Trahan, McKane - Maine Revenue Services on auto-pilot - UPDATE

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mackenzie Andersen
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/06/2010 - 5:25pm
And another reason for

And another reason for reading my blog is because I read the bill. The press and the organizations portray this bill as a fund that invests in Maine businesses – where as the bill explicitly states that the fund does not invest in individual businesses- it invests in mutual funds. This bill requires only a token investment in Maine businesses, where as the Small Enterprise Growth Fund is restricted to investing in Maine businesses.

If the people do not read the legislation themselves they will not know the truth about it. I am a person- not a collective group- just an ordinary person who read this bill. Legislation is a pretty dry read. By writing a blog- or an article – or a letter to an editor, I present my own analysis of the legislation, which may make it easier for others to engage in the legislation and form their own opinion- or disagree with mine- or what ever- but it will be more truthful than what is presented by the media and the elite who are the beneficiaries of this legislation.

J. McKane
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 05/22/2005 - 12:01am
Mackenzie - You obviously

Mackenzie - You obviously have an ax to grind. Why didn't you start a new thread with this issue? This thread, I would hope, should be about Maine Revenue Services and the disconnect that has developed between our government and the people. I guess you are trying to connect your personal issue to the latter.

And another thing - why don't you run for office? If you win, you will be the only legislator who reads every bill - you also won't have time for anything else.

I try and understand A. the bills in my committee and B. any other bills that are of particular interest to me and my constituents and that I might be able to have some effect on. All of us depend on our committees, where the bills are discussed, disected, amended then discussed, disected and amended again.

If one sincerely wants to understand any bill, one must attend the committee hearings and worksessions where all of the nuances and reprecussions are (hopefully) discussed. After the worksession, the bill will be discussed in your caucus. I am guessing that you are an independent so if you got elected, you wouldn't have a caucus. You will have to attend all of the hearings and worksessions, which will be a difficult task.

Here is the committee report on LD1:
Divided Report

Report Report Signer
MAJ, OTP-AM Senator SCHNEIDER of Penobscot
Representative SMITH N of Monmouth
Senator RECTOR of Knox
Senator SULLIVAN of York
Representative AUSTIN of Gray
Representative CLEARY of Houlton
Representative COHEN of Portland
Representative GILES of Belfast
Representative HUNT of Buxton
Representative MACDONALD of Boothbay
Representative PRESCOTT of Topsham
Representative WRIGHT of Berwick

MIN, ONTP Representative MARTIN J R of Orono

After much work, all Republicans voted in favor of this bill in committee. All Democrast but J. Martin voted in favor. This bill looked good to the committee and was going to pass.

Mackenzie Andersen
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/06/2010 - 5:25pm
Thank you representative

Thank you representative McKane for answering my question with a very informative post.

I have no interest in running for office. By God's will, I already have a full plate, and I too am very busy. Also by God's I have had my "personal" encounter with the SEGF and many other such enconters with the "creative class" who manages Maine's economy. Enough to know that my interests are not being served. I was sitting in an audience listening to a speaker from the SEGF telling us in glowing terms that their corporation was invested in 10% with the taxpayer's money which allways "rolls over" to reinvest in their corporation. The instant I heard it, I knew something was wrong with that picture. Later in a personal interview with the same person I learned tha the other 90% of the investments in the SEGF demands an "exit stratedgy" which means selling the business, so that the other 90% composed of "high growth" private investors can make a profit.

The legislation that chartered the Small Enterprise Growth Fund mandates"social justice" regulations on the businesses that receive investments from The Small Enterprise Growth Fund. One of these mandates is that the businesses will provide pension funds for their employees-similar to the pensions funds that have created a huge unfunded liability for the taxpayers of Maine. Could this be the reason why it has become necesssary for our government run economy to charter new investment corporations that are authorized to use taxpayer money as bribes and bail out funds in order to get investors to invest in a state where all taxpayers are responsible for such a huge unfunded liability - in fact one in which it is embedded in the constitution that paying off this liability takes priority over all other expenditures? Could it be that this liability makes Maine uncompetitive as a place to invest?

