Skip to main content

Rule of Law in Maine In Critical Condition

SHARE THIS!

TWEET THIS USING THIS SHORT LINK; http://goo.gl/VXLcX8

Continuing where I left off in my last post- addressing the Lepage Campaign talking points as presented by Representative Heather Sirocki in this Portland Press Herald article titled Maine reaping rewards of governor’s commitment to fiscal responsibility
The article says:

Let’s start with the state’s improved credit standing. In June, rating agencies issued their outlooks for Maine’s creditworthiness. Standard & Poor’s Rating Services assigned its AA rating to our long-term bonds, while Moody’s Investor Services affirmed its Aa2 rating and upgraded its forecast of Maine’s debt from negative to stable. 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.

It's a good thing that Maine's credit rating has improved but Standard & Poor does not factor in the means used to achieve the end, which is of importance to a Constitutional Conservative, given that Maine is in the midst of a widely UN-publicized crisis that mirrors a similar crisis we are facing at the national level, which is a constitutional crisis. I submit that Maine's constitutional crisis is actually more advanced than the national constitutional crisis and the transformation of the State of Maine to the corporation of Maine is already complete in practice, if not re-written into our constitution. Our governing representatives take an oath to uphold the state constitution but misconstrue that to mean upholding the statutes, and, as we saw in the last post, even the statutes are not regarded as a rule of law that applies to government, as the rules governing the liquor industry were written over and then patched together with this announcement:

§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)
Recently I discovered a similarly styled fix :


Rule Chapters for the Department of the Secretary of State 

WARNING: While we have taken care with the accuracy of the files accessible here, they are not "official" state rules in the sense that they can be used before a court. Anyone who needs a certified copy of a rule chapter should contact the APA Office.We also offer advice if you're having trouble trying to view these chapters. 29-250          OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

A pattern emerges that discloses a disturbingly overt attitude toward the Rule of Law expressed more openly by this administration than I have previously encountered- Not to say that other administrations did not harbor the same attitude. Angus King signed the Small Enterprise Growth Fund into law, which includes an exemption for the fund to this general law:

3104. Conflicts of interest; purchases by the State 
No trustee, superintendent, treasurer or other person holding a place of trust in any state office or public institution of the State shall be pecuniarily interested directly or indirectly in any contracts made in behalf of the State or of the institution in which he holds such place of trust, and any contract made in violation hereof is void. This section shall not apply to purchases of the State by the Governor under authority of Title 1, section 814. [1975, c. 771, §164 (AMD).]

So not only has the constitution of Maine been conflated with the statutes by Maine's public servants, but even the statutes are not taken seriously as a deterrent to anything that our state government wants to do.

So to the Maine fiscal conservative, the end justifies the means and the political class stands outside the rule of law. Yes it is a fiscally good thing that LePage saved Mainers money by upping the age at which pensions can be collected upon - but lets take a look at how that public debt was created in the first place.

To save myself time I am now quoting directly from A Maine Citizen's Journey Through The Statutes of Transformation


Commentary:  The Maine Public Employees Retirement System is described as established in 1942 but information pertaining to what type of a system it was in its original form is missing and difficult to find in a standard internet search. and so it is reasonable to conclude that it was originally established under general laws that operate in the private sector..



The charter of the Maine Employees Retirement System corporation is clearly unconstitutional. There are only two exceptions to the constitutional prohibition against chartering corporations by special acts of the legislature. The first exception is for municipal purposes. There can be no doubt that a corporation declared as an instrumentality of the state is serving a state purpose, which is arguably the very purpose that Article IV Part Third Section 13 & 14 of the Maine State Constitution are intended to prohibit.

The second exception is that of if the object of the corporation cannot be achieved another way. Prior to 1993, the Maine Public Employees System had been in existence since 1942. For over fifty years the system had been attained in another way.



The intent of the government to provide benefits is stated in a statute in 1985, for which no constitutional amendment was sought. Neither was a constitutional amendment sought when MPERS was chartered as a state corporation, when the legislature obligated the general taxpayer to take on the debt for a public employees retirement system ( which includes the legislature). However  two years after the Public Employees Retirement System is statutorily declared to be a corporate instrumentality of the state, the public was called to vote on constitutionalizing contractual agreements with MPERS. Under general laws, such contractual terms of agreement are part and parcel of an initiating agreement to take on the debt. By the general standards, the agreement to take on the debt should also have been on the electoral ballot  to become a constitutional amendment - were it not for the fact that contractual agreements have no place in a constitutional document intended to establish general governing principles and chartering corporations to serve as instrumentalities of the state is prohibited by the Constitution.

.
In 2009 a statute was passed encouraging the retirement fund to invest in state economic development projects by offering a refundable tax credit to minimize the risk. A refundable tax credit means  taxpayers are liable for a cash payout if investment falters and the  fund does not owe taxes. The investment plan is explained as a solution  to the public liability to the Public Employees Retirement System, which was receiving attention from the media, a liability brought on by the legislature when it established the Public Employees Retirement System, making taxpayers liable for public employees pensions plans.


1942 established

1985 Legislature States intent to provide benefits to MPERS

1993 Legislature MPERS a corporate instrumentality of the state

1995 Constitutional Amendment enforces MPERS contractual agreement
Legislature creates MPERS investment fund for targeted sector

2010 MPERS Targeted Sector Refundable Tax Credits 
*
Notice that there are only two years between the legislature deeming MPERS to be an corporate instrumentality of the state and the contractual terms of agreement with MPERS being inserted into the constitution, despite the fact that there was never a consent from the governed sought to take on the MPERS debt in the first place. If Maine is a state the MPERS debt cannot be justified as government employees ( including legislature, courts and administration) constitutes a special interest faction of the general public -NOT justifiable as the benefiting the general welfare- However if Maine is a corporation, then MPERS is just a corporate expense. Every corporation is expected to provide benefits for its workers. The difference between a state corporation and a private corporation is that a state corporation can force the general public to pay.

*All links are active in the downloadable time line. Since the download link never stays functional for long, I am recommending sending a contribution to this independent and unaffiliated research journalism blog via PayPal using mackenzie@andersenstudio.com as the address and including a note that you are requesting the timeline. Suggested minimum contribution is $10.00. 



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