|
22 March 2010
Ellen Brown
As the states’ credit crisis deepens, four states have
initiated bills for state-owned banks, and candidates
in seven states have now included that solution in
their platforms.
“Hundreds of job-creating projects are still on hold
because Michigan businesses and entrepreneurs cannot
get bank financing. We can break the credit crunch and
beat Wall Street at their own game by keeping our
money right here in Michigan and investing it to
retool our economy and create jobs.”
--Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero in the Detroit News,
March 9, 2010
Struggling with 14% unemployment, Michigan has been
particularly hard hit by the nation’s economic
downturn. Virg Bernero, mayor of the state’s capitol
and a leading Democratic candidate for governor,
proposes that the state relieve its economic ills by
opening a state-owned bank. He says the bank could
protect consumers by making low-interest loans to
those most in need, including students and small
businesses; and could help community banks by buying
mortgages off their books and working with them to
fund development projects.
Bernero joins a growing list of candidates proposing
this sensible solution to their states’ fiscal ills.
Local economies have collapsed because of the Wall
Street credit freeze. To reinvigorate local business,
Main Street needs a heavy infusion of credit; and
publicly-owned banks could fill that need.
A February posting tracked candidates in five states
running on a state-bank platform and one state with a
bill pending (Massachusetts). There are now three more
bills on the rolls – in Washington State, Illinois and
Michigan – and two more candidates on the list of
proponents (joining Bernero is Gaelan Brown of
Vermont). That brings the total to seven candidates in
as many states (Florida, Oregon, Illinois, California,
Washington State, Vermont, and Idaho), including three
Democrats, two Greens, one Republican and one
Independent.
The Independent, Vermont’s Gaelan Brown, says on his
website, “Washington DC has lost all moral authority
over Vermont.” He maintains that:
“Vermont should explore creating a State-owned bank
that would work with private VT-based banks, to
insulate VT from Wall Street corruption, and to
increase investment capital for VT businesses, modeled
after the very successful State-owned Bank of North
Dakota.”
The Bank of North Dakota, currently the nation’s only
state-owned bank, is the model (with variations) for
all the other proposals on the table. The Bank of
North Dakota acts as a “bankers’ bank,” including
doing “participation loans” with other banks, allowing
them to compete with larger banks. In a participation
loan, the community bank originates the loan and takes
responsibility for it, while the participating bank
contributes funds and shares in the risk and profits.
The Bank of North Dakota also makes low-interest loans
to students, farmers and businesses; underwrites
municipal bonds; and serves as the state’s “Mini Fed,”
providing liquidity and clearing checks for more than
100 banks around the state.
Proposals for publicly-owned banks in other states
have now gone beyond the campaign talk of political
hopefuls to be drafted into several bills.
The Michigan Development Bank
The Michigan bill has gotten the most press.
Introduced into the legislature earlier this month, it
mirrors Bernero’s state bank idea. According to a
press release issued by Senate Democrats on March 9,
the bill’s aim is to “keep Michigan’s money in
Michigan” by putting tax dollars into a proposed
“Michigan Development Bank”. The Bank would function
like a traditional bank but would focus on economic
development rather than profit. The press release
quoted Senator Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing):
“Investing in the state’s economy is the greatest way
to create jobs, and this proposal will provide small
businesses and entrepreneurs the funding they need to
invest and grow. Our economy has stagnated due in part
to stale thinking in Lansing, and this is just the
type of innovative idea we need to create real
economic change, using our own money to rebuild the
state.”
Senate Democratic Leader Mike Prusi (D-Ishpeming)
stated:
“Michigan’s economy has been suffering, and working
families in the state have had difficulty keeping up
with credit card bills, college tuition prices and
mortgage payments. Establishing the Michigan
Development Bank will keep our hard-earned dollars
right here in the state to invest in small business,
create good-paying jobs to get people back to work,
and help protect the middle class.”
Also quoted was Senator Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit):
“With the current state of our economy, every dollar
counts, yet we’re depositing our money in other
people’s pockets by investing in big corporate banks
without seeing much lending in return. It’s time for
the Mitten State to lend itself a helping hand and
establish a bank that is willing to invest in our
small businesses and offer the financial support
necessary to see job growth.”
For startup capital, Senate Democrats suggested that
Michigan could sell voter-approved bonds. With an
initial capitalization of $150 million, they estimated
the bank could lend up to $1 billion to small
businesses, students and farmers, and offer
low-interest credit cards to consumers. For deposits,
the bank could follow the model of the Bank of North
Dakota and use state revenues. So says Gene Taliercio,
a Republican candidate for the state Senate, who has
also put his weight behind the Michigan Development
Bank.