Mackenzie Andersen
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/06/2010 - 5:25pm
Representative McKane Why is

Representative McKane

Why is this called a Divided Report?

Also- I understand that you are saying that at the time you voted collectively as a Republican, that you had not yourself read the legislation.
Have you read the legislation since it was passed?

J. McKane
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 05/22/2005 - 12:01am
One of these mandates is that

One of these mandates is that the businesses will provide pension funds for their employees

Where in the law does it say this?

Steven Scharf
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 11 months ago
Joined: 01/28/2002 - 1:01am
"Why is this called a Divided

"Why is this called a Divided Report?"

Because one rep voted ought not to pass as noted above.

Steven Scharf
SCSMedia@aol.com

Mackenzie Andersen
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/06/2010 - 5:25pm
I stand corrected. Those

I stand corrected. Those terms were not stipulated in the legislation but the authority to create such terms by The Board of The Small Enterprise Growth Fund was authorized:in the special act of legislation which chartered The Small Enterprise Growth Fund

4. Rules. The board may adopt rules, in accordance with the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, to
carry out this chapter.

4. Report. The board shall require that each disbursement recipient report to the board at least annually
on each of the following factors:
A. Financial performance; [1995, c. 699, §3 (NEW).]
B. Job creation; [1995, c. 699, §3 (NEW).]
C. Technological progress; [1995, c. 699, §3 (NEW).]
D. Market progress; and [1995, c. 699, §3 (NEW).]
E. Any other factors as the board may require. [1995, c. 699, §3 (NEW).]emphasis added

The Website for The Small Enterprise Growth Fund has been recently newly designed. Until recently for as long as I was aware of the existence of the fund, it was described on the website as a fund ”for high growth entreprenures”. That term is not on the new site. If the board still demands that businesses that receive investment pay 50% of employee health costs and provide for employee retirement funds, they are no longer publishing it on their website. I know it was there previously as I had seen it on several occasions.

However the blurb still says it is for businesses with "high growth potential and public benefit" "public benefit" to be decided of course by "the board"

Following the example of special act of legislation which established The Maine Public Employees Retirement Fund, The SEGF is declared to be “an essential government function”

10 §392. GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION
The board shall administer and exercise the authority granted to it by this chapter. The carrying out of its
powers and duties is considered the performance of an essential governmental function. [1995, c. 699,
§3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
1995, c. 699, §3 (NEW).
The State of Maine claims a copyright in its codified statutes. If you intend to republish this material, we require that you include the following disclaimer in your publication:All copyrights and other rights to statutory text are reserved by the State of Maine. The text included in this publication reflects changes made through the Second Regular Session of the 124th Legislature, is current through April 12, 2010, and is subject to change without notice. It is a version that has not been officially certified
by the Secretary of State. Refer to the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated and supplements for certified text. The Office of the Revisor of Statutes also requests that you send us one copy of any statutory publication you may produce. Our goal is not to restrict publishing activity, but to keep track of who is publishing what, to identify any needless duplication and to preserve the State's copyright rights.

I also noticed this on the SEGF website

>>Maine Technology Institute, a state-funded nonprofit corporation that offers early-stage capital and commercialization assistance for the research and development of innovative technology-based projects that create new products, processes and services, generating high-quality jobs across Maine

It is not just a state funded corporation. It is a corporation chartered by a special act of legislation in 1999

Naran
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/06/2004 - 12:01am
Posted: January 4 Trahan

Posted: January 4

Trahan hones tax ax

Taxation Committee chairman wants to see top rate reduced to 6.5 percent in four years

By Susan M. Cover scover@mainetoday.com
MaineToday Media State House Writer

AUGUSTA -- Finding a way to lower the income tax -- and pay for it -- will be a priority of the Taxation Committee this session, said committee Chairman Sen. David Trahan, R-Waldoboro.

Trahan and House Chairman Rep. Gary Knight, R-Livermore Falls, met with officials in Gov.-elect Paul LePage's administration Monday to discuss goals for the coming year.

