Skip to main content

Tech Maine Closes as The Maine Institute of Technology Thrives

Recently in the news is the closure of TechMaine


Tech Maine lobbied back in 1998 to bring about the legislative charter of the Maine Technology Institute, a non-profit corporation,which channels funds from the taxpayers and other funds available to non-profits to private sector technology companies. I am not sure why the legislature had to create the L3C to enable small businesses like MOO Milk to get in on foundation money while the same legislature created a non profit corporation to channel tax payer and non-profit funding to private high-tech companies.

MTI's recent annual report shows that it is abundantly financed, and while participating in and lending "support" to the legislaures "targeted sector" and supported network, TechMaine,is not included among those receiving benefits from MTI. One wonders why MTI  does not  give needed support to the lobbying group that contributed so much to it's birth. Speculations arise of political in fighting among the legislatures favored  special interest sector. Did Tech Maine get on the wrong side of the power elite of the power elite? While MTI thrives as per its latest annual report perhaps MTI believes it no longer needs a lobbying group to push forward legislation to benefit the high tech industry. A list of organizations that MTI participates in or "supports"is found in the latest annual report.

The Latest Annual Report for The Maine Technology Institute



The L3C is designed to allow small businesses to get in on foundation grants and so requires that they state that they do not intend to make an "income", but since the legislation also allows that one can change classifications from an L3C at any time, that seems blatantly corrupt from the onset, inviting those who will say what ever they have to say to gain access to foundation capital- which is one reason I find it incredible to believe this new statute would pass muster with the IRS, it's an open invitation to lie in order to gain access to funds and thus morally questionable. If a business doesn't intend to make a "profit" ( the meaning likely intended, when the legislature used the word "income"), it would be structured as a non-profit in the first place, If a business chooses the L3C classification, then there must be an intent to make a profit, which they can make legal at the drop of a hat by switching to an LLC.

Meanwhile the reason for all the interest in high tech, aside from being the obvious direction in which society is headed, is that it seductively promises that big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow- unabashedly motivated by profit and so designed to channel capital to the high profit sector. The two schemes are equally dishonest and each in their own way is structured to claim an intention not to make a profit in order to obtain non-profit funding for the profit sector. The Maine Technology Institute also receives capital funds from the legislature, which of course is funded by the tax payer. I don't know if the promised "pay back" has kicked in yet, but until it has, the only thing the general economy gets for underwriting the special interest economy as mandated by the legislature is the promise that the legislature is "creating jobs" and even those jobs are the ones the legislature wants the people to preform in the service of realizing the vision of the way Maine should be into which the legislature is attempting to transform a once free and independent state.

The legislature sees its job as obtaining and redirecting capital. Capital is the means of production. When the state controls the means of production, its either called Marxism or fascism. If some of the private companies start to make a profit on the people's dime and the people respond by demanding their "fair share", then the fundamental transformation of the Maine and American political philosophy will be a done deal. The state will own and control the means of production and it is unlikely that the profits made by the companies into which the legislature invested the people's money will ever go into the pockets of the people, if there is a "payback" it will go to government just as we see in the Small Enterprise Growth Fund, a state government chartered investment corporation in which the legislature mandates that the public invest 10% of the funds and the public investment always "rolls over" to re-invest in the fund, while the other 90% demand that investments include an "exit strategy" so that the privately invested 90% has a means to realizing a profit- and of course that 90% gets to negotiate its own terms, unlike the people who are collectively represented by the legislature and since the legislature included in the charter that the SEGF would submit its annual report to the legislature, the individual tax payer is going to have to jump through some hoops to find out what deals are being negotiated with the other 90%. and how that compares with the deal being given to the people. And of course the SEGF must invest in companies that serves the "public benefit" as defined in the legislature's "targeted sector", which serves Agenda 21, and that is part and parcel of the federal funds that the corporate state covets from the federal government. So much for state sovereignty and individual rights.

The moral code that condones saying whatever one has to say in order to procure capital funds (or whatever one covets) is mirrored in the Mid-Coast Regional Redevelopment Corporation, which the legislature chartered as a municipal corporation, for no explicable reason other than to get a round Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution. while simultaneously defining the MRRA as an "instrumentality of the state" which is the true intention. The two terms are legally mutually exclusive. The legislature is constitutionally prohibited from forming corporations by special acts of legislation with an exception for municipal corporations which are locally governed and cannot charter themselves as they need to have a seat of government to achieve that end and so there has to be an exception for municipal corporations in the constitution - but once chartered the constitution grants the right to amend the charter to "the inhabitants of the municipality".
Also recently in the news is that  Kesrel may not create those 300 jobs at the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment center after all. The federal money is not materializing for the project. Could it be that the legally challenged charter that the Maine state legislature concocted in order to manifest their brave new city state is finally catching up to reality?


This page links to notes that I compiled on The Maine Institute of technology a while back and contains substantiation for claims made herein.


The Latest Annual Report for The Maine Technology Institute

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Incomplete Theory of Inflation Made to Order for Mass Consumption.

M oney is not what it used to be, so must our ways of thinking about it adapt. jaakko-kemppainen-unsplash The message treads across the media terrain, beating louder and louder as if to drown out the beat of the distant drummer. W arning! The only thing the stimulus will stimulate is inflation. The people will pay as the wealthy elite invests their windfalls in financial assets. Doom and gloom set to march across the land to the beat of the distribution of stimulus funds. In recent years as past predictions of fiscal disaster following stimulus spending failed to materialize and so the thinking about national debt and deficits has evolved, most noticeably with the development of  Modern Monetary Theory . In the   fall of 2020,  National Affairs  published a story,  Does the Debt Matter ? by Peter Wehner & Ian Tufts. Peter Wehner is vice president and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and served in the last three Republican administrations. Ian Tufts is a recent g

JECD Group Holds Master Plan Pow Wow for Boothbay Peninsula

The most honest statement to come out of the ringleaders of the Joint Economic Community Development Group in their first workshop program was "none of us are experts on economic development", which in my most humble opinion is evident in the fact that the JECD begins with the premise that economic development can be master minded by central management. The article in the Boothbay Register begins with this paragraph: The Joint Economic Development Committee master plan workshop on Thursday, Oct. 12 discuss findings from stakeholder interviews conducted early last month. The interviews centered around building an overall economic development strategy for Edgecomb, Boothbay, Boothbay Harbor and Southport. Who are the stakeholders?  A search for articles in the Boothbay Register comes up short. Why is the public not told who the stakeholders are. Since the taxpayers of Boothbay and Boothbay Harbor footed the bill for the JECD's consultants, why are they not the stakeh

Why are social impact investors trying so hard to defeat smaller shelters for the homeless?

  "Social Impact” developers in Portland, Maine seek to squelch a referendum for smaller shelters called for by qualified practitioners with concrete experience in the field. A large sign says Vote C to support the Homeless, small handmade sign next to it says Untrue! That sign is paid for by developers who want / Photo by Jess Falero In   the 1970s under Governor Longley , Maine became a centrally managed economy that expanded Maine’s wealth gap and merged, almost seamlessly, the public and private and the non-profit and for-profit economic sectors into one mutually beneficial wealth-concentration & distribution system. Currently, mutually benefitting factions are coming together once again in hopes of building a mega-shelter for the homeless in a Portland, Maine industrial development district. In addition to beds for the homeless, the project will include, dining, and locker facilities, as well as offices and an attached health clinic. The promotion  describes the facility