Skip to main content

In my last two posts I've been reviewing the new wave of mainstream posts and commentary on Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PCS) by way of providing background for making the case that the MSM are missing “the big story” about PCS. Thus far I've reviewed recent posts by Pethokoukis, Wiesenthal, and Carney, and an MSNBC cable segment by Chris Hayes. All four have looked at PCS in terms of the Trillion Dollar Coin (TDC) and its possible impact on the impending debt ceiling shakedown. None have viewed it from a broader point of view. Let's now look at the commentaries by Kevin Drum and two from Matthew Yglesias here and here.

Kevin Drum

Drum presents his view of the theories that “. . . have been floating around. . . “ since last year's debt ceiling crisis including: the constitutional 14th amendment option; the platinum coin, the priority of legislation (that Congress has approved deficit spending since passing the latest debt ceiling implying approval of an increase in the ceiling); and the “you and whose army” theory that even if the President breaches the debt ceiling, no one could do anything about it because they would have no standing to sue. Here's what he says about the coin:

There's an obscure statute that authorizes the Treasury to mint platinum coins "in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time." Jack Balkin suggests that the secretary of the Treasury could simply mint a $1 trillion platinum coin, deposit it at the Federal Reserve, and then write checks on it. I don't buy this one either. It's just too outré. It's the kind of thing that sounds cute to a blogger tapping away on his laptop, but there's no way an actual president would ever try anything so obviously childish.

A bit unfair, I'd say. Labeling using “outré,” followed an ad hominem using “a blogger” to discredit a serious proposal without arguing against it. Apart from the fact that being "a blogger" says nothing about the quality of one's argument in the first place, as long as Drum wants to appeal to authority rather than to reason, as a good "progressive" from Mother Jones should; Jack Balkin's not just “a blogger tapping away.” He's a Professor at Yale Law School; and the originator of the PCS idea, beowulf (Carlos Mucha), is an Attorney. In addition, the most frequent blogging advocate for the PCS idea, namely me, is a Ph.D. in political science and a former university professor, before pursuing a long career in Washington, primarily as a researcher and consultant. Seems to me all three of us are further away from being just “bloggers” than Kevin Drum himself, who seems to me to be the one just “tapping away on his laptop.”

As for outré, one person's “outré,” is another person's solid new idea, it's not an argument against that idea. Drum got some pushback from readers about his treatment of PCS, and he then posted an update on it:

Several people have pushed back on my dismissal of the platinum coin ploy. I'm not a lawyer, but my sense is that this is so wildly contrary to the intent of the law, which was to allow the Treasury to issue commemorative and bullion coins, that a court probably would intervene if the president tried to pull this off. The other ploys are at at least minimally plausible, but this one is banana republic territory.
Drum can't resist the labeling without justification, can he? The Banana Republic Law is the debt ceiling law, and its use to extort concessions from a safety net that more than 2/3 of the American people want proves it. On the other hand, according to a Yale Law professor and many others who have looked at it, PCS is authorized by  legislation passed late in 1995. Any challenge to it on grounds of intent is highly dubious for two reasons.

First, the Courts generally don't try to interpret laws based on theories about Congressional intent. The Justices aren't collective psychologists who are expert at divining the intent of the Congress. They are expert, however, at interpreting what the text of a law says, and so that is what they stick to almost all the time. A challenge to PCS based on intent isn't something any Court is likely to take up.

Second, Drum gives the “you and whose army” theory with a fair amount of conviction, saying it is the strongest theory of all. But that theory applies in spades to PCS, if we consider that the possibility of using it is written into the law, and the only one with standing to challenge it is the Congress itself, which won't, because the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and won't challenge the President. Again, the PCS option is stronger than the constitutional option from this point of view; because as long as the PCS  and consol options are legal, the debt ceiling legislation isn't unconstitutional.

In another update, Kevin Drum agrees with the idea that the best option is to shut the Government down in chunks because the Republicans “would cave before long.” I suspect they would, but I think this option would still result in real damage to real people; while the PCS option avoid that damage. Perhaps Kevin, doesn't see this because he thinks a TDC wouldn't make any difference in the political situation in the longer run. However, if he thinks that, it may be because he, like the other mainstream bloggers, hasn't given any thought to variations of PCS that might change the political situation and move it in a new direction entirely. Drum is another MSM blogger who's supposed to be “progressive.” If that's true then why isn't he discussing how the PCS authority can be used to further broader progressive aims, rather than simply solve the debt ceiling crisis?

Matthew Yglesias

In his post on 12/06 Yglesias just refers to the TDC idea and to one his posts on it in 2011.

