Fiscal Conservative VS Constitutional Conservative

Share on Twitter with this Short Link  http://goo.gl/olLtZE

The moderator of Maine Taxpayers United FaceBook Page is running for state legislature as a Republican and is actively campaigning for Governor LePage's re-election. I was recently threatened to be blocked from posting for  criticizing Governor Lepage- which she called "tiresome"

Beth O'Connor Mackenzie at every turn you bash our Governor, who is doing a good job. You have also derailed the context of this thread and this is not the first time. The BOD of MTU fully support Governor LePage and your constant assaults on him are becoming tiresome in this forum. I have never limited discussion in this forum, but am seriously considering it. Do you think Michaud or Cutler will be better?

I am for no current candidate running for the Governor of Maine.I know some would argue apparent "fiscal responsibility" reasons for voting for LePage but LePage is a corporate state CEO and governs with a philosophy in which the end justifies the means. That's how Maine lost its constitution in the first place, when in the late seventies the legislature reasoned that Maine did not have a centrally managed economy and so instituted them selves as the authority to centrally manage Maine's economy. Ever since then, the justification for transforming a state into a corporation has been framed as economic responsibility - as if the political class were completely occluded from concepts of political philosophy- and YET, the legislature, having assigned themselves jurisdiction over educational matters at the University of Maine, once they had decreed said university to be an "instrumentality of the state", have long maintained a minor at said instrumentality in Marxist and Socialist Studies- and so they can hardly be as NON-cognizant of political philosophy as they so feign.*

Lepage Campaign Posters Accurately Portrays the Role he Covets as that of  a  Corporate CEO

The moderator of Maine Taxpayer's United posted a Portland Press Herald article written by  Representative Heather Sirocki

Maine Voices: Maine reaping rewards of governor’s commitment to fiscal responsibility

OK- it's true that the Governor's policies are more fiscally responsible than his predecessors but does his end justify his means? And when we hear of lowered taxes- the question becomes "for whom " with a further nagging question:  Does our Governor's special interest economics, spun as "fiscal responsibility' mirror the meaning of that term for other governors of other state's, especially those running for the presidency of the USA ? In my fantasy organization, this question would be answered by research journalists across our nation- but I don't have time to do that, I don't even have the time to be writing this article- I am just taking it away from other pressing matters.

My "bash" of Governor LePage was a short comment:

Mackenzie Andersen Maine taxpayers & workers are the beneficiaries?!/ I wonder if that includes the increased burden of corporate welfare that our Governor doesn't mind dumping on their backs!

Which received this response:

Les Gibson Mackenzie Andersen....what corporate welfare are you speaking of? Do you have any examples? 
Funny...I haven't felt any corporate welfare burden placed on my back...but I certainly do have an increased tax burden on my back thanks to the tax and spend policies of Justin Alfond and his merry band of happy people....See More

It was when I answered Mr Gibson's post that I "derailed the context of this thread" according to Ms OConner.

How about the "Expanded and Improved Seed Capital Tax Credit" voted for unanimously in the Senate last year- and I don't know the roll call for House but they voted for it too, It expanded by eight fold the rate at which the legislature authorizes itself to transfer money from middle class pockets to the bank accounts of capitalists and the specially selected new owners of the means of production. It's a refundable tax credit so if the capitalist does not owe taxes, then the taxpayers owe the capitalist a cash payout- and of course the capitalists won't owe taxes having picked up his Pine tree Zone tax credits first ( of which Lepage is a A+ fan) -Pine tree Zone includes mandates that taxpayers will cover up to 80 % of the owner of the means' s of production payroll taxes in addition to 100% exemption from corporate and personal taxes for the owners of the means of production- and then he might have stopped by Maine's public charity for capitalists- The Maine Technology Institute to have his original investment ( probably borrowed possibly with notes from the state saying he qualifies for all the corporate welfare programs) matched 100% also financed by taxpayers - and/or by "any source" as most of the state's corporations have slush funds that can accept money from any source- So by the time he collects his 60% tax credit ( cash payout from taxpayers) -it is really a 120% cash refund of his original investment- probably enough to cover the remainder of his payroll taxes- and then there is Maine's publicly funded workforce - which covers the cost of training his employees and the taxpayers are forced to pay for the marketing of that program as well- even though it is unfair competition for the "UN-targeted sector" - UN -targeted sector is the sector that pays taxes- along with the workers in the targeted sector.

