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

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

25% for You- 75% for Maine State INC in Maine's Put ME to Work Bill

Tweet This

As I set out to write the second half of the blog post I started yesterday, I am searching for the actual Put ME to work legislation. I came upon Speaker of the House Mark Eve's promotional editorial in the Portland Press Herald, and found that never once is there a link to the actual bill, or even LD number mentioned. Searching"Put ME to work" produces a video for a song.

The same holds true for the article on the bill for the WBAI website

I can no longer get into the article by Steve Mistler that I linked to yesterday with the Portland Press Herald telling me that I have reached my limit of free articles for the month, although I have never seen that applied to articles which one has already read before and I was on the page long enough to try to click on what appeared to be a link which was dead. Now it does not even appear to be a link,

Also true for Maine's National Public Radio News Source, which is under the jurisdiction of the Maine legislature  via the Joint Standing Committee on Educational and Cultural Affairs and so we can assign responsibility to that Committee for leaving the link to the actual legislation off the Maine public radio web page which displays only a promotional editorial about the bill

Joint Standing Committee Descriptions
  Education and Cultural Affairs.  Department of Education; State Board of Education; school finance, governance and administration; school budgets; school facilities; curriculum, instruction and assessment; teachers and administrators; special education and child development services; education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students; career and technical education; alternative education, school choice and home schooling; truancy and dropouts; educational services at juvenile correctional facilities; adult education; Maine Education Policy Research Institute; University of Maine System; Maine Community College System; Maine Maritime Academy; postsecondary education finance and governance; student assistance programs at Finance Authority of Maine; and cultural affairs, including Maine Arts Commission, Maine State Library, Maine State Museum and Maine Public Broadcasting Corporation

Success ! I found the info on !  LD1373

The text of the bill confirms that the language shift from "above average income" to "high compensation" is not just media spin but is in written into the legislation, which also provides for an executive position at $100,000.00 per year to manage the program:

10% of the funding for this project provides for one new executive position for the Maine Development Corporation at $100,000, annually and provides a view into highly compensated salary expectations for bureaucrats employed at Maine State Inc. I wonder how that compares with the salary for bureaucrats distributing general welfare rations ?

Note that in 2007's  Part 5: POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

  1. §12542. Program established

1. Program created; goals. 

E. Accomplish all of the goals in this subsection with as little bureaucracy as possible. [2007, c. 469, Pt. A, §1 (NEW).]2013, c. 525, §7 (AMD) .

Hiring one bureaucrat at $100,000.00 a year meets the requirement of  "as little bureaucracy as possible" . The goal is NOT to accomplish the goal with as little bureaucratic expense as possible !
A reasonable likely hood is that the new executive position is that of   Forest Wentworth as the MEP/AMC project manager - a new expansion of state owned manufacturing

25% of the expenditure is scholarship money- which is already available through the charter for the community college system as I wrote about in my previous post and through §3305. Industry partnership grant program which was passed by the board of the Maine Development Corporation in 2013. True to form, the board of Maine State Inc just keeps on coming up with the same legislation over and over again, presented as if it is a stand alone bill and completely new.

65% of the funding goes to a matching fund for the private corporation which is having their job training financed by the Maine taxpayer and ever so generously has offered to cover half the cost of their own job training expenses ! The private corporation can afford to highly compensate their employees but not to train them- perhaps there is a relationship between those two conditions?

Or specifically it goes to funding Maine Quality Centers -"quality" being related to "quality jobs" which the Maine Development Corporation defines exclusively by a high rate of pay and top of the line benefit packages. The prose describing "Quality Centers" could mean a lot of things such as The Advanced Manufacturing Center - government owned manufacturing located at University of Maine financed with taxpayer subsidies and using student labor and in competition with the private sector. As far as I can tell the Advanced Manufacturing Center at The University of Maine primarily manufactures prototypes for which the production will take place in global low wage labor markets- a speculation based on the fact that when the Center listed their products on line - only a few that were manufactured in Maine identified where they were manufactured.  Every program that is being advanced by the Maine Development Corporation is being done so aggressively continually upping the rate by which wealth is being transferred from the people to corporate bank accounts- why would the Advanced Manufacturing Center be any different- it must have a need to acquire new equipment, if Maine's job training programs are taking place in state owned facilities rather than on the premise of the privately owned employer. The prose promoting the "Quality Center'" says that one of the advantages is that the private corporation will have access to the state owned facility.

After writing the above paragraph- I found this February 2015 article

UMaine’s Advanced Manufacturing Center expands partnerships throughout Maine

The University of Maine’s Advanced Manufacturing Center (AMC) has teamed up with the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership (Maine MEP) to expand their capacity to provide manufacturing expertise and services across the state of Maine.
As a result of the partnership, Maine MEP has hired Forest Wentworth as the MEP/AMC project manager. Wentworth is centered at AMC, where he aids in research, design and manufacturing services 
.......The AMC is part of the University of Maine’s College of Engineering, which provides valuable resources and services to Maine’s manufacturing sector by designing and implementing prototype projects and expanding on product lines. The center is home to a collection of facilities, including a 3-D printing, advanced biometrics, and a mechanical engineering laboratories.

