It is unclear to me. I confess I might be misreading the reach and intent of the thing while trying to make sense of what it says.
However, it looks as if it would be a legislative compulsion upon state chartered banks to create accounts, i.e., to extend credit, to public entities, where there need not be bonding or tax money to back up the credit. And what rate would be applicable?
Or does it mean something else? I am open to any reader explaining what it means:
The funding of all construction and maintenance of all state, county, statutory or home rule charter city, and town highways, streets, roads, bridges, transit systems, and other transportation infrastructure must be achieved in lieu of taxation or bonding through a revision to current state-chartered bank regulations that will provide for the state-chartered banks to create new bookkeeping entry money [...] A road authority sponsoring an infrastructure project referenced in subdivision 1, shall determine the project to be constructed using the current methods for selection and development and shall submit the necessary documentation to the nearest state-chartered bank for funding. The submitted documentation must contain the accepted, verified, and authorized project bid or the amount of funds needed if done by an existing road authority doing the project. [...] The state-chartered bank receiving the project information as described in subdivision 2 shall then electronically transfer the new funds to the account of the road authority sponsoring the infrastructure project, which must use these funds to pay for the project and for no other purpose. The road authority is responsible for the oversight of the completion of the project according to the terms of the contract.
Is that saying state chartered banks are compelled, if passed, to participate in deficit financing of road projects "in lieu of taxation or bonding?" That the government can play the float against banks? Money not yet actually raised by tax or bonds can be spent before it is realized by the governmental units - down to local governments with road projects? Banks have to extend to government credit on hope the money will at some point be arriving and no bill provision says what interest charge is applicable for such a compelled "service."
Noncompliance is a felony?
That is strange. I would have expected deficit reduction rather than creation. My impression from rhetoric is that the GOP favors something besides big government bossing the private sector around in ways the private sector might, absent the bossing, decline.
What's up?
Am I reading this thing wrongly? What is meant "... to create new bookkeeping entry money..."?
Only one sponsor, Sen. Jungbauer.
Readers, help me. What does it mean?
It seems inherent in the notion of private property, that a bank can extend or deny credit any nondiscriminatory way it chooses based upon its fiscal best judgment; and that people trust banks because they trust the discretionary judgment of the bankers they choose. Is this not a principle in conflict with the wording of the Jungbauer 87th Sess. SF 65 bill?
Help me understand it, if you do.
_______________UPDATE_____________
Would this mean, as an example, that City of Ramsey could continue to run the Ramsey Star Express without taxing, bonding, or spending reserves if nobody else - no other government - will pop grant money, on compelled bank credit? It would be a "transit system" presumably, and any local state chartered bank refusing to deficit fund it would be in "noncompliance" subject to a $100,000,000 fine? Moreover, would funding a Ramsey Northstar stop be a covered "transit system" if the city council voted for it to be deficit funded under this bill, if passed?
I am truly confused.
________________FURTHER UPDATE___________
I have an email into the Senator's office, per the email address on the official Senate website page; sent the day of this post, and I am eagerly awaiting a reply.
Confusion about 87th Sess SF 65
To: Sen. Jungbauer or staff
As a confused constituent, what's it mean? That bill? Could Sen. Jungbauer or a staff person email an explanation?
I have published:
http://zaetsch.blogspot.com/2011/01/can-anyone-explain-to-me-what-in-world.html
Am I barking up the wrong tree or not? I will willingly publish any explanation detailing how my admittedly confused reading might be in error. And/or how my UPDATE hypotheticals might not be appropriate.
Also, is any particular "pilot project" in mind.
Thanks.
Eric Zaetsch
Meanwhile, as further proof of neglect and possibly intentional misdirection in today's big-media coverage of the St. Paul hilltoppers, this gets coverage, while confused funny-money stuff of much greater possible fiscal impact goes under the mainstream media radar - or is not deemed newsworthy, or not comprehensible enough for citizens to consider and judge.
I would like the author of this puff-piece to explain to me what that 87th Sess. SF 65 bill is aimed at, and what its language means. Good luck, reporting person, if you can unpin things and deliver a cogent analysis of content, cause and possible effect(s).
Not to mention cost-benefit, which seems to be a GOP buzzword-theme these days in reviewing everything beyond their paychecks and perks package.
Any mainstream media reporter who can unravel this mini-mystery and report cogently on what's up with this bill will have earned my respect, ya betcha.
Tom Hackbarth toting a gun while checking up on a girlfriend and parking at Planned Parenthood, etc. as that story went, is news; but so is this SF 65 kludge.