This sounds rosy but I have a credibility gap when it comes to both the Maine media and the Maine state legislature.
The first thing one encounters when reading this bill is that it is set up to the benefit of The University of Maine- a tax payer subsidized University which features a minor in Marxist and Socialist Studies and hosts the University of Maine Manufacturing Center.The Manufacturing Center's website would be indistinguishable from a private sector business without The U of M logo at the top. The University of Maine Manufacturing center competes with the private sector for prototype manufacturing- which is what is needed by our "innovative economy"- financed by the high growth investors community,and creating products that will most likely be manufactured where labor costs are lowest in the global market place. Evidence in point is Alan Hinsey's interview with Channel Six in which he tells us that TexTech is the "poster child" of Maine's creative economy. Textech has three manufacturing facilities- one in Maine, one in China and one in Thailand. ( you can find a link to the interview in the blog post link below)
§ 9. Education Coordinating Committee
"The Education Coordinating Committee, referred to in this section as the "committee," is established to promote efficiency, cooperative effort and strategic planning between the Department of Education, the State Board of Education, the University of Maine System, the Maine Community College System and , the Maine Maritime Academy and organizations and associations with a commitment to and interest in education matters. The committee consists of the Commissioner of Education, the Chair of the State Board of Education, the Chancellor of the University of Maine System, the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of Maine System, the President of the Maine Community College System, the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Maine Community College System, the President of the Maine Maritime Academy and the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Maine Maritime Academy."
I suspect that the major chunk of this "work force education bill" is going to subsidize the University of Maine Advance Manufacturing Center- which is , simply put- a state owned means of production that manufactures prototypes for private businesses using student labor, according to what has been reported in the media.
As a part of a Maine family in design and manufacturing ceramics- an industry that has all but died in the western world by way of outsourcing to low cost labor markets, I came by my experiences to explore the legislation written in the state since around 1977 when the Maine Development Foundation was chartered by our legislature in a mirror image of what occurred in China a few short years later when China amended it's constitution to allow for private ownership (excepting land ownership). China's transformation was done constitutionally. Maine's transformation has been achieved by superseding our constitution with statutory laws that defy our constitution, which I have been writing about for years on my blog, Preserving The American Political Philosophy.
I have a vision of revitalizing the American ceramics industry by creating A Great American Ceramic Designer Craftsmen Network. Such a network can provide meaningfully engaging jobs and can be located in low income areas. We have found that rural employees are our best employees.This blog post tells part of my story in the context of global transformations mentioned above and provides more insight as to why I am totally cynical of the way that the "workforce educational development bill" is being framed by the media. I believe it is a bill tailor made to underwrite the University Of Maine manufacturing center- which is a state owned means of production.
I think the story is reported in the way that the Maine media always reports stories on Maine's "economic development" initiatives. It always sounds like a press release for government programs and the investors and leaves out any critical considerations such as the cost to the general taxpayer for the initiations and operations of what I have dubbed Maine State Enterprises- and who bears the brunt of the burden of those costs.
That aside, the article is informative in what it reports. I looked up the Maine Seed Capital Tax Credit and found it to be an improvement on some of the other "economic development" statutes that I have read. It appears on the surface to be making requirements of investors that might arguably justify the tax credits, which are ultimately paid for by the Maine State taxpayer- but I say that provisionally because it takes more analysis than I have given it to come to a sound conclusion. It would be nice to see, every once in a while, an article in the Maine media that attempts such a serious analysis rather than just sounding like a press release for Maine State Inc and friends.
Read the charter for the Maine State Housing authority- It is a corporation chartered by special act of legislation for the purpose of serving as an instrumentality of the state- so pray tell- how can it be an agency "independent of the state"?
Quote from the charter: “The Maine State Housing Authority is established and is a public body corporate and politic and an instrumentality of the State. [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).]”
Further more it is chartered in violation of the Maine State Constitution Article IV, Part Third, Section 14 which prohibits the legislature from chartering corporations by special act of legislation with an exception for "municipal purposes".
Clearly "an instrumentality of the state" is not a "municipal purpose"
There is another exception for “objects that cannot be achieved any other way” but your opinion clearly refutes that as it attempts to portray the Maine Housing Authority as “an independent agency” rated as a ‘stand alone agency” , rated without consideration of its relationship to the state ( ie an instrumentality of the state as per its charter).
Furthermore there exists a vast network of corporate instrumentalites of the state. If the intent of the constitution was for there to exist such a vast network so prolifically legislated, then why doesn’t the constitution provide for an exception for “corporate instrumentalities of the state”? Perhaps because the intent of Article IV Part Third Section 13 & 14 is to prohibit exactly that. The exception for “objects that can’t be achieved any other way” being there to provide for the rare exception not for a vast network of corporate instrumentalities of the state, which once chartered portray themselves in all sorts of ways but the truth of the matter lies in the special acts of legislation that serve of the charter for the deeply entrenched network of corporate instrumentalities of the state- often with their own separate “fund” (capital) which are frequently filled with taxpayer dollars.
Is the point in portraying the Maine Housing Authority as an “independent agency” to make a claim that there are no taxpayer dollars funding it?
Just a couple of the paragraphs relating to financing from the charter:
B. Develop plans, finance, conduct and encourage in cooperation with other public and private national, state, regional and local agencies, research and demonstration of model housing programs, dealing with, but not limited to, planning, styles of land use, types of building design, techniques of construction, finance techniques, municipal regulations and management procedures; [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).]
F. Act as the public agency of the State for the purpose of accepting federal funds or other assistance, or funds or other assistance from any other source, in relation to housing activity in those areas and for those projects authorized under section 4741, subsection 2 and other relevant provisions of this chapter; [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).]
There’s more. What private sector corporation is privy to all the government funding - state, or federal?