When a company contacts the center requesting services, professional staff travel across the state of Maine to determine a course of action. Once a design has been agreed upon, students are enlisted to assist on specific projects.

We hire students just like any other company would,” said John Belding, Director of AMC.  “They work for us as a student intern, and are assigned to work with companies and businesses on different projects. These students get hands-on experience on what it is like to be in the field of engineering.”

The cost for AMC services largely depends on the size and complexity of a client’s project. As a nonprofit in Maine, the center only charges the direct cost required to complete a project. Costs include labor, raw materials, and design and manufacturing expenses.

This is the most definitive statement that I have found to date on how students are paid at Maine's state owned Advanced Manufacturing Center. The Center hires students "just like any other company would" but note that the information found on Oregon's work training program, (see bottom of this page) says that because some federal  scholarship programs restrict eligibility if a student is employed - there for some students may elect not to be paid when participating of the work training program -  the same would hold true in Maine. As examined in part one, the costs of the loans for work training programs can be passed on to the Maine taxpayer using the magic of refundable tax credits.  As a non-profit, the state owned AMG only charges for costs ! If (student) labor costs are greatly reduced because of the federal scholarship program, and/or state financing deals, that gives state owned manufacturing a huge cost advantage over the private sector, whether the private sector company is a corporate welfare recipient paying highly compensated wages- or a company operating in the free enterprise system. The Maine Development Corporation is selling it's services at below private enterprise market value in the model of it's Chinese Comrades !  And of course it's all connected to the new Tech Place financed by the federal government and using the identity of The Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, which is a region consisting of  one municipality - the Town of MRRA- which is governed by the state rather than the inhabitants of the municipality. I trust my readers understand which political philosophy is at work here. I won't give it a name because while some are fine with the system ,they do not like it when one identifies the name of the operative political philosophy. I don't want to offend the delicate sensibilities so prolific in the polite society and speech regulated former State of Maine.

The Town of MRRA also hosts a foreign trade zone

The questions that come to my mind are:

  • Why would  a corporation which can afford to pay the high compensation wages required to qualify for Maine's corporate welfare benefits- NOT have their own equipment on which to train employees? And why wouldn't a business prefer to train employees on equipment that the employee will actually be using, rather than on another version of it owned by a state corporation?
  • Since the state has it's own manufacturing operation, located at an institution of higher learning, why would the state NOT use its own manufacturing center as the "Quality Center" for the Community College System, which includes the U of M INC?-in fact Community Colleges System of Maine encompass any certified educational institution in Maine, granting the Maine Development Corporation access to Maine's entire educational system to use for its own agenda.
Based on those two questions it seems reasonable to speculate that a large chunk of the 65% of funding for the Put ME to Work bill, will be used to purchase more equipment for state owned manufacturing located at The Advanced Manufacturing Center at the University of Maine or the new Tech Place where the Maine Development Corporation owns the equipment and the real estate. The function of Tech Place falls under the purpose of the  Maine Technology Institute, which has ownership rights to intellectual property written into it's chartering statute:

§15302. Maine Technology Institute
 2. Purpose.  The institute, through a public and private partnership, shall encourage, promote, stimulate and support research and development activity leading to the commercialization of new products and services in the State's technology-intensive industrial sectors to enhance the competitive position of those sectors and increase the likelihood that one or more of the sectors will support clusters of industrial activity and to create new jobs for Maine people. The institute is one element of the State's economic development strategy and will contribute to the long-term development of a statewide research, development and product deployment infrastructure.1999, c. 401, Pt. AAA, §3 (NEW) .]

§15303-A. Maine Technology Capacity Fund
 1. Definitions.  As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.
C. "Intellectual property" means any legally protectable materials, including new information, technologies, inventions, designs, works of authorship, any strain, variety or culture of an organism, or any portion, modification, translation or extension of these items, and processes, mineral discoveries and other legally protectable materials, including know-how and trade secrets, that are generated as a direct and indirect result of investments made by the institute through contracts, grants or any other legal agreement. [2003, c. 20, Pt. RR, §7 (NEW)2003, c. 20, Pt. RR, §18 (AFF).]
D. "Protection of intellectual property rights" means protecting the institute's rights to intellectual property through intellectual property protection mechanisms, including, but not limited to, patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and licensing rights. [2003, c. 20, Pt. RR, §7 (NEW)2003,c. 20, Pt. RR, §18 (AFF).]

2. Organization.  The board has all the powers and authority, not explicitly prohibited by law, necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the functions, duties and responsibilities of the fund, including, but not limited to:G. Owning intellectual property, licensing intellectual property and negotiating for and collecting royalty rights or otherwise realizing a return on investment made under the fund and all programs of the institute when appropriate in order to promote the interests and investments of the State in furthering science and technology; and [2003, c. 20, Pt. RR, §7 (NEW)2003, c. 20, Pt. RR, §18 (AFF).]
The way the last two paragraphs are written, it appears that the ownership to intellectual property rights belongs to the board of MTI ! -and let us not forget that MTI is a public charity !
§15302. Maine Technology Institute
1. Establishment.  The Maine Technology Institute, as established in section 12004-G, subsection 33-D, is a nonprofit corporation with public and charitable purposes. The duties, activities and operations of the institute are within the provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code, Section 501(c)(3).
1999, c. 401, Pt. AAA, §3 (NEW) .]

