posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Lawgiver
i've read the op a few times to understand the deeper sentiment. i'm slow like that. it does seem to be a rather brilliant way to prevent state
bankruptcies, if that is even possible. the question of whether the fed can even afford such a venture is unnecessary, cause they can print their own
money, right? this is almost like creating something out of nothing. under the guise of laying down broadband, fed is taking over all streets. it
would certainly work legally if the fed says it goes under interstate commerce, all within the constitution. the state would certainly welcome this.
the only issues are ones of privacy in the future and the ability of the fed to withstand more debt. i'll be keeping my eyes open about such things in
the papers. interesting op.
At first blush the question of affordability is a tough one. I don't even think they will have to print money. FHWA already funds cities and the new
federal budget calls for decreasing the funding for the Community Development Block Grant and increasing funding for infrastructure. Part of the
blueprint for future funding of infrastructure can be found by going to the Federal Highway Administration's website and researching the Tiger II
grants. They call for regional planning and intermodal planning.
Funny thing legally. Municipalities are corporations (municipal corporations) and can therefore be treated liked any other company to a degree.
Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission began the process of requiring cities to register their financial people just like you would a stock
brokerage firm, this is also a major change (and I am not involved in that aspect of this so I know only a little about that aspect).
Another proposed change that would help the fed is how they want to tax vehicles. The current gas tax is obtained when you buy gas, pretty simple,
every gallon you buy is taxed. With the growth of electric and other hybrid vehicles, they collect less tax. Some in the fed are proposing taxing
based on the number of miles you travel per year (the governor of the state of Washington or Oregon actually was a big proponent). Because the fed
taxes for transportation, the money can be used for a wider variety of things than fees.
I haven't thought out how it will effect the states only municipalities. Currently most states also have a gas tax and part of the goes to the cities,
it would reduce that burden to be sure. I guess it could reduce how much the state taxes are; but, more likely it would be used exclusively for state
highways. All of these things are big changes and most people won't even notice them.
The average person doesn't understand the legal difference between a city, county or state. They just see it all as the "evil" government. Look at how
many people didn't even know that they owned their property to the middle of the street or that the cities only had easements. These are things people
take for granted even in government. Most people will probably see this as a good thing because they will get universal and cheap broadband. How many
people are satisfied with how their streets are maintained, few. What amazes me is that this can all be done without a vote in congress, it is an
administrative act and who would have suspected the FCC of being the one to do it, I never saw that coming. Be well.
edit on 20-3-2011 by
AQuestion because: (no reason given)