How a Temporary Visa Works Under the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement

The United States (U.S.) and Jordan launched negotiations for a free trade agreement in 2000. Several reasons explain the U.S. desire to negotiate a free trade agreement with Jordan. The failed WTO Ministerial Conference in 1999 led U.S. trade officials to analyze the possibilities for a free trade agreement that would include certain provisions that are resisted at the multilateral trading level. Moreover, the U.S. and Jordan had already signed a trade and investment framework in 1999, which is usually a precursor for a FTA.

The US-JO FTA includes a preamble, nineteen articles, three annexes, joint statements, memorandums of understanding, and side letters. In addition to the interesting articles on labor and environment, the US-JO FTA provides the opportunity for Jordanian nationals to come to the U.S. to make investments and participate in trade. Under certain conditions, Jordanian nationals can enter the U.S. to render professional services.

The US-JO FTA permits entry of nationals of one party in the territory of the other. From the outset, it is necessary to distinguish between migration and the ability of Jordanians to enter into the U.S. to make investments and participate in trade. Jordanian nationals are not allowed permanent resident status, but are only given the opportunity to acquire a visa on a temporary basis or "non-immigrant" status. This status requires that the visa beneficiary return to Jordan after his temporary stay expires.

The US-JO FTA allows nationals of Jordan to enter into the U.S. to carry solely "substantial trade", including trade in services and technology. The yardstick in the FTA is "substantial trade". Article 8 does not specify what constitutes "substantial trade". For example, should a Jordanian trader be major exporter to the U.S to be eligible for entry? Or the U.S is obliged, subject to its laws on entry, to allow Jordan's traders entry into its territory for attending a trade fair or partnering with U.S firms.

In effect, the language of article 8 of the US-JO FTA is drawn from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now known as Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service within the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S Department of State regulations. The Department of State regulations define a treaty trader as an alien, classifiable as a nonimmigrant treaty trader (E-1), who will be in the U.S solely to carry on trade of a "substantial nature" either on the alien's behalf or as an employee of a foreign person or organization engaged in trade, "principally" between the U.S and the foreign state of which the alien is a national. This language is identical to the language of article 8.1 of the US-JO FTA. The regulations of the Department of State reads that consideration being given to any conditions in the country of which the alien is a national which may affect the alien's ability to carry on such substantial trade. Moreover, the alien must prove that he intends to depart the U.S after the termination of E-1 status.

Although US-JO FTA does not define the term "substantial trade", the Department of State regulations define it as the quantum of trade "sufficient" to ensure a continuous flow of trade items between the U.S and the treaty country. Continuous flow contemplates numerous exchanges over time rather than a single transaction, regardless of the monetary value. The U.S regulation considers monetary value as an important factor. However, greater weight is given to more numerous exchanges of larger value. Therefore, Department of State regulations do not specify an exact monetary value of substantial trade, for example $100,000, as a benchmark that would qualify a Jordanian trader as eligible for E-1 visa.

Rather, Department of State regulations leave it to the U.S Consular Office in Jordan the flexibility of determining "substantial trade" that would qualify Jordanian nationals of for E-1 visa. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the regulations of the Department of State itself read that consideration being given to any conditions in the country of which the alien is a national which may affect the alien's ability to carry on such substantial trade. In other words, the U.S Consular Office will have to take into account the conditions prevalent in Jordan when evaluating a petition for E-1 visa. Thus, the term "substantial trade will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Additionally, the term "trade" is not defined in the US-JO FTA. The negotiators of the US-JO FTA perhaps wanted to give a non-exhaustive list of trade activities that could be conducted in the territory of the other party such as trade in services and technology. Other items of trade may include trade in monies, international banking, insurance, transportation, tourism, communications, and some news gathering activities.