It seems that this charitable public benefit corporation wants something in return for its charitable giving of taxpayers money, which is the intellectual property rights to the projects developed by companies that locate at the Corporation of Maine's  development centers. Maine's state owned manufacturing has the quest for ownership of intellectual property rights of other people's work in common with another of Maine State Inc's partner's- The New England Foundation For The Arts-  a non-profit  foundation that also redistributes tax payers money in the form of NFA grants.

Manufacturing Applications Center The Manufacturing Applications Center (MAC) works with Maine’s industries to improve quality and efficiency in production operations. Interactive strategies and assistance are provided on a fee-for-services basis to help companies become more competitive via advanced technologies and world-class manufacturing strategies. Assistance is provided in: technical training, quality assurance, product testing and analysis, reverse engineering, rapid prototyping, production control, project management, CAD/CAM/CIM technologies, lean manufacturing, metrology, plant layout, process analysis and control, push/pull strategies, supply chain management, JIT flow, 5’s, and engineering design. 
And let us not forget that practically every corporate instrumentality of the state chartered by our legislature as part of its mission to centrally control the economy, includes a provision assigning intellectual property rights to the state owned corporation. See UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SYSTEM

As written in the prose for the "Quality Centers" The training can take place at the work place or at the government maintained  "Quality Centers"  perhaps at the University Of Maine's Advanced Manufacturing Center- government owned manufacturing- complete with it's own copyrights over ownership of intellectual property ! One doesn't really know what the prose actually means and so speculation is justified. All the economic development programs created by the Maine Development Corporation  are designed to work like cogs in a machine mutually reinforcing each other. Any kind of prose can be written to get the funding needed to keep the corporation continually capitalized using other people's money- sourced in the fruit of the labor of the inhabitants of Maine.

In other words 75% of funding provided for in the Put Maine To Work legislation goes for funding the highly compensated public-private hegemony which routinely arranges for legislation to be written to their own advantage as we saw in the dramatic picture that emerged from the Cate Street Scandal, also sold to the public as job creation, lauding with  Pollyanna nativity the marvels of the public- private relationships. Hillary Clinton sang a similar mantra when she awarded the first Medal of Art to the richest and most cynical artist in the world, Jeff Koons:

"One of the great characteristics of our country are our public-private partnerships. They are really at the core of how we do everything. De Tocqueville noticed that, but we’ve continued to perfect and increase our extraordinary partnerships between government and businessbetween civil society and academiaOur partnerships are really at the core of who we are and what we do. And this program could not exist without those partners. So on behalf of the Obama Administration, and especially everyone who works in our Diplomatic Corps around the world, we have been blessed by your generosity......Hillary's Amazing Speech
So you can see the logic of why when it came to deciding where to store her Secretary of State emails, Hillary just concluded Public ? Private? What difference does it make? She is after all a head honcho in the global public-private hegemony, providing endless inspiration for Maine's public-private hegemony.

I  submit as reasoned speculation that the funds that would be appropriated for this purpose are sourced in bonds that the electorate voted for in 2014 which were sold to the electorate with the "job creation" meme.

The statute establishing the issuance of those bonds states:

Sec. A-6. Contingent upon ratification of bond issue. Sections 1 to 5 do not 17 become effective unless the people of the State ratify the issuance of the bonds as set 18 forth in this Part. 

The Maine Constitution
requires that in order for bonds to be ratified certain fiscal information must accompany the bond questions on the ballot.

Article IX.General Provisions.

However in 2013 the board of the Maine Development Corporation overturned the Maine Constitution when they passed a new law that directed that fiscal information to be located "outside the guardrail", which simply means outside the voting area and not accessible to the voter when they are voting. There is no provision that there need be any notice of where this information is to be found. Where I voted in Boothbay there was no mention of it. When I called the Town Office after the elections, I was told that this information was in the office.

I submit this in evidence of the degree to which the Maine Development Corporation- which still goes without an official name but has many subsidiary corporations that have official names, has replaced the Maine Constitution as the Rule Of Law  to which the Maine legislature and the Maine administration are loyal, not with standing oaths of loyalty given to the Maine Constitution.

That is why it is accurate to identify Maine as a development corporation and not a state. By definition a state is governed by the consent of the governed as codified in its Constitution.  A corporation is governed by it's bottom line and by the profit motivation. In some states Benefit Corporation laws have been passed permitting corporations with stockholders to be governed by other public benefit considerations, but the corporation of Maine has not passed such a bill.


Related to my own efforts to find out side ceramic slip casters to work with to produce our line, I have become interested in what is going on in the state of Oregon where Mudshark Studios has had such a phenomenal success in a few short years. I said to the owner, Brett, that he must have a talent for systems management and he said that he had been helped by a state program in Oregon that provided a more experienced consultant to work with his company identifying the problems and what not and that helped him..

So I have been checking out Oregon legislation, a program that is similar on first impression to Maine's "Quality Center". Both programs have the same goals -helping businesses solve system management problems and employee training but the approach is entirely different. I have been searching to try to find where Oregon might have a state owned manufacturing business hidden away somewhere- equitable to the Advanced Manufacturing Center located at the University of Maine where I have read that student labor is being used but I have yet to come across the terms of that student labor.