In a video
clip on the website of the local Oakland Press, he
says:
“We’re talking about restructuring the whole tax
system, in the sense that the way its set up is that
all taxes are going to go into this central bank. . .
. Every dollar that the state of Michigan makes goes
into this bank.”
The State Bank of Washington
A similar bill, HB 3162, was introduced to the
Washington State Legislature on February 1. The bill
has generated so much interest that Steve Kirby, chair
of the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee,
has scheduled a special work session on it. According
to John Nichols in The Nation, the State Bank
of Washington was formally proposed by House finance
committee vice chair Bob Hasegawa, a Seattle Democrat.
Nichols quotes Hasegawa:
“Imagine financing student aid, infrastructure,
industry and community development. Imagine providing
access to capital for small businesses, or otherwise
leveraging our resources instead of having to do it
with tax incentives. Imagine keeping our resources
local instead of exporting them as profits, never to
be seen again—that’s what this bank could do.”
Leveraging rather than taxing is how private banks
have been creating “credit” for centuries. States
could do the same thing, cutting the middlemen out of
the equation, saving significant sums in interest and
fees and generating revenue for the state.
A nonpartisan analysis of the Washington bill prepared
for the state legislature noted that the bank would be
the depository for all state funds and the funds of
state institutions, and that these deposits would be
guaranteed by the state. The bank would be run by a
board of 11 members and would be chaired by the State
Treasurer. It would have the same rules and privileges
as a private bank chartered in the state. To get the
bank off the ground, voters would have to approve
amendments to the state Constitution, since current
law prohibits the state from lending credit and
investing in private firms.
The Community Bank of Illinois
A third bill, introduced by Illinois Representative
Mary Flowers, is on its way through the legislative
process in Illinois. According to the Illinois General
Assembly website, the Community Bank of Illinois Act
would establish a state bank with the express purpose
of boosting agriculture, commerce and industry. State
funds and money held by penal, educational, and
industrial institutions owned by the state would be
deposited in the bank and would serve as reserves for
loans. The bank could also serve as a clearinghouse
for other banks, including handling domestic and
foreign exchange; and it could buy property under
Eminent Domain. All deposits would be guaranteed with
the assets of the state. The Bank would be managed and
controlled by the Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation, with input from an advisory
board representing private banking and public
interests.
An amendment to the initial bill would enable the
Community Bank of Illinois to make loans directly to
the state’s General Revenue Fund, helping the state
cope with its current budget challenges.
A Massachusetts-owned Bank
On March 12, the Associated Press reported that a jobs
bill sponsored by Massachusetts Senate President
Therese Murray also includes a call to study a
Massachusetts-owned bank. She told a business group
that a state-owned bank has worked in North Dakota,
helping to insulate that state from the worst of the
recession while also keeping its foreclosure rate
down. A state-owned bank could spur job creation and
free up lending to Massachusetts businesses.
All of
these proposals take their inspiration from the Bank
of North Dakota, which was founded in 1919 to resolve
a credit crisis like that facing other states today.
Last year, North Dakota had the largest budget surplus
it had ever had; and it was the only state that was
actually adding jobs when others were losing them. In
March 2009, when 46 of 50 states were in fiscal
crisis, North Dakota was in the enviable position of
discussing tax cuts and looking for ways to spend its
surplus.
The BND’s 90-year track record of prudent and
profitable lending defuses another objection to
state-owned banks: that a public agency cannot be
trusted to act responsibly in managing public funds.
The Detroit News editorial concluded that
Michigan should “leave banking to the bankers,” but it
is precisely because the bankers have destroyed the
economy with their reckless lending practices that the
public needs to step in. We need a “public option” in
banking to set standards and keep private banks
honest.
North Dakota broke new ground nearly a century ago,
but the true potential of publicly-owned banks remains
to be explored. Nearly all of our money today is
created by banks when they extend loans. (See the
Chicago Federal Reserve’s “Modern Money Mechanics”,
which begins, “The actual process of money creation
takes place primarily in banks.”) We the people have
given away our sovereign money-creating power to
private, for-profit lending institutions, which have
used it to siphon wealth from the productive economy.
If we were to take that power back, we could generate
the credit we need to underwrite a whole cornucopia of
projects that we don’t even consider because we think
we lack the “money.” We have the labor and we have the
materials; we just lack the “liquidity” necessary to
put them together to create products and services. |