The US-JO FTA also allows nationals of one party to enter into the territory of the other party to establish, develop, administer, or advise on the operation of an "investment". However, investment is qualified by the requirement that the nationals or the company that employs them "have committed" or "in the process of committing" a substantial amount of capital or other resources. In other words, the language of "have committed" or "in the process of committing" seems to require a significant amount of upfront investment such as transferring money before a national of Jordan can obtain the visa. The purpose such language could be interpreted so as to prevent maneuvering and fraud. Again, in the investment provision of the FTA, the yardstick is commitment to a "substantial amount of capital or other resources". The Department of State regulations define a treaty investor as an alien, classifiable as a nonimmigrant treaty investor (E-2), that has invested or is actively in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital, as distinct from a relatively small amount of capital solely for the purpose of earning a living, and he seeks entry solely to develop and direct the enterprise. Moreover, the treaty investor must intend to depart from the U.S upon the termination of E-2 status. Thus, subparagraph 8.2 of the US-JO FTA is drawn directly from the U.S regulations.

The US-JO FTA is silent as to the definition of "investment" and "substantial amount of capital". However, the Department of State regulation defines investment as the treaty investor's placing of capital, including funds and other assets, at risk in the commercial sense with the objective of generating a profit. The treaty investor must be "in possession" of and "have control" over the capital invested or being invested. Furthermore, the U.S regulations require that capital in the process of being invested must be "irrevocably" committed to the enterprise. In other words, the treaty investor must commit capital in an unalterable way or commit beyond recall.

The treaty investor must have the burden of establishing such irrevocable commitment given to the particular circumstances of each case. Moreover, according to the U.S regulations, the treaty investor may use any legal mechanism available that would not only irrevocably commit funds to the enterprise but also extend some personal liability protection to the treaty investor. Even if all other conditions are met, the investment must not be passive or virtual but rather a "real" and "active" commercial or entrepreneurial undertaking, producing some service or commodity for profit and must meet applicable legal requirements for doing business in the particular jurisdiction in the U.S. This language intends to prevent visa fraud.

As to the definition of "substantial amount of capital", article 8 of the US-JO FTA is silent on this matter. However, the U.S Department of State regulations define "substantial capital" as the amount that is 1) substantial in the proportional sense for example in relationship to the total cost of either purchasing an established enterprise or creating the type of enterprise under consideration; 2) sufficient to ensure the treaty investor's financial commitment to the successful operation of the enterprise; and 3) of a magnitude to support the likelihood that the treaty investor will successfully develop and direct the enterprise. The U.S regulations define whether an amount of capital is substantial in the proportionality sense in terms of an inverted sliding scale. For example, the lower the total cost of the enterprise, the higher, proportionately, the investment must be to meet the criteria. Moreover, the Department of State regulations require that projected future capacity of the enterprise should generally be realizable within five years from the date the alien commences normal business activity of the enterprise. In summation, U.S regulations do not specify an exact amount of capital that would serve as a yardstick to evaluate whether an investment could qualify its holder for E-2 visa. Rather, the regulations leave "substantial amount of capital" test to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Article 8.2 of the US-JO FTA allows nationals of either party to enter the territory of the other party to "establish", "develop", "administer", or "advise" of an investment. These four terms are not defined in article 8 of the US-JO FTA. Again, U.S Department of State regulations define some of these terms. For example, the regulations define "develop and direct" as what the business or individual treaty investor does or will develop and direct the enterprise by controlling the enterprise through ownership of at least 50% of the business, by possessing operational control through a managerial position or other corporate device, or by other means. Therefore, an investor under the US-JO FTA must play a key role in the investment whether through establishment, development, administration, or advice in order to be eligible for E-2 visa.

For the purpose of article 8, the U.S rendered nationals of Jordan as eligible for treaty trader (E-1) and treaty investor (E-2) visas. This article seems to imply as if the U.S gave Jordanian nationals special or privileged visa treatment. However, Jordanian national individuals will not be exempt from acquiring a visa for entry into the U.S. Rather, Jordanian national must appear at the U.S. embassy or consulate in Jordan and be inspected by a consular officer and acquire a visa stamp before entering the U.S. for inspection by an immigration officer.

Two-way trade between the U.S. and Jordan is up substantially since the free trade agreement between the two countries took effect, but a provision enabling temporary entry of Jordanian nationals into the U.S. has seen little use. For the period 2002-2010, there were no trader or investor visas issued to Jordanian nationals under the visa provisions of the FTA. This state of affair could be attributed to lack of awareness or understanding on the part of Jordan's nationals as to E category of visas, the difficulty traders or investors face in meeting the thresholds of "substantial trade" or "substantial amount of capital" for investment, or difficulty of proving intent to return back to Jordan. Not any trader or investor can meet these thresholds. The onerous of article 8 of the FTA might explain the nonexistent of visas under the FTA so far even though U.S regulations allow for consideration being given to any conditions in the country of which the alien is a national which may affect the alien's ability to carry on such substantial trade.

On the other hand, one year after NAFTA came into force, 220 accountants from the U.S, but none from Mexico, entered Canada independently, and 62 U.S accountants entered as intra-company employees, 965 engineers from the U.S and 7 from Mexico, and 224 American intra-company engineers and 3 Mexicans were issued entry documents, 34 lawyers independently and 9 as intra-company employees came from the U.S.

Although national security, outsourcing, and immigration concerns are issues that need to be addressed, the U.S. must rationally weigh the costs and benefits of limiting movement of individuals. Increasing temporary worker mobility, and for that matter trade in general, has greater potential to benefit trade development, mutual understanding, peace, and tolerance. Failure to consider movement for individuals as a vital component of economic infrastructure and foreign policy will seriously affect economic growth and stability.

US-Jordan FTA Cross-Border Provision of Services

Historically, most trade agreements focused on reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers on goods as they cross international borders. However, the services sector now accounts for about seventy five percent of employment activity in industrialized countries like the U.S. Therefore, current trade agreements deal with trade in services.

While WTO achieved major progress in liberalizing the trade in goods, it later has begun to liberalize trade in services. The WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) recognizes several modes of supplying services with "Mode 4" addressing the temporary cross-border movement of business and professional workers. The US-JO FTA goes beyond the primary focus on goods and it deals with a new frontier, liberalization of trade in services. Such liberalization is important for freer flow of labor over national borders.

The US-JO FTA sets out several service obligations. The FTA requires each party to accord to service providers of another party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own service providers. The idea of this provision is nondiscrimination whereby Jordan must treat service provider from the U.S. the same way that Jordan treats service provider from Jordan. The other key US-JO FTA obligation is the most-favored nation obligation whereby each party is to accord to service providers of another party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to service providers of any other Party or of a non-Party. For example, if Jordan treats a service provider from Iraq more favorably than it treats a service provider from the U.S., the treatment provided to the Iraqi must be accorded to an American service provider.

The US-JO FTA created obligations specifically targeting professional services. Professional services, unlike most service providers who wish to provide their services in the U.S., they need permission to enter the jurisdiction from the U.S. immigration authorities. Movement of natural persons, professionals, is of particular importance to Jordan. However, temporary entry into the U.S. is limited to executives, managers, or specialists of a Jordanian company that has a physical presence in the U.S. in the form of branch, subsidiary, or affiliate. Such entry is limited to three years with a one-time two years extension.

The U.S. commitment, while covering the intra-corporate movement of senior personnel, does not extend to other categories of workers. Low-skilled workers seeking entry into the U.S. will not be admitted under the US-JO FTA. Both the U.S. and Jordan would benefit more from relaxed restrictions on unskilled labor rather than on skilled labor. Jordan has primarily unskilled labor to supply while the U.S. has primarily unskilled jobs to offer.

Under the US-JO FTA, a corporate employee cannot move to the U.S. unless his company already maintains commercial presence in the U.S. In other words, the FTA requires a Jordanian service providers to establish or maintain a representative office or any form of enterprise in the U.S. as a condition for the cross-border provision of a service. The "commercial presence" requirement prohibited if not stopped stop temporary movement of workers between the U.S. and Jordan. The US-JO FTA should have prohibited the parties from imposing local presence requirements on cross-border service providers.

The U.S. opted for skilled workers and commercial presence in the FTA perhaps out of concerns over education, certification, professional accreditation, and licensing in Jordan. For example, an engineer who wants to build a bridge in the U.S. is going to need two pieces of paper; in addition to a temporary visa permit, they also need to be licensed by the U.S. professional regulatory body. In order to increase worker mobility, the U.S. and Jordan could have concluded mutual recognition agreements and harmonized professional standards in certain sectors. Additionally, the U.S. and Jordan could have placed more emphasis on education and experience rather on passing exams or interviews. For example, a Jordanian engineer can obtain a temporary license to practice in the U.S. if he has a minimum of twelve years of acceptable engineering experience.

Labor Mobility in the North American Free Trade Agreement

Compared with the modest language of article 8 of the US-JO FTA, NAFTA dedicates a whole chapter-chapter 16- dedicated to temporary entry for business persons. The purpose of chapter 16 of NAFTA is to facilitate temporary entry of business persons. NAFTA parties endeavor to develop and adopt common criteria and definitions for the implementation of chapter 16. Moreover, each NAFTA party is committed to furnish the other parties with materials that enable them to be acquainted with chapter 16. To facilitate the movement of persons across the borders, each NAFTA party is committed to provide explanatory material regarding the requirements for temporary entry under chapter 16 in such a manner as will enable business persons of the other parties to become acquainted with them. On the other hand, the US-JO FTA is absent of such a commitment. Hence, Jordanian nationals might not be able to determine the meanings of critical terms such as "substantial trade" or "investment".

According to NAFTA, any dispute regarding refusal to grant temporary entry of business persons is subject to the dispute settlement mechanism. Chapter 16 of NAFTA created four categories of business persons who are citizens of a member country to be granted temporary entry. These four basic categories are: business visitors, traders and investors, intra-company transferees, and professionals. Business visitors who are engaged in international business activities may enter a NAFTA member country in B-1 status for the purposes of conducting research and design (technical, scientific, and statistical researchers), growth, manufacture and production (harvester owner supervising a harvesting crew, purchasing and production management personnel), marketing (marketing researchers and analysts, trade fair and promotional personnel).

NAFTA also provides E-1 and E-2 visas for traders and investors. The conditions for granting visa under this category are the same as visas granted under article 8 of the US-JO FTA. However, NAFTA mandates that no NAFTA party may impose or maintain any numerical restriction relating to temporary entry for traders or investors. In contrast, the U.S may impose numerical limits on the number of visa traders or investors under the US-JO FTA.

Another distinction between NAFTA and the US-JO FTA under the treaty trader and investor provisions is that a Canadian or Mexican business person may be denied E visa if there is a labor dispute in the Canadian or Mexican's occupational classification in progress where the Canadian or Mexican will be employed and their entry may adversely affect the settlement of the labor dispute or the employment of any person involved in the dispute. In other words, the requirements for E-1 and E-2 visas under NAFTA are the same as they in the US-JO FTA, with the exception that entry may be denied when it would adversely affect the settlement of a labor dispute in the US. This provision is only triggered when the Department of Labor certifies the existence of a strike or work stoppage, and does not apply to E visa holders already in the US. This language is absent from the US-JO FTA which means in effect that even if there is a labor dispute in the Jordanian's occupational classification, still a Jordanian national can enter the U.S as trader or investor.

The third category of NAFTA visas is L-1 visa for a business person employed by an enterprise who seeks to render services to that enterprise or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, executive or involves specialized knowledge. In this category, no NAFTA party may impose numerical restrictions on temporary entry.

The last category of visas under NAFTA is professional visa, TN category. This kind of visa is unique for NAFTA nationals and is not available for other nationals. The US-JO FTA does not contain such kind of visa system for professionals. Under NAFTA, certain categories of professionals who meet minimum educational requirements, or posses designated credentials or licenses and experience, and who seek to engage in professional occupations in a NAFTA member country, may be admitted for example into the U.S for up to one year. Appendix 1603.D.1 of NAFTA lists 63 professions whom its holder may be eligible for TN visa after meeting the minimum requirements. For example, an economist has to posses baccalaureate or Licenciatura degree, a lawyer has to posses LL.B (for example Canadian common law degree), J.D., LL.L., B.C.L. (for example Canadian civil law degree) or Licenciatura degree (Mexican law degree consists of studying for five years) or membership in a state/provincial bar, and a university teacher has to posses baccalaureate or Licenciatura degree.

The U.S could have incorporated a provision similar to the TN category of NAFTA in the US-JO FTA regarding professional visas. Professional visa system could have given the opportunity for Jordanian professionals to acquire contacts and experience that would be translated into increase of trade between the U.S and Jordan. However, issues of immigration and recognition of credentials could have prevented the incorporation of such a provision in the US-JO FTA. Probably, the U.S was concerned that Jordan may dump its citizens in the U.S. and they would not return to their native Jordan. Although, placing a cap on the number of TN visas issued annually could have minimized this concern on the part of the U.S.

Conclusion

Freer trade applies not only for trade in goods but also extends to include other factors of production such as labor and capital. Production is not just a function of capital and natural resources, but also of labor. Little attention has been paid to liberalizing the movement of persons who trade in these goods and services. In the formulation of trade agreement, the flow of goods between the member countries should be discussed in connection with the flow of people.

The US-JO FTA is designed to permit temporary entry, without intent to establish permanent residence, of traders and key business personnel. Despite that, the FTA does not provide "truly temporary entry". As of this date, Jordanian nationals are not able to benefit from the visa commitments of the US-JO FTA. The US-JO FTA permits entry for narrowly defined investment-related and trade-related purposes. The U.S made the entry of traders and investors from Jordan difficult. Jordanian businesspeople face difficulties in meeting the threshold of "substantial trade", "investment", and "substantial amount of capital". Moreover, the U.S. couples the movement of key business personnel with local presence requirements. Only Jordanian nationals with money and extensive professional skills can gain entry to the U.S. The US-JO FTA prioritized workers with advanced educational training and capital to invest. The US-JO FTA prioritizes the cross-border movement of corporate executives, researchers, and professionals with advanced degrees.

The US-JO FTA, among other US-Arab free trade agreement, is a trade agreement concerned with the movement of goods and services but not with the movement of persons. The U.S. has chosen to actively pursue a free trade agenda in the Middle East while simultaneously restricting inbound temporary labor mobility. Jordanian nationals are human beings and they have a baccalaureate degree. They are part of the free trade agreement. There can be no free trade without people to facilitate it. The current temporary visa provisions significantly increase the cost of doing business and prevent the effective use of a company's human resources. The issue of trade and temporary visas should be of immediate relevance to negotiators when crafting the broader US-Middle East FTA. Unless the inter-relationship between trade and temporary visas is properly understood, trade liberalization may be easily undone.

Another Way Around the Credit Crisis - Minnesota Bill Authorizing Banks to "Monetize" Public Works

In August 2007, the nation was stunned by the collapse of a major Minneapolis bridge, killing nine. The bridge had been rated structurally deficient by the U.S. government as far back as 1990, and it was only one of more than 70,000 bridges across the country with that rating. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that it would take nearly $190 billion to fix the country's failing bridges over the next two decades. Minnesota and other states have the manpower and the materials to rebuild. What they lack is only the money to do it. Municipal governments have to borrow money by issuing bonds, and the interest they must pay on these bonds is going up.

On March 13, 2008, Erik Sirri, director of the SEC's division of trading and markets, told Congress that the credit crisis has spread to municipal bond auctions. "There is no question that the recent dislocations in the municipal bond markets have created unanticipated hardships for municipal issuers and in some cases dramatically increased their borrowing costs," Sirri said. The inability of cities and states to sell municipal bonds to investors at reasonable interest rates seriously threatens plans to build new roads, schools, airports and other public works projects.1

Although the cost of borrowing is going up for municipal governments, this is not because they are bad credit risks. In fact, they are extremely good credit risks. Creditors know where to find them, and local governments have the power to tax to pay their bills. The problem lies with the bond insurers called "monolines," which have ventured into the very risky mortgage-backed securities market. This has put the insurers' triple-A ratings in jeopardy, along with the ratings of the municipal bonds they insure.

While borrowing costs for municipal governments are skyrocketing, the interest rate the Federal Reserve charges to banks has been going down, even though banks are proving to be much riskier investments than local governments. The Federal Reserve is a private banking corporation that is owned by other banks. It was established in 1913 to prevent bank runs and otherwise keep the banks from getting into trouble for over-leveraging (lending out many times their assets), and that remains its principal function today. The Federal Reserve recently extended $200 billion in financing to 20 top investment banks at wholesale rates, but these low rates are not being passed on to municipal governments or home buyers. The Federal Reserve is evidently working for the banks more than for taxpayers or local governments.Thinking Outside the Box: The Minnesota Transportation Act