Lepage's favorite location for speeches are the state courts of MRRA and Lorring- which are hotspots for Pine Tree Zone tax incentives and the whole package of corporate welfare that the state keeps on escalating on a yearly basis- especially Lepage.

LePage did not sign the Expanded and Improved Tax credit saying it wasn't "impactful enough"- we saw why in his failed jobs bill to expand corporate welfare to BIG business (1500 employees)- the Expanded and Improved Seed Capital tax Credit would have had to be re-written to allow it to be extended to BIG business ! So it's seems clear why Lepage thought it wasn't "impactful" enough! Imagine the payroll tax bill that taxpayers would have to finance if that bill had passed!

So I was supposed to NOT answer Mr Gibson's question? Is this Maine Taxpayers United- Or Is it the Lepage for Governor Facebook Page? The political class in Maine has it's designated talking points. Public is not to go off-script?

Ans so, I have decided to address the talking points of the Lepage Campaign beginning with this:

BETH The agencies cited several major factors that influenced the strong ratings, including repayment of $748 million in MaineCare’s hospital debt; substantial public pension reform; and measures to control costs in the MaineCare program, which provides “free” taxpayer-subsidized health care to more than 300,000 state residents

MAC : I would want to see the figures for how this was done- as noted above we are told it was repaid by taking back the liquor industry as a government function and so that would require also seeing the figures of the states liquor bureau. It is provided in the legislation that :

5-B. Report on expenditures. Expenditures and investments made by the alcohol bureau, including but not limited to reductions in the list price at which all spirits are sold and incentives offered to agency liquor stores, must be reported annually to the joint standing committees of the Legislature having jurisdiction over appropriations and financial affairs and alcoholic beverage matters. The report must include the impact of those spending initiatives on the number of cases of spirits sold in the State and on sales generally.[[2013.][ 2013, c. 269, Pt. A, §2 (NEW) .]

However since the law repealing the state's interests in the liquor industry has only been out of effect for little more than a month, How can there have been the time and date to generate such a report in such a short time span?Just now · Like

§83. Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages and Lottery Operations
(CONFLICT)
(CONTAINS TEXT WITH VARYING EFFECTIVE DATES)
(WHOLE SECTION CONFLICT: Text as amended by PL 2013, c. 269, Pt. A, §2) (WHOLE SECTION TEXT EFFECTIVE UNTIL 7/1/14)

5-B. Report on expenditures.   Expenditures and investments made by the alcohol bureau, including but not limited to reductions in the list price at which all spirits are sold and incentives offered to agency liquor stores, must be reported annually to the joint standing committees of the Legislature having jurisdiction over appropriations and financial affairs and alcoholic beverage matters. The report must include the impact of those spending initiatives on the number of cases of spirits sold in the State and on sales generally.
[[2013.]

[ 2013, c. 269, Pt. A, §2 (NEW) .]
6. Certification; annual report.  The alcohol bureau shall certify monthly to the Treasurer of State, the commission and the Commissioner of Administrative and Financial Services a complete statement of the revenues and expenses for liquor sales for the preceding month. The alcohol bureau shall make an annual report to the Governor of its activities and of the amount of liquor license fees collected by the bureau, together with other information it considers advisable or that the Governor requires.
[[2013.]
[ 1997, c. 373, §28 (NEW) .] 

So technically, The above section ( & whole section) is no longer effective as we have passed July 1 2014.

Isn't the administrative branch of government supposed to faithfully administer the law?  Not re-write it?

That's all I have time for today .. to be continued


* links to statutes mentioned in this article are available in my downloadable timeline- which you can procure by sending a contribution to this blog ( suggested $10.00) via Pay Pal to mackenzie@andersenstudio.com with a note that you are requesting the timeline and I will email it to you- You can read the table of contents HERE but the download link never stays functioning for long and I do not have time to keep on fixing it.