But resetting into a no concessions mindset, the White House has a lot of tools. Not only can he argue that the 14th Amendment obviates the debt ceiling (which I would if I were him) or have the Mint create a couple of $1 trillion platinum coins (which is weird, but on a sounder legal basis) he can use his control over the executive branch to make the lapse of borrowing authority as painful to Republicans as possible.
He says he prefers a 14th Amendment challenge to it; but then calls it both “weird” and on a sounder legal basis, which makes one wonder why it's “weird”? Why do many MSM bloggers seem to feel obligated to characterize PCS in negative terms, even as they grant that it is a legal option? Do they need to do this to keep their credentials as among the Very Serious People (VSP)?

In his post on 12/07, he says:

Why did Congress draft a statute that doesn't specify what denominations the platinum coin may be? I have no idea. But it's a gaping loophole in the basic monetary framework of the United States, and pretty clearly allows Secretary Geithner to at least temporarily evade the debt ceiling by financing the government through seigniorage. The administration officials to whom I've raised this point generally respond by chuckling. Kevin Drum offers what amounts to an incredulous stare argument that this is undoable, "no way an actual president would ever try anything so obviously childish . . . so wildly contrary to the intent of the law . . . banana republic territory."

Maybe so. But such is the stuff of which great leaders are made. And there is precedent for it. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt essentially broke the back of the Great Depression by taking the United States off the gold standard. As a matter of substantive policy that was much more radical than evading the debt ceiling. And as a procedural matter it was tricky. Did Roosevelt have the authority to do that?

Sort of! He issued Executive Order 6102  under the terms of the World War I Trading With the Enemy Act. Is that what congress intended? Clearly not. FDR's Depression-era gold policy had nothing whatsoever to do with World War I or any other war. But it was on the books.

So Yglesias's attitude toward PCS is different from the other bloggers. He recognizes that it's legal and that a great President will use any law on the books that will help him do what's necessary at a particular time. And about PCS specifically, he says later:
I don't think it would be a good idea for the government to be routinely financed by coin gimmicks, but it's a much better option than the alternative of default or endless debt ceiling crises. Putting the platinum coin on the table is a good way of clarifying that whatever House Republicans say or do, default is not an option and no concessions will be made so they ought to save face and embrace the McConnell Principle.
So, Matthew Yglesias wants to have the President tell Congress that whatever the Republicans do, he has the coin alternative to use to avoid the debt ceiling, and then rather than use it, negotiate something like the McConnell principle to avoid debt ceiling controversies in the future. But, why does he propose this? There are so many other alternatives, and this is such a trivial think to get in return for the PCS power, which is after all, the Ace of Trumps in this game.

-- The President could tell Congress that he has the coin alternative and insist that they repeal the debt ceiling legislation entirely or he will use it.

-- Or he could tell them nothing, and just use the coin power to mint a coin sufficiently large to buy all the Fed debt and to redeem all the Intra-governmental debts creating accounts at the Fed for the Trust funds. That would lower the debt subject to the limit to something like $9.5 T, making the debt ceiling issue a dead letter for at least a few years.

-- Or he could do something really radical like mint a $60 T coin, and immediately start repaying the intra-governmental and Fed debts and all the other debt instruments, while leaving nearly $44 T still available to cover future deficit spending for 15 – 20 years.

Why wouldn't real progressives such as Matthew Yglesias claims to be, favor an alternative like that, since it changes the political context  by removing the memes of “we're running out of money,” “SS and Medicare are fiscally unsustainable,” and “our grandchildren will bear the horrible burden of our enormous national debt,” from the political debate?

It's a puzzle isn't it?

Looking at the posts of Pethokoukis, Wiesenthal, Carney, Drum, and Yglesias, we're seeing certain common elements. None goes beyond discussion of PCS in the low trillions, and generally there's a focus on the TDC meme and its relationship to the debt ceiling.

Also, none is concerned with how the existence of PCS is related to the option of challenging the debt ceiling legislation by using the 14th Amendment. Chris Hayes's cable segment follows the same pattern.

An emerging recommendation from some of these posts is for the President to use the TDC option as a threat in the background of his negotiations with the Republicans and then settle with them on some arrangement that makes it much more difficult for debt ceiling crises to occur in the future. This is a very conservative and unimaginative approach to the present situation, and there's not a lot of difference of opinion among the MSM commentators. TDC is "weird" or "outre." It's probably legal. But it's bizarre. Use it as a threat to defuse the present situation. But, once there's a deal with the Republicans then put it back on the shelf, and go on with politics as before. Is that all we want to get out of the legislative authority for the Treasury to create seigniorage revenues by using the Fed's authority to create reserves in unlimited quantity?

