No Bond Issues Without LePage Say So

deleted double post post election stress syndrome!!!!!

Once again a gov. doing what is appropriate by using a gubernatorial power I must admit didn't realize was his.
Stand by for chorus of whatever will happen....! but a good move.
One has to wonder if maybe , this is a little bit of your on my team BP but I am the team leader, in this maybe just as a aside but maybe!

Thank you Gov LePage! I wish the legislative leadership would have shown similar restraint in moving this crap forward.

So how is this anything more than a blatand disregard for the will of the voters that passed the bonds?

I believe most bond questions in Maine begin with the phrase, "Do you favor..." . As such, is the state government even bound to act on a bond that goes through the electoral process?

But isn't the word authorized in there also?

I agree; while apparently the Governor and the Secretary of State have the power to prevent the bond sale by simply withholding their signatures, it's kind of a slap in the face of the majority of voters who voted to pass these bonds.

The governor is the only adult in the room and I'm glad he's acting like one. I'm glad he has exercised his veto perogative and I'm glad he is exercising his exective perogative in not binding the state to more debt at a time when we can't afford it. WTG Gov LePage! If the people have a problem with his decision they can choose a new governor.

" . . it's kind of a slap in the face of the majority of voters who voted to pass these bonds."

Not really. The Griswold family enjoyed wild fantasies of splashing around in the pool before Clark got news that the bonus check wasn't coming. It's a head-of-household thing. Tip o' the hat to His Governorship.

We have 5yrs to sell the bonds, I have never seen a sell by date on the ballo, the sale is authorized just doesn't say when. Glad to see the Gov is playing by the rules put in place by democrats.

it's kind of a slap in the face of the majority of voters who voted to pass these bonds.

A well deserved slap IMHO.

As long as you don't mind when it's your turn to be slapped.

As for the Clark Griswold reference, how far do you want to take THAT comparison with Governor LePage?

The bond issues on the November ballot in 2010 passed with more votes than the Governor got, so some of yous guys must have voted for them.

Along w/ the "Volvo line" thingy and all other trite euphemisms the vote count is the same as those .
He was elected gov. by majority of votes to win,not a bond!

This is no more a slap than anyother economic reality /crisis or another kind issue of enacted by statue but unable to be accomplished.

It is not a case of we do not want something, it is a case in his opinion and under his authority, to hold off on the sale because we cannot afford it at this point!
Isn't that what we elected him for ," Dirigo " to lead ?

Bruce, he didn't win a majority of votes. He won a plurality. Big difference on the analytical side, not so much on the "who wins" side.

OK but he is still living where?
Just what will happen because of this action?
Would any of these saved us from our present situation if sold the day after passage?

I will remain in my selective agreement on his actions and in this case it seems to be prudent and what we were looking for. At least it is better than 100 days of mural gate!!

Nice job finding that loophole Lepage. Maybe he can hold them off for 5 years and balance the budget in that time. One thing is certain, there is no money to repay the bonds (loans), so its best to delay them as long as possible.

The Governor does indeed have his big boy pants on, how refreshing.

Bonding, IMHO allows todays citizens to pay for today's goodies by levying a tax on the unborn who have no say. Govenment should not arbitrarily be allowed to distribute funds to one special intereset or another...government should not be interfering by doing what investors should be doing for themselves. I do love to play Santa Clause, but I do not think it is right to do it by taxing our children and grand childrens future earnings. Furthermore, in general it seems governemnt has no incentive to solve problems...if the problem is solved the funding is gone...LePage is not a government guy, he understands this. It is high time the voting populace understands that with all bonds there IS interest due and there is no guarantee that the original prinipal will be wisely spent...perhaps someone here can tell me how many jobs bonding has actually secured and the cost to the taxpayer for each job.

I wonder if Cutler had won if we would hear it repeated over and over again that he did not win by a majority. Cutler is the one who made it a three way race.

.Beth O'Conner "perhaps someone here can tell me how many jobs bonding has actually secured and the cost to the taxpayer for each job"

That is a question that I have been trying to figure out as well, as in my recent post in the topic I started on Maine's massive network of corporate instrumentalities of the state.. In the case of the SEGF , I was surprised to discover that the general facts are stated on the SEGF website . If you have the additional piece of information that I learned at a Juice Conference where the SEGF told us quite openly that the SEGF is funded 10% by the taxpayer and that for every dollar the taxpayer puts in- high growth investors put in nine - and you factor that into what is being said on the SEGF website, and do the math, it appears to be saying that jobs created by the SEGF in the private sector- which pay wages 30% higher than the rest of the Maine economy are funded by a taxpayer loss. The public benefit are the "jobs created". The loss to the taxpayer to create those jobs- well that's just incidental to the public benefit.

