state doesn’t charge the public charity (MTI) overhead because that would be like the state charging the state. The public charity- MTI, was chartered in violation of Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution- which makes no exception for non-profit corporations and no exception for public charities. The use of a public “charity” to gift money to for-profit private enterprises makes a complete mockery of the whole idea of a “non-profit” organization!

I would also like to know the percentage of prototype designs produced at the state’s manufacturing center which are ultimately targeted to be produced in global low-cost labor markets- that compete with American manufacturing state side? The state is extracting capitalization from the public here to finance government run production that competes unfairly with the very source of the state’s own capitalization!

What kind of economics is that? perhaps the type that is being spread world wide by the Dongbei University of Finance and Economics in China ,featuring divisions such as the international Cooperation Office, The School of International Business and the Global Institute of Management and Economics along side a school teaching Chinese language –clearly intended to be the global language of a world subjugated to global capitalism.

I submit my outrage that the University of M- an American and Maine taxpayer subsidized institution of higher learning has sold a big chunk of that educational system to the Chinese government who will install their own instructors and material on American soil-under the brand name “Confucius Institute” which is none other than the Dongbei University of Finance and Economics !

I submit that a statute needs to be passed that when ever a taxpayer subsidized institution sells a chunk to a foreign government as the University of M has done, that it forfeits all federal and state taxpayer subsidization.

Further more I submit that it should be a requirement for a taxpayer funded institution of higher learning to prominently feature studies in the Federalist Papers, The American Constitution and the Maine State Constitution- all the more so when that same university is offering a minor in Marxist and Socialist Studies, has constructed state owned means of production on the university campus- and sold a chunk of the taxpayer funded university to the Chinese Government so that a foreign government can educate American youth in it’s ill advised economic polices-that are just as much constructed on a bubble as the IPO boom or the mortgage loan fiasco in this country.

I also submit that every member of the Maine State legislature should be required to take yearly courses in the Maine State Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the Federalist Papers at a trusted educational system which is not currently, the University of M