The next one will discuss the Bradford and Plumer posts!

(Cross-posted from New Economic Perspectives.)

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Money Game (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jabney, tojojo, antirove

    Is all a sham. Mint a $1 trillion coin? Why not just Nationalize the Fed and the banks and declare a Jubilee for all debt in the US? All government and personal debt could be forgiven in one moment.

    Monopoly is a game and so is our money system.

    "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

    by US Blues on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:40:16 PM PST

  •  Optics are terrible; end up with asterisk bonds (9+ / 0-)

    The optics of any of these schemes look terrible for Obama. Further, Treasuries issued after any of these schemes might well carry a higher coupon - hence "asterisk bonds."

    Much better to just say no negotiations at all. If you don't pass the debt ceiling, I (Obama) will take all necessary measures, including gold sales (scaring the Tea Party folks) and deferring payments to defense contractors and farmers (scaring the other half of the Republican base).

    The House will simply cave - no question.

    •  they will (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, OIL GUY, johnny wurster

      once their constituents start paying attention.

      and it will not end well for them.

      -You want to change the system, run for office.

      by Deep Texan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:45:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bad optics and very very bad precedent: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG

      The diarist does a nice job of justifying the use of the coin by noting that it complies with the exact verbage of the law and it would solve so many problems!

      BUT - at no point does the diarist address the possible disasterous negative precedent set.

      First, it would be an obvious naked power grab beyond the intent/spirit of the law.  It is also beyond the intent and spirit of government constricted by law.

      Did we like what Bush did in what he perceived as the scope of his power - signing statements, starting wars of aggression?

      Would we like the next "severely conservative" Pres. to feel that he/she could use the verbage of any law to railroad any legislative power of dem opposition????  These guys already play far harder ball than we feel is right or just, give them more room?

      Lastly, some random tidbits - Roosevelt may have done something like this, doesn't make it right now, isn't directly applicable and he faced a far more dire and immediate crises.  Obama already has problems with legitimacy with large conservative groups - not justified or based upon truth - do we want to give them some actual "real" grist for their argument that Obama has an "agenda?"

      The debt ceiling is a big problem and it must be solved and solved favorably to end it forever, but until the administration exhausts the usual paths that could work - 14th Amendment, shut down select government office to hurt conservative interests etc. it should not resort to methods that we would abhor if used in pursuit of a conservative goal.

      Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

      by 4CasandChlo on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 03:36:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No precedent is going to stop a terrible leader (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Real Fact Bias, psyched

        Just look at what happened 2000-2008; gutting of the 4th amendment, habeas corpus, PATRIOT Act, starting wars based on nonexistent evidence, "signing statements," criminal incompetence at the highest level... All virtually unprecedented (well, maybe not  the last item).

        I'd say, let Obama take up the mantle if it means keeping our economy from plunging into a recession or worse, a depression.

        Romney flip-flopped far more than Kerry ever did.

        by tojojo on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:12:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Roosevelt done nothing close to this. Countries (0+ / 0-)

        came on and off gold standard in early 20th century all the time. There were no legal problems with that. This is completely different story.

        •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          psyched

          FDR used a WWI statute meant for the War and applied it to the depression. His interpretation was questionable; but it wasn't seriously questioned. The language of the PCS legislation is very plain in allowing coinage with no limit on face value. It s far less questionable than what FDR did.

        •  No, FDR did a lot more, a lot bigger things (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FG

          There were much larger, realer legal problems going off the gold standard than with the coin. See Perry v US & other Gold Clause cases, the various relevant Acts of Congress, etc.

          And Roosevelt et al did do something with essentially the same economic effect as the coin - the Fed  fixed low rates on Treasury debt until the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951. No depreciation of the dollar. No inflation. Because there is no  reason to expect a big change from such a small one.

          The coin would just turn into reserves, which the Fed now pays interest on, making them equivalent to short term T bills. It was a change going the other way from minting the coin, when the Fed started paying interest - and one that hardly anyone noticed.  

          One can argue that the President can be legally bound to issue the platinum coin,  if Congress insists on the debt limit, insists that the President spend, as it has by passing spending bills, and leaves the coin as the only way that the President can spend legally.

      •  FDR (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psyched

        took us off the gold standard domestically. That allowed us to survive the depression and the War. Obama could use PCS to out aside any need for austerity and enable passage of the whole progressive agenda. