In Show of Direct Democracy, Vermont Pushes for Public Bank
Fifteen towns approve resolution that would establish bank that works for people of Vermont, not Wall Street
By a more than three-to-one margin on Tuesday, communities voting on whether to support the creation of a public bank in Vermont approved the idea, calling for the state legislature to establish such a bank and urging passage of legislation designed to begin its implementation.
In a show of direct democracy that also exposed the citizenry's desire for a more localized and responsible banking system, fifteen of nineteen towns passed the resolution during 'Town Meeting Day'-- an annual event in which voters choose local officials, approve municipal budgets, and make their voices heard on a number of measures put before local residents for approval.
The specific proposal under consideration, Senate Bill 204, would turn an existing agency, the Vermont Economic Development Authority, into a public bank that would accept deposits and issue loans for in-state projects. Currently, the only state in the U.S. to maintain a public state bank is North Dakota. However, since the financial downturn of 2008, other states have looked into replicating the North Dakota model as a way to buck Wall Street while taking more control of state and local finances.
Voicing his support of the measure ahead of Tuesday's vote, Gary Murphy, a resident of South Ryegate, one of the towns that subsequently approved the measure, explained the thinking behind the plan this way in a letter to the local Times-Argus:
Senate bill 204 would expand the Vermont Economic Development Authority to become a state bank and would start out by depositing 10 percent of Vermont's unrestricted money into the state bank. The bank would be able to leverage this money by means available only to banks to bolster the economy of the state and cut down on the interest payments and fees that are presently paid to out-of-state financial institutions and other entities. The bank would not engage in retail banking and would not compete with community banks; it would work with community banks to maintain their viability and expand their ability to help create better economic outcomes for Vermonters by partnering with them in projects they would not be able to engage in on their own.
Presently, large public projects are, to a large extent, funded by bonding and other private investment which requires the state to pay interest and fees that often do not get recycled into the local economy. Bond sales are managed by Wall Street firms, which seem to rig everything they can to further enrich themselves. In addition to the fees that they charge for this service, it is possible that they are rigging the process to divert funds that would otherwise be available to the state into their own pockets. While the cost of bonding is relatively cheap now, it will likely increase in the next few years if not sooner and the bond market could dry up. Creating a state bank now and growing it could put us in a position where we can substantially lessen the need to float bonds to fund large public projects.
According to Vermont Public Radio, unofficial results on Wednesday showed the following towns had approved the resolution: Bakersfield, Craftsbury, Enosburg, Marshfield, Montgomery, Montpelier Plainfield, Putney, Randolph, Rochester, Royalton, Ryegate, Tunbridge, Warren, and Waitsfield. The four towns that voted down the measure were: Marlboro, Barnet and Fayston and Greensboro.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
By a more than three-to-one margin on Tuesday, communities voting on whether to support the creation of a public bank in Vermont approved the idea, calling for the state legislature to establish such a bank and urging passage of legislation designed to begin its implementation.
In a show of direct democracy that also exposed the citizenry's desire for a more localized and responsible banking system, fifteen of nineteen towns passed the resolution during 'Town Meeting Day'-- an annual event in which voters choose local officials, approve municipal budgets, and make their voices heard on a number of measures put before local residents for approval.
The specific proposal under consideration, Senate Bill 204, would turn an existing agency, the Vermont Economic Development Authority, into a public bank that would accept deposits and issue loans for in-state projects. Currently, the only state in the U.S. to maintain a public state bank is North Dakota. However, since the financial downturn of 2008, other states have looked into replicating the North Dakota model as a way to buck Wall Street while taking more control of state and local finances.