Many people are getting tired of waiting for the Federal Reserve and the federal government to act, and one of them is a Minnesota resident named Byron Dale. Dale has drafted a bill called "the Minnesota Transportation Act" (MTA), which is scheduled for hearing before the Minnesota Senate Transportation Committee on March 25, 2008. If adopted, the bill could represent a major innovation in the way state and local projects are funded. It would mandate Minnesota's Transportation Department and State-chartered banks to enter into an agreement providing that the banks would advance funds for legislatively-approved transportation projects in the same way that banks make commercial loans - simply by "monetizing" the projects themselves. Banks routinely monetize the promissory notes of borrowers just by making book entries to a checking account and saying "you have a new deposit with us." (More on this below.)

Under the MTA, the state-chartered banks would create a pass-through account titled an Asset Monetization Account (AMA), monetizing the bid value of projects. This would be done in the same way that banks monetize collateral, except that the deposit would go on the bank's books as an asset rather than a liability, turning the bid value of the project into "money" without debt. This money would be debited electronically out of the AMA and credited to the State's Transportation Account (STA), from which it would then be debited out and credited in to the contractor's bank account in a state bank, according to the terms of the contract. The contractor would spend this money to complete the project. The money would flow into Minnesota's economy, where it would provide for better, safer, more durable roads and bridges. It would be used to purchase goods and services, benefiting business. It would go to pay taxes, helping the State balance its budget. And it would flow back into the state-chartered banks as interest on outstanding loans, reducing the number of loan defaults and improving the profits of the state-chartered banks. In this way, says Dale, the MTA would benefit every segment of society.Too Radical? Maybe Not . . .

Dale says he has been proposing this sort of state funding alternative for years; but only now, with the looming liquidity crisis, have legislators begun to take him seriously. His plan may not be such a radical departure from existing practice as it sounds. Commercial banks are already in the business of creating money. Except for coins, our entire money supply is now created by banks in the form of loans.2 Indeed, banks create all the money they lend. This was confirmed by the Chicago Federal Reserve in a booklet called "Modern Money Mechanics," which states:

"Of course, [banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise [by the same amount]."3

Many other authorities have confirmed this money-creating mechanism of commercial banks.4 State-chartered banks get their authority to create money from the State, and the State has the authority to determine the purpose for which banks create money. State banks are now permitted to create money to monetize a mortgage or other promise to repay. They could as easily be authorized to "monetize" the promise of contractors to deliver labor and materials to the State in the form of road and bridge repair and construction.

The argument against this creative approach is that it would be inflationary, but would it? Inflation results when "demand" (money) increases faster than "supply" (goods and services); and in this case goods and services would be increasing along with the money available to spend, keeping the money supply in balance and prices stable. In fact, it is the lending of money created out of thin air that is inflationary, because banks create the principal but not the interest necessary to pay back their loans. Additional loans must therefore continually be taken out just to service the "money" (or debt) that is already in the money supply; and this newly-created money goes into the pockets of middlemen rather than contributing to the productivity of the community. "Demand" (money) thus goes up without a corresponding increase in "supply," creating price inflation.

The solution to this conundrum is to authorize banks to monetize the production of real goods and services, creating supply and demand at the same time. There is substantial precedent for this approach, stretching as far back as the early American colonies:

* In the early eighteenth century, the colony of Pennsylvania issued money that was both lent and spent by the local government into the economy, producing an unprecedented period of prosperity. This was done not only without producing price inflation but without taxing the people.

* When Abraham Lincoln needed money to fund the American Civil War, rather than paying 25 to 36 percent interest charges, he avoided going into debt by printing Greenback dollars that were "legal tender" in themselves. Again, historians of the period attest that this issue of Greenbacks was not responsible for price inflation.

* A successful infrastructure program funded with interest-free "national credit" was instituted in New Zealand after it elected its first Labor government in the 1930s. Credit issued by its nationalized central bank allowed New Zealand to thrive at a time when the rest of the world was struggling with poverty and lack of productivity.

* The island state of Guernsey, located in the British Channel Islands, has been funding infrastructure with government-issued money for over 200 years, without creating price inflation and without government debt.5 But Is It Constitutional?

These governments could create the money they needed because they were sovereign entities, but what about individual States governed by a federal Constitution? In the United States, the U.S. Constitution controls. But that august document says very little about the creation of money - so little that banks have stepped in and taken over the business by default. Here are the sole Constitutional provisions directly addressing the creation of money:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5

: The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1

: No State shall...coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.

Congress has been given the power to coin money, but minting coins is not the same thing as issuing paper money, checkbook money, accounting-entry money, or electronic money - the forms of money used most often today. Arguably, "to coin" money was an archaic way of saying "to create" money, but then what is to be made of the clause stating, "No state shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt"? "Coin" here clearly means precious metal coins, period.

That clause is interesting for another reason: when was the last time you heard of a State paying its debts in gold or silver coin? States routinely pay their debts with the bank-created accounting-entry money that now composes over 97 percent of the U.S. money supply (M3), and that form of money is omitted from the Constitution altogether. The States therefore violate the Constitution every day, something they must do if they are to pay their debts at all, since gold and silver coins are no longer in general circulation. The Constitution obviously needs to be amended to suit the times. Meanwhile, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights) provides:

X - Rights of the States under Constitution

: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Creating checkbook money is not specifically delegated to the United States, so it must be delegated to the States, unless it is specifically prohibited to them. What about the provision that "No State shall . . . emit Bills of Credit"? According to "the 'Lectric Law Library," "bills of credit are declared to mean promissory notes . . . . Bills of credit may be defined to be paper issued and intended to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes as money redeemable at a future day." Bills of credit are promises to pay later rather than what is being discussed here: checkbook money issued as "legal tender" - the sort of dollars banks issue every day when they make commercial loans. The Constitution does not say who is authorized to issue this sort of money - whether in paper, electronic or accounting-entry form - so under the Tenth Amendment, this right is reserved to the States and to the People.

As the credit crisis deepens and exposes the inability of the existing banking structure to meet the public's needs, creative funding plans similar to the proposed MTA could be popping up in communities around the country. If the U.S. Congress and the privately-owned Federal Reserve will not issue the funds necessary for bridge and road repair and other urgent public projects, we can encourage our State legislators to fill the breach; and if they won't do it, we the people can get together, apply for a bank charter, and create the funding ourselves. (See E. Brown, "How to Start Your Own Bank," webofdebt.wordpress.com, February 23, 2008.)

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In "Web of Debt," her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. The website is http://www.webofdebt.com/

Her eleven books include the bestselling "Nature's Pharmacy," co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies.

How Insurance Works

Individuals, families, business, and other organization face innumerable possibilities of financial loss. These possibilities produce uncertainty in the management of their affairs. Therefore persons responsible for individual or group welfare - for instance, the head of a family or an executive in a corporation - purchase insurance to reduce or eliminate uncertainties.

Insurance is a social device that makes it possible for an individual or an organization to substitute a small definite cost for a large but uncertain loss, up to the amount of the insurance. Under this arrangement, the fortunate many who escape loss will help to compensate the unfortunate few who suffer loss.

Insurers keep the arrangement operating by mathematically anticipating the probable extent of losses and by accumulating premiums in order to pay the losses as they occur. Actuaries expert in the mathematics of insurance use mortality tables in the case of life insurance and other data on risk to forecast losses. The terms of the agreement between the insured and the insurer are expressed in a contract, the insurance policy. Based on the type of loss events covered, insurance policies fall into three classifications: personal, including death and disability; property, usually possessions of the insured; and liability, involving the person or property of the others.

Personal risks involve loss events that touch the person, such as financial loss arising out of premature death or disability. Generally, the lives involved include one's own immediate family or key business associates, persons in whom the assured has an insurable interest.

Property risks involve loss events that touch directly the property covered. Losses include the expense of repair or replacement and lost income derived from property use. The property that is the subject of insurance is usually owned by the insured. Liability risks involve loss events that concern the person or property of others, and for which an insured is legally responsible either through the contract or tort law.

Known to merchants and traders since the ancient world, insurance now flourishes in most part of the world. Privately owned insurance firms constitute major industries in the United States, Canada, Britain, and in some other advanced Western nations. Many governments operate social insurance programs.

Kayla Phillips has been in the field of insurance industry for a long time and maintains a website about insurance where you can get answers to the rest of your questions.