That really is a trick, on the first part. I would tentatively say a state bank, which would use loans and investments like any other bank to make profit, providing a return for the account as well as additional funds for the state. When it comes to banking powers at the state level, my knowledge as admittedly woefully under par, but it seems there should be a way to do this. I'd prefer the state level, as its then subject to federal review. I don't want the funds accessible by federal agencies, but I feel a healthy watch dog system is always appropriate.
As far as abuse at the local level, I would reason that if would be fairly workable to set up an over watch or authorization for use of the funds in a simple yes no appropriation in support of the town charter. I'm honestly not sure how town treasuries are regulated, if at all, but considering the size of the fund, I believe the state bank could have an agent or even a full team work with the local government. Though, a thought strikes me that if you really wanted to do it properly- you would have two state banks handling the funds themselves, and do a cross over review. I.e. Town X has its account in state bank A - State bank B sends personnel to be the authorizing authority for use of money. Town Y has its account in state bank B - state bank A sends the reviewing official. It wouldn't hurt to have a series of random simi frequent spot checks by the feds from time to time- just to make sure.
I don't follow the last questions entirely. I would say that- in the beginning, national level projects, those handled exclusively or by a majority of federal funds would still be handled at the federal level. This is more of an ideal to set up self sufficient cities that are always in surplus, generating wealth for use without taxing the populous. A more then self sufficient government, but one that has limitations on how it can use its funds. As for volunteers being paid? For city projects certainly, everything from clean up to voter booth manning, things that would be directly linked to the running or improvement of the city.
The biggest problem that comes to mind for me is population growth outpacing the growing account.
As far as abuse at the local level, I would reason that if would be fairly workable to set up an over watch or authorization for use of the funds in a simple yes no appropriation in support of the town charter. I'm honestly not sure how town treasuries are regulated, if at all, but considering the size of the fund, I believe the state bank could have an agent or even a full team work with the local government. Though, a thought strikes me that if you really wanted to do it properly- you would have two state banks handling the funds themselves, and do a cross over review. I.e. Town X has its account in state bank A - State bank B sends personnel to be the authorizing authority for use of money. Town Y has its account in state bank B - state bank A sends the reviewing official. It wouldn't hurt to have a series of random simi frequent spot checks by the feds from time to time- just to make sure.
I don't follow the last questions entirely.
I would say that- in the beginning, national level projects, those handled exclusively or by a majority of federal funds would still be handled at the federal level. This is more of an ideal to set up self sufficient cities that are always in surplus, generating wealth for use without taxing the populous. A more then self sufficient government, but one that has limitations on how it can use its funds. As for volunteers being paid? For city projects certainly, everything from clean up to voter booth manning, things that would be directly linked to the running or improvement of the city.
The biggest problem that comes to mind for me is population growth outpacing the growing account.
Reply
Leave a comment