I have not come across  a state owned manufacturing business in Oregon. Their student training involves a "public-private relationship" in which a student can receive credit for working on the job at the premises of the private business - not at a state owned facility using state owned equipment which is financed by tax payers.

This from the Central Oregon Community College Manufacturing and Applied Technology Center MFG 280 COOPERATIVE WORK EXPERIENCE GUIDE FOR STUDENTS shows how differently the similar  set of goals is achieved in Oregon.

Oregon is one of the states, as is Maine that has a constitutional prohibition against the legislature chartering corporations. See that section of Oregon's Constitution Here

Note on 6/11/ 2015  I clicked on both of the Oregon Links today and they would not work- I also clicked on the links on Preserving The American Political Philosophy website, where they also did not work and so I set out to find them again where upon I noticed that The Community College Manifacturing Center is just that. I have not examined it in depth to determine if Orgon has established anything comprable to Maine;s state owned manufacturing, Oregon's Manufacturing and Applied Technology Center
I corrected the links . Both had been transformed in a similar way.

The correct link for the guide looks like this when I copy and paste it from the internet address bar:

But when I examined the non-functional code it looked like this:


 I didn"t change it . Who ever does doesn't want the information about how a job training program works in Oregon to be easily accessible.

Annotating Jobs For ME - Part Three in Series

Monday, May 25, 2015

We Can Spend Your Money Because We Know What's Good For You

Tweet This !

Maine House speaker pushes job training legislation

The 'Put ME to Work' bill would create new funding to help connect students with jobs in high-demand industries. article in Portland Press Herald by Steve Mistler
AUGUSTA — House Speaker Mark Eves is backing a bill designed to invest $5 million over the next five years in job training programs that create public-private partnerships to develop a trained workforce in high-demand fields such as logging, health care and machining.
In the latest plan being put forth by the board of the Maine Development Corporation, (The Maine legislature) there is a significant change in language. The qualifier for the sector of the economy targeted for subsidization has changed from the sector of the economy providing " above average income" to the sector of the economy which is "highly compensated"

In a 2007 tax policy publication put out by the Maine Development Foundation (Corporation) , itself being an unconstitutionally chartered corporation and therefore NOT representing the consent of the governed, we are told:
Taxes are a means of collecting the revenue needed to pay for public services desired by Maine people
That same publication goes on to describe the purpose of taxation being for " working roads, good schools and emergency services" , an odd statement to be found published by a tax payer funded corporation chartered for the purpose of centrally managing the economy:

§916. Establishment
The Maine Development Foundation is hereby established to foster, support and assist economic growth and revitalization in Maine. The foundation shall carry out its purposes in complement to and in coordination with the economic development activities of the private sector, community and regional agencies and State Government. [1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).]
The foundation shall exist as a not-for-profit corporation with a public purpose, and the exercise by the foundation of the powers conferred by this chapter shall be deemed and held to be an essential governmental function. [1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).]SECTION HISTORY
1977, c. 548, §1 (NEW).
The reason why The Maine Development Foundation omitted its own founding purpose in its list of the purposes of taxation in this tax and fiscal policy report may have something to do with the fact that the report is a sales pitch for lowering income taxes and increasing sales taxes. The omission reflects the general method used by the corporate state to sell its agenda to the public with a carefully edited selection of the relevant facts. This sales pitch attempts to shift taxation to the retail sector, a sector not served by the Maine Development Foundation-and it's sister corporation, DECD INC, in other words, it attempts to shift taxation to the sector not represented by its services and thus the entire function for which this corporation was chartered by the Maine legislature is occluded from the lists of purposes of taxation- that of centrally managing the economy:
Article 2: BUSINESS ASSISTANCE REFERRAL AND FACILITATION PROGRAM: PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES AND DELIVERY §13063-C. Job Retention Program (1) The business is not engaged in retail operations; or, if it is engaged in retail operations, less than 50% of its total annual revenues from state-based operations are derived from sales taxable in this State or the business can demonstrate to the commissioner by a preponderance of the evidence that any increased sales will not include sales tax revenues derived from a transferring or shifting of retail sales from other businesses in this State; and

2015 State Business Tax Climate Index 
Maine fell five rankings overall, from 28th to 33rd, primarily due to a sales tax rate increase but also partly due to improvements in the relative rankings of North Carolina and Nebraska. The Tax Foundation

The services for which wealth is being redistributed by the corporate state, spawned in the wake of the unconstitutional charter of the Maine Development Foundation has never been validated as "desired by the Maine people". That would require a constitutional amendment proclaiming that central management of the economy is a justifiable exception to Article IV Part Third Section 14 and that special interest legislation and redistribution of wealth from the people's pockets to private corporate bank accounts serves the "common good " as is the defined object of government found in the Maine constitution. Or perhaps the Constitution could just be amended to say that the object of government is to serve special interests. How difficult would it be to get the public consent to that ?- all that would be required would be some creative word parsing designed to conceal the real meaning from a public which hasn't been paying much attention and has been easily sold on the perpetual transfer of wealth to the wealthy by simply using such handy phrases such as "job creation" and "public-private relationships", never thinking beyond the rhetorical surface of such slogans.