Voicing his support of the measure ahead of Tuesday's vote, Gary Murphy, a resident of South Ryegate, one of the towns that subsequently approved the measure, explained the thinking behind the plan this way in a letter to the local Times-Argus:
Senate bill 204 would expand the Vermont Economic Development Authority to become a state bank and would start out by depositing 10 percent of Vermont's unrestricted money into the state bank. The bank would be able to leverage this money by means available only to banks to bolster the economy of the state and cut down on the interest payments and fees that are presently paid to out-of-state financial institutions and other entities. The bank would not engage in retail banking and would not compete with community banks; it would work with community banks to maintain their viability and expand their ability to help create better economic outcomes for Vermonters by partnering with them in projects they would not be able to engage in on their own.
Presently, large public projects are, to a large extent, funded by bonding and other private investment which requires the state to pay interest and fees that often do not get recycled into the local economy. Bond sales are managed by Wall Street firms, which seem to rig everything they can to further enrich themselves. In addition to the fees that they charge for this service, it is possible that they are rigging the process to divert funds that would otherwise be available to the state into their own pockets. While the cost of bonding is relatively cheap now, it will likely increase in the next few years if not sooner and the bond market could dry up. Creating a state bank now and growing it could put us in a position where we can substantially lessen the need to float bonds to fund large public projects.
According to Vermont Public Radio, unofficial results on Wednesday showed the following towns had approved the resolution: Bakersfield, Craftsbury, Enosburg, Marshfield, Montgomery, Montpelier Plainfield, Putney, Randolph, Rochester, Royalton, Ryegate, Tunbridge, Warren, and Waitsfield. The four towns that voted down the measure were: Marlboro, Barnet and Fayston and Greensboro.
By a more than three-to-one margin on Tuesday, communities voting on whether to support the creation of a public bank in Vermont approved the idea, calling for the state legislature to establish such a bank and urging passage of legislation designed to begin its implementation.
In a show of direct democracy that also exposed the citizenry's desire for a more localized and responsible banking system, fifteen of nineteen towns passed the resolution during 'Town Meeting Day'-- an annual event in which voters choose local officials, approve municipal budgets, and make their voices heard on a number of measures put before local residents for approval.
The specific proposal under consideration, Senate Bill 204, would turn an existing agency, the Vermont Economic Development Authority, into a public bank that would accept deposits and issue loans for in-state projects. Currently, the only state in the U.S. to maintain a public state bank is North Dakota. However, since the financial downturn of 2008, other states have looked into replicating the North Dakota model as a way to buck Wall Street while taking more control of state and local finances.
Voicing his support of the measure ahead of Tuesday's vote, Gary Murphy, a resident of South Ryegate, one of the towns that subsequently approved the measure, explained the thinking behind the plan this way in a letter to the local Times-Argus:
Senate bill 204 would expand the Vermont Economic Development Authority to become a state bank and would start out by depositing 10 percent of Vermont's unrestricted money into the state bank. The bank would be able to leverage this money by means available only to banks to bolster the economy of the state and cut down on the interest payments and fees that are presently paid to out-of-state financial institutions and other entities. The bank would not engage in retail banking and would not compete with community banks; it would work with community banks to maintain their viability and expand their ability to help create better economic outcomes for Vermonters by partnering with them in projects they would not be able to engage in on their own.
Presently, large public projects are, to a large extent, funded by bonding and other private investment which requires the state to pay interest and fees that often do not get recycled into the local economy. Bond sales are managed by Wall Street firms, which seem to rig everything they can to further enrich themselves. In addition to the fees that they charge for this service, it is possible that they are rigging the process to divert funds that would otherwise be available to the state into their own pockets. While the cost of bonding is relatively cheap now, it will likely increase in the next few years if not sooner and the bond market could dry up. Creating a state bank now and growing it could put us in a position where we can substantially lessen the need to float bonds to fund large public projects.
According to Vermont Public Radio, unofficial results on Wednesday showed the following towns had approved the resolution: Bakersfield, Craftsbury, Enosburg, Marshfield, Montgomery, Montpelier Plainfield, Putney, Randolph, Rochester, Royalton, Ryegate, Tunbridge, Warren, and Waitsfield. The four towns that voted down the measure were: Marlboro, Barnet and Fayston and Greensboro.