Then if you compare that to the legislation that chartered the SEGF , you will see this section:

10 §383. PROGRAM FUNDS ESTABLISHED
1. Creation of fund. There is established the Small Enterprise Growth Fund, which is a revolving fund
used to provide funding for disbursements to qualifying small businesses in the State seeking to pursue an
eligible project. The fund must be deposited with and maintained and administered by the Finance Authority
of Maine and consists of appropriations provided for that purpose, interest accrued on the fund balance, funds
MRS Title 10, Chapter 13: SMALL ENTERPRISE GROWTH PROGRAM
4 | 10 §384. Board
received by the board to be applied to the fund, all funds remaining in the Pine Tree Partnership Fund and any
funds received from repayment, interest, royalties, equities or other interests in business enterprises, products
or services. The fund is a nonlapsing fund.
[ 1995, c. 699, §3 (NEW) .]
1-A. Creation of side funds. The board may create one or more side funds for placement of certain
funds received by the board. A side fund may be structured as a revolving fund in addition to the Small
Enterprise Growth Fund or as a fund in which the investor will have funds drawn and returned over an agreed
time period.
[ 2009, c. 475, §4 (NEW) .]
2. Administrative expenses. Costs and expenses of maintaining and servicing program funds and
administering the Small Enterprise Growth Program established by this chapter may be paid out of amounts in
the program funds.
[ 2009, c. 475, §4 (AMD) .]
3. Management fees. The board may charge and accept management fees for management of money
placed in program funds other than money placed directly by the State.
[ 2009, c. 475, §4 (NEW) .]

4. Agreements. The board may enter into an agreement or contract with a 3rd party for investment in a
side fund. The board may allocate ownership in a side fund through the agreement. The board may also repay
money received and return profits according to terms in the agreement. The board may create a formula or
terms for the sharing of profits on a side fund in the agreement.
[ 2009, c. 475, §4 (NEW) .]
5. Profits. The profits on a side fund retained by the board must be contributed to the fund.
[ 2009, c. 475, §4 (NEW) .]
SECTION HISTORY
1995, c. 699, §3 (NEW). 2009, c. 475, §4 (AMD).
10 §

It doesn't say anywhere in so many words that the taxpayer is an involuntary investor in 10% of the fund but it was openly stated many times over at the Juice Conference and also stated on the SEGF website ( while avoiding the actual use of the word "taxpayer )

The charter for the SEGF doesn't even tell us where the capital that is placed in the fund comes from although it does tell us that the fund will be used to finance management expenses.

The SEGF fund is maintained by the Finance Authority Of Maine, yet another corporation chartered by special act of legislation to serve the purposes of the state. There is a vast network of such corporations for which the records, if there are any, appear to be all kept in the legislative library. Every charter that I have read for the corporations that compose said network include their own "fund". Sometimes the language is clear about how these funds are to be filled. In the case of the SEGF the language is especially vague but You Betcha that bonds get distributed throughout the network of corporate instrumentalities of the state. I can't think of what else Governor LePage would mean when he says that they go to government and non-profits , which in many cases are one and the same.

The only payback that I know of that the taxpayer receives for its involuntary investments in state capitalism is rhetorical. the state is serving the "public purpose" by "creating jobs" If the taxpayer loses money on the "jobs created" that is just incidental. No accounting for that! and little accounting for the number of jobs claimed to have been created by this network of corporations either.

The SEGF was signed into law by Angus King.

Slap away Bob Mc.

I'll take my medicine now knowing that it will be less effective the longer it's withheld.

I guess I now know the reason why I'm not in politics.
The lack of collective intelligence on display at the voting booth by the electorate never ceases to amaze me.

As long as you don't mind when it's your turn to be slapped.

We've been getting slapped around by the libs for 30 years. It's high time someone grew some cahones and slapped back.

So the paper next door (Times-Record) indicates that MRRA has already spent some of the authorized bond funds. The story also reads that Senator Jerkoffsky believes that once the Governator really understands the true value that MRRA has brought to the region, that he will release that bond. Adreienn Bennet responded that the Governator fully understands what is happening at MRRA (Brunswick Landing) and that he is not about to change his mind.

So what happens if MRRA has spend $$ in anticipation of bond $$ and then the bond is not issued?

We have a new reality TV show on cable-Repo Man Old Navy Station!!!

Also I find your reference of the Senator Jerkoffsky to be.....
Very humorous
Entirely appropriate
Wonderfully accurate
and contender for best line of the week ,month at least here on AMG.

He is a accopmplishment politician,screwed up MRRA and the CountyJail thing which will be blowing up in his face real soon.

Keep up the fine work.

How are things going with selling off the land to private ownership at the MRRA? I wonder how giving the "state agency'" ( as this municipal corporation is currently being described) statutory authority to acquire adjacent land by eminent domain affects the saleability of the land, which once sold would be property adjacent to the MRRA? Can a sale of agreement legally include a clause that releases it from any rights by the MRRA to claim it by eminent domain?

Also if one sells land within any municipality, that land still remains a part of the municipality but the municipality that is the MRRA, which is described as the geographical location of the old navy base has been decreed by the legislature to be an instrumentality of the state- which would make all land privately owned within the municipality of the MRRA an "instrumentality of the state"- at least until the inhabitants of the MRRA municipality decide to exercise their constitutional authority to amend the charter of the MRRA by getting rid of it's schizophrenic identity as an instrumentality of the state. As it stands I wonder who would want to buy such land. Maybe the MRRA will just have to lay off some of those tax payer funded employees and hire fewer consultants- unless it can figure out a way to generate some "unrestricted income".

Not very smart to spend money you might be getting, but I am not surprised. Hope he has plan