In Per Capita Personal Income by State, 1990 to 2012 published by Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico the medium household income for Maine in  is listed at 39,481 for the year 2012

In the tax payer subsidized Pine Tree Zone, workers are much more highly compensated as stated in the 2013 congressional testimony of  Mr Douglas' Ray's, the tax payer funded lobbyist for the DECD corporation"

Of the 390 or so businesses participating in the Pine Tree Development Zone Program a vast majority,more than 300 are manufacturers, that's roughly 80%. These businesses have pledged almost a billion dollars in investment and anticipated payroll of nearly $850 million and 74 hundred jobs

An average pay per year of $114864.00 !!! Do the math ! That makes the average pay for Maine's tax payer subsidized economy almost three times that of the medium for the state whose taxpayers are subsidizing the tax payer subsidized economy!

With the measure of the top one percent in the Maine economy being $274,000 annually and the medium income being 39,481, the difference between those sums being 234519; the medium of the difference between the medium income in Maine and the top 1% in Maine is 117259  meaning that the average pay in the Pine Tree Corporate Welfare Zone in 2013 had almost reached the medium of the top half of Maine's economy (top quarter). This is 2015, with each job in corporate welfare zones being required to provide a higher than average income for that area in order to qualify for corporate welfare benefits, the average pay for corporate welfare jobs must now have surpassed the medium pay for the upper half of Maine's economy- and so we see the reason why there is a necessary language shift required to reflect the new corporate welfare income target.

That shift is already changing "providing jobs that pay above average income" to  "highly compensated". Those highly compensated jobs are being developed in corporate welfare zones, which are geographically concentrated in state-governed municipalities with misleading identifiers as regional development authorities, when in fact they are unconstitutionally chartered muncipalites serving as instrumentalities of the state (now The Maine Development Corporation ) and the taxpayer money these state courtdoms collect is used for development within their own municipal boundaries.

In the world view of the corporate board of the Maine Development Corporation (still going under cover as the State Maine legislature and administration). Maine has a serious problem as specified in the words of the Bangor Daily News Maine has some of the nation’s poorest rich people ! It only takes $274,000 annually to qualify as Maine's top 1% so at an income of 114864.00 annually, Maine's tax payer subsidized economy is more than halfway there ! If the goal of the Maine Development Corporation is to develop a more profitable class of inhabitants who will deliver a higher stream of income via income taxes to the corporation, then the ultimate goal must be to raise the income level of the top one percent. The targeted sector has now shifted from the upper half of the economy to the upper half of the upper half of the economy bringing the corporation closer to it's ultimate goal in competing with other states in terms of the top 1 %'s earned income. With the rate at which all of the corporate welfare programs are escalating- the limit for the Seed Capital Tax Refundable Tax Credit expanded eight fold in 2013. and at a whopping 60%, the limit for the New Markets Refundable Tax Credit up for being doubled in response to the Cate Street scandal in 2015, why not just leap frog over the barriers and make the target for corporate welfare be that to receive corporate welfare benefits, a company has to offer an income that is higher than that of the existing 1%?

The remaining states in which the top 1 percent captured half or more of income growth between 2009 and 2012 include Alabama (where 98.9 percent of all income growth was captured by the top 1 percent), Illinois (97.2 percent), Texas (86.8 percent), Arkansas (83.7 percent), Michigan (82.0 percent), New Jersey (80.5 percent), Maryland (80.5 percent), Nebraska (74.9 percent), Kansas (74.4 percent), Ohio (71.9 percent), Wisconsin (69.6 percent), Oklahoma (69.2 percent), Tennessee (68.5 percent), Iowa (65.0 percent), Georgia (63.6 percent), New Hampshire (59.5 percent), Arizona (59.0 percent), Maine (58.3 percent), Oregon (57.3 percent), Utah (56.6 percent), Minnesota (56.0 percent), and South Dakota (53.4 percent).
That says that Maine's 1% is already capturing 58% if income growth for which the Development Corporation Of Maine takes credit and uses to justify its unconstitutional existence !  You! the taxpayers through your involuntary support of the corporations redistribution of wealth policies delivered that robust level of growth for the the top 1%. !

Also note that one of the industries identified for training costs subsidization in the new bill being backed by House Speaker Mark Eves is health care so not only is the taxpayer mandated to finance the job training costs of the health care industry but as a result it will make health care even more expensive ! That will likely result in a condition in which only workers in tax payer subsidized industries will be able to afford health care that is not taxpayer subsidized- regardless of the inappropriately named affordable health care act. Whether health care is paid for with tax subsidization or privately- if the health care industry is "highly compensated" and becoming more so- that means that health care costs are going up.

Subsidizing individual health care costs falls into the category of general welfare which means rationing. As the general taxpayer is mandated by the board of the Maine Development Corporation, the most powerful public-private relationship in the former state of Maine, to subsidize the highly compensated economy.  the general economy sinks to the bottom and needs to be subsidized itself .

The more highly compensated taxpayer subsidized sector of the economy will be able to afford private health care- the rest of the economy will get rationed health care. Thanks for subsidizing our high compensations you fools !

In the thinking coming out of Maine;s corporate state, jobs providing a special interest group very high pay justifies all. The Community college system was created by the legislature in 2007.

 2007 Chapter 428-C: JOB CREATION THROUGH EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM §12542. Program established 1. Program created; goals. The Job Creation Through Educational Opportunity Program, referred to in this chapter as "the program," is created to provide an educational opportunity tax credit to Maine residents who obtain an associate degree or a bachelor's degree in this State, and live, work and pay taxes in this State thereafter.

The bill providing Maine taxpayers to subsidize 50% of the job training costs for businesses that deliver high compensation pay is presented in the usual way- isolated from any context, as if that were the only cost that taxpayers are paying in regards to training a specific corporation's employees.

An examination of the Community College charter reveals that students educational costs are also being subsidized by taxpayers, concealed once again through the implementation of a refundable tax credit.

§5217-D. Credit for educational opportunity

The Employer can take on the loan

2. Credit allowed.   A qualified individual or an employer of a qualified employee is allowed a credit against the tax imposed by this Part in accordance with the provisions of this section. The credit is created to implement the Job Creation Through Educational Opportunity Program established under Title 20-A, chapter 428-C. (emphasis mine)

The employer may claim a credit for the amount that the qualified employee could have claimed during any months when the qualified employee was employed, had the qualified employee made the partial or full loan payments instead, under conditions where the qualified employee had sufficient income to claim the full credit for the taxable year. If the qualified employee is employed only on a part-time basis, the employer may claim a credit only up to half of the total that the qualified employee could have claimed had the qualified employee made all payments and earned sufficient income to claim the full credit for the taxable year, but the amount the employer claims must still be based on amounts actually paid.

FULL TIME DEFINED AS FOUR DAY WORK WEEK (allowing for day five to be a taxpayer subsidized job training day)

C. "Full time" employment means employment with a normal workweek of 32 hours or more. [2007, c. 469, Pt. B, §1 (NEW).]
D. “Part time” employment means employment with a normal workweek of between 16 and 32 hours. [2007, c. 469, Pt. B, §1 (NEW).]
D-1. "Principal cap" means:
(1) For an individual graduating from an accredited Maine community college, college or university before January 1, 2015, the amount calculated by the State Tax Assessor under Title 20-A, section 12542, former subsection 2-A;
(2) For an individual obtaining a bachelor's degree and graduating from an accredited Maine community college, college or university on or after January 1, 2015, the average in-state tuition and mandatory fees for attendance at the University of Maine System for the academic year ending during the calendar year prior to the year of graduation multiplied by 4; and ( THE ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL COSTS OF A FOUR YEAR DEGREE  )
(3) For an individual obtaining an associate degree and graduating from an accredited Maine community college, college or university on or after January 1, 2015, the average in-state tuition and mandatory fees for attendance at the Maine Community College System for the academic year ending during the calendar year prior to the year of graduation multiplied by 2. [2013, c. 525, §15 (NEW).]( THE ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL COSTS OF A FOUR YEAR DEGREE )
Which are SAME AS REQUIRED FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CORPORATE WELFARE PROGRAMS SUCH AS THE PINE TREE ZONE which provides up to 100% corporate and personal income tax exemption and an up to 80%  tax credit on Maine payroll taxes to be transferred as a burden on labor and on the bottom half of the economy.
The student is required to be employed to get the loan for further job training so that the student can be more highly compensated by the employer. The employer can cover the cost of the loan for the student, especially if that employer is already partaking in the full package of Maine's corporate welfare system- making the employer tax exempt meaning that the general taxpayer picks up the cost for job training needed by the employee to become "highly compensated". (via a "REFUNDABLE tax credit"- which means if no taxes are owed, the tax payers owe the corporation a cash payout- which reverses the roles in taxation between the public and private sectors) The sector of the economy that finances the job training are either the laborers in the corporate welfare system or those businesses in the bottom half of the economy- NOT providing the highly compensated jobs which would qualify them for the ever expanding package of gifts associated with being in Maine's "public -private" hegemony which is another name for Maine's corporate welfare sector.

C. Except as provided in subsection 3, the credit under this section may not reduce the tax otherwise due under this Part to less than zero. [2013, c. 525,§15 (AMD).]
3. Calculation of the credit; qualified individuals.   Subject to subsection 2 and except as provided in this subsection, the credit with respect to a qualified individual is equal to the amount determined under paragraph A or paragraph B, whichever is less, multiplied by the proration factor:
A. The benchmark loan payment multiplied by the number of months during the taxable year in which the taxpayer made loan payments; or [2013, c. 525, §15 (AMD).]B. The monthly loan payment amount multiplied by the number of months during the taxable year in which the taxpayer made loan payments . [2013, c. 525, §15 (AMD).]C. [2009, c. 553, Pt. B, §5 (AFF)2009, c. 553, Pt. B, §4 (RP).]
Notwithstanding subsection 2, paragraph C, the credit under this subsection is refundable to the extent the credit is based on loans included in the financial aid package acquired to obtain a bachelor's degree or associate degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics.
.......For purposes of this subsection, the proration factor is the amount derived by dividing the total number of academic credit hours earned for a bachelor's or associate degree after December 31, 2007 by the total number of academic credit hours earned for the bachelor's or associate degree.