[url=http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/trahanhonestax-ax_2011-01-03.html]Sou...

Bullseye
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: 03/20/2000 - 1:01am
I acknowledge this has to be

I acknowledge this has to be ancient history, but the insinuation that David Trahan
or Jon Mckane's veracity was questioned by anything I posted on this site is pure
BS.
I've known David for over 10 years, I can attest to the fact he is one of the most tenacious
and honest people in the Maine Legislature. He wouldn't associate himself with Rep. McKane
if Jon didn't have the same values.

Naran
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: 10/06/2004 - 12:01am
At long last, Light Dawns on

At long last, Light Dawns on Distant Shores.

**************

Maine Revenue Services faces restructuring
The Associated Press
Posted Nov. 30, 2011, at 4:27 p.m.

AUGUSTA, Maine —...snip

Gov. Paul LePage announced ...the reorganization of Maine Revenue Services calls for a separation of the agency’s policy responsibilities from its operational management. The changes go into effect Thursday.

.... director of research and econometrics will become the associate commissioner for tax policy, a new position that oversees policy guidance, legislative and public relations, and research.... tax assessor will continue to be responsible for the department’s day-to-day operations.

[url=http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/30/politics/maine-revenue-services-fa...

*********

Sincere thanks to Reps. Trahan and McKane, for all their hard work and perseverance with these issues.
:)

ewv
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 11 hours ago
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
Underscoring the criticisms

Underscoring the criticisms of MRS as a rogue agency violating civil rights, an MRS official enforcer under the title "Tax Examiner, Maine Revenue Services, Compliance Review Unit" wrote the following threat in response to the criticism of MRS [url=http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/trahan-mckane-maine-revenue-services-..., demanding that the post be removed:

"user name “ewv” used my name in his blog in a negative and slanderous manner on 10/5/10."

"Remove the post or I will sue for libel."

"Amy Haney
Tax Examiner
Maine Revenue Services
Compliance Review Unit"

So now criticism of the policies and behavior of a government agency and the actions of its employees in their official capacity is considered grounds for a threat of legal action from the agency for a "slanderous manner".

So much for freedom of speech and our right to criticize and denounce an abusive government agency. MRS does not tolerate dissent, not in challenging its "reinterpretations", not in public comments, and not in anything else.

MRS not only keeps enemies lists, including "keeping track of people who testify against us" before the legislature (as one of them told me not realizing who I was), it monitors amg and who knows what else for comments it seeks to suppress through intimidation.

Sadly, the Republicans did nothing to rein in the power of this agency during the few years they controlled the legislature, thanks in part to MRS supporter Gary Knight running the taxation committee. MRS can still "estimate" and accuse whatever it wants, demand that the victim prove his innocence, impose "penalties" and exorbitant "interest" for daring to legally challenge its actions, and otherwise threaten and bully to suppress free speech in the name of "taxes" against selected targets in personal and political vendettas -- all "legal" under Maine law. "Personnel is policy", and Maine law is so vague in granting MRS dictatorial power that there is no recourse for the ordinary citizen. Common criminals have more civil rights than this. The recent IRS scandal revealed nothing that MRS has not already been doing to innocent people for years.

Whatever abuses Gov. Le Page would not tolerate as a matter of administrative policy if he knew about them, MRS is still the same rogue, dictatorial agency it was under Baldacci. Sen. Trahan was right. And MRS will return to its own policies of bullying and intimidation as soon as Gov LePage is no longer in office, and anything else it thinks it can get away with.

Roger Ek
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
It's the same in the DEP and

It's the same in the DEP and LURC, now called Loopsy or LUPC. The DEP sent letters to all the towns asking them to adopt revised language in their shoreland zoning ordinances. Many towns just stuck the article in their town warrants and passed them at town meetings. Little did they realize that they had just seized control of miles of shoreline from their citizens. That whole boondoggle was cooked up by a couple of environmentalist radicals in the DEP. They are still there.

Pages

Log in to post comments