Great idea. Very interesting. I want you to think about this though. What are the tools the fund is using to invest in? Obviously good ones to be as perpetual as it is.
Consider the privitization of Social Security. Democrats mainly shot that down. Republicans championed the idea. Reps from both sides took both positions. But what if we treated social security that way? I've always liked the idea of privitizing social security. But in your example, it would make a nice compromise as long as the money put into the system was invested rather than immediately paid out like a ponzi scheme (with considerations to older generations taking benefits, etc.).
Now as a State, Alaska used their natural resources to sell and put that money in the trust for Alaskans. That's fair. But the question becomes, if you were to nationalize that same system in the U.S., what exports or natural resources are we going to sell that would generate revenue for a nationalized fund? Would you THEN support more drilling?
Maybe the idea should be left up to individual states and what their resources are that could be sold. Give the power back to the states.
This will sound flippant but I don't mean it that way this time. LOL! But, how can you be so anti-Republican and pro-Democrat considering that the red party prefers more states rights, whereas, the blue party would prefer to federalize everything they can get their hands on (in general of course)?
Your post that I'm replying to has less government written all over it.