 Why should we fund this new corporate welfare job training bill for the upper quarter of our economy? Because the state wants to attract youth ! So we offer them a free education with a promise that when they graduate, they will instantly become earners in the top quarter of the Maine economy ! They are entitled to that pay and one can only imagine the cultural character that will develop as a result of that system - with those who have had their job training financed by people of lesser means likely to then consider themselves superior to the lower half of the economy, the beast of burden used to deliver their highly compensation jobs !

Since pay cannot be "above average" or "highly compensated" unless most of the populous is making less, that means that people making average or less than average income will be taxed more to cover the cost of subsidizing the creation of the wealthier class of "tax paying" citizens that the legislature covets to increase the capitalization of the Maine Development Corporation.. The high paying jobs deliver a high yield in personal income tax revenue for the state, while the owners of the means of production get a tax free ride and taxpayer refunds on the capitalization of their business. And the rest of Maine inhabitants will eventually be forced out in search of the greener pastures of a free enterprise system that allows them a chance to grow by virtue of hard work and talent.

Put ME To Work Bill: Part Two & Three  

25% for You- 75% for Maine State Inc in Maine's Put ME to Work Bill

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Very Significantly Different ! - The Public Benefit Corporation and the Benefit Corporation.

Tweet This #
Over the years that I have been researching the Maine economic development policies that you find documented here in this blog, I have upon numerous occasions come across the state and the Governor justifying the polices on the basis that they are forced to implement them because other states are doing so. However my still limited investigation into the policies instituted in other states is not finding that to be so. It is true that all states that I have researched have economic development policies and tax incentives, but not all states have chartered state corporations that dole out tax credits to corporations. Incentives are most often in the form of tax exemptions rather than tax credits, the difference being that, as tax credits work in Maine, they are largely refundable tax credits and as impacted by other statutes and policies that have been implemented over the years, that translates as direct redistribution of wealth from the general taxpayers pockets to corporate bank accounts.

When the Governor or other overlord brags that companies are attracted to the Pine Tree Zone Tax Incentives- that is an understatement since all of the economic policies including tax exemptions, "tax credits" and generous charitable gifts, are designed to work like cogs in a machine, mutually amplifying one another. Companies are attracted by these corporate welfare programs in the same way that some people are attracted by the general welfare programs whose growth is tangential to the former.

I recently came across the Wikipedia Page on Benefit Corporations. I became aware of Benefit Corporations because New Hampshire also recently passed such a bill. Maine has not passed such a bill despite the fact that it is a popular trend among the states as the long list of states that have passed a Benefit Corporation bill found on the Wikipedia Page demonstrates. I am using the text from the Oregon bill passed in 2013 to show why passing a Benefit corporation bill would be a conflict of interest with Maine's economic development policies, which have been passed on the basis that they serve the public's interest:

State of Oregon HB2296
 Relating to benefit companies. Whereas the Legislative Assembly intends with this 2013 Act to provide the legal means to create and operate benefit companies, a form of business entity the purpose of which is to create benefits for the public in addition to generating profit for the entity’s owners; and Whereas the Legislative Assembly understands and intends that the provisions of this 2013 Act do not give a benefit company a preference for public contracts, provide a benefit company with any tax advantage or otherwise permit the State of Oregon, an agency of the State of Oregon, a local government or an agency of a local government to grant a preference or advantage to a benefit company that is not available on the same basis to any other person or entity, or that is solely a consequence of the benefit company’s status as a benefit company; now, therefore,  (emphasis mine)

“Companies in Oregon should not be forced to maximize shareholder profits at the expense of the public good,” said Rep. Shemia Fagan, D-Multnomah/Clackamas counties, who is a business attorney. “It is a sign of great progress that Oregon companies want the flexibility to care about more than just dollar signs.” oregon's blog

Wikipedia pages on Benefit Corporations are Public-benefit corporation and Benefit corporation

You will find Maine listed on the former and not the latter because the definition and description of  what the term "benefit corporation" means differs between the two pages.

On the Public-benefit corporation page it sates the following:
Public-benefit corporations have, in the USA, historically been public corporations chartered by a state designed to perform some public benefit. Several states have signed into law, new types of public benefit corporations and benefit corporations that allow for public benefit to be a charter purpose in addition to the traditional corporate goal of maximizing profit for shareholders.[1] [2] In other countries, they are known as crown corporation, statutory corporationgovernment owned corporation having monopoly over a specific service or market........
Public-benefit corporations likely have their direct roots in mercantile capitalism. In the early days of European exploration and colonization, a government or monarch would sometimes grant a charter to an entity defining a legal body ("corporation") and make potentially risky investments. While certainly not public-benefit corporations by today's standards, entities such as the Massachusetts Bay CompanyHudson's Bay Company, and the Dutch East India Company arguably are examples prototypes of publicly chartered (in this case, crown-chartered) corporations successfully undertaking defined activities with the support of privately contributed investments.[citation needed]....
Incorporation and powers[edit]
Public-benefit corporations are generally governed by boards of directors, which are appointed, rather than elected, and, internally, reflect bureaucratic forms. The corporation is government-owned and performs a specific, narrow function for the public good.
Public-benefit corporations are most often created by statute. In many Commonwealth countries, public-benefit corporations continue to receive charters from the British monarchy. In the United States, they receive their charters usually from states, but possibly from the federal government.
Public authorities are usually created with a specific mandate, such as the construction of bridges, mass transit, etc. Unlike departments or ministries of the state, these corporations usually are enabled by statute to raise revenues through bond issues.
For more information, read below about individual jurisdictions.

On Public-benefit corporation page there is a shorter list of states than exists on the  Benefit corporation page, Maine is found in the shorter list for the page that describes public benefit corporations as listed above. The majority of states on that list just state their public benefit corporations as corporations dedicated to traditional public services. The listing for the state of Massachusettes is an example:



Upon first encountering the listing for Maine it said only this:
In the state of Maine, public-benefit corporations:
  • are designated as a public-benefit corporation by statute; or
  • are organized for a public or charitable purpose and is required to distribute assets to a similar tax exempt organization upon dissolution; or
  • have elected to be a public-benefit corporation.
I edited that entry to include The Maine Constitution's Article IV Part Third Section 14

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.
 and a brief history of how the Maine legislature wriggled its way around the Maine Constitution  to construct the ever expanding network of state corporations and how Maine legislature has defined the meaning of "public benefit" in a way that conflicts with the meaning of public benefit corporations as found on the Benefit corporation page, which is consistent with Oregon's statute  HB2296 from which I quoted above.

The two terms "Public Benefit Corporation" and "Benefit Corporation" sound so similar that at first glance one would assume  that they refer to the same thing, but as testified by the two separate pages on Wikipedia, they are in fact entirely different, although the similarity in their signifiers seems intended to superficially obscure that difference.

I was surprised to find New York State on both lists but on examination of the listing of states that have passed Benefit Corporation Statutes found on the Benefit corporation page, I discovered that the verification link for New York State does not lead to a statute but to a white paper. New York is one of those states for whom Maine State Inc's rationalization that other states are instituting similar policies holds true but New York's constitution permits the state to charter corporations where as Maine's Constitution does not and neither does the state of Oregon which is very successful in attracting the large international corporations with which the boards of the Maine State corporation would like to populate Maine- and yet the state of Maine appears to be using new York State as its justifying model and not the state of Oregon.

The same whitepaper is used to validate that multiple states have passed Benefit Corporation legislation but does not provide a link or identifying information about said bills. The rhetoric used in the white paper has little in common with Public Benefit statutes passed by Oregon and New Hampshire or with the description found on top of the page wherein the list is located. Instead it sounds all too familiar to this research blogger as the following excerpt demonstrates:

The sustainable business movement, impact investing and social enterprise sectors are developing rapidly but are constrained by an outdated legal framework that is not equipped to accommodate for-profit entities whose social benefit purpose is central to their existence. The benefit corporation is the most comprehensive yet flexible legal entity devised to address the needs of entrepreneurs and investors and, ultimately, the general public. Benefit corporations offer clear market differentiation, broad legal protection to directors and officers, expanded shareholder rights, and greater access to capital than current alternative approaches. As a result, the benefit corporation is also attracting broad support from entrepreneurs, investors, legal experts, citizens, and policy makers interested in new corporate form legislation
The implication of slipping redistribution of wealth policies such as have been instituted in the state of Maine into the state governments of the United States, under the guise of "public benefit" rhetoric is huge.

The states for which the whitepaper is used for verification are California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia. I challenged the veracity of the sources for all as is seen as a notation that says "not in citation given".

 The Benefit corporation Wikipedia page begins with these words:
In the United States, a benefit corporation or B-corporation is a type of for-profit corporate entity, legislated in 28 U.S. states, that includes positive impact on society and the environment in addition to profit as its legally defined goals. B corps differ from traditional corporations in purpose, accountability, and transparency, but not in taxation.

The Public-benefit corporation page lists the Benefit corporation  page on its "See Also" list, from which I gather that the term B-Corporations signifies the meaning found on the Benefit corporation  page, which is different from the meaning found on the Public-benefit corporation page.

 This is how it is stated on the See-Also List on the Public-benefit corporation page.

I have been researching Oregon in conjunction with my efforts to find American slip- casting productions with whom Andersen Design can collaborate. Contrary to the world view of the authors of Maine's economic development policies, I am finding many significant differences between Oregon's economic development policies and those of Maine, That's for another story but here is a teaser from Oregon's Economic Development  (ESB = Emerging Small Business)

ODOT’s region and district management staff select projects based on the needs of the region of the state and the interest in creating contracting opportunities for ESB firms. In selecting projects, consideration may be given to ensuring projects do not overuse any one particular trade and that projects are evenly distributed to ESB firms across the state. In the 2011-2013 biennium, ESB firms completed 175 projects totaling $8.1 million throughout the state   (emphasis mine)

Notice that the philosophy in the above is distinctly different from the targeted sector and special interest goals pursued by the corporation of Maine.

Related Posts:

New Hampshire Passes Benefit Corporation Certification Bill