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, October 16, 2016

Two Round Abouts in Boothbay Plan ?






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

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


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



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

Friday, October 14, 2016

Public Deception Used to Sell Boothbay Round About


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Statutory Powers of the Municipal Bond Bank

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

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

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

Sunday, October 2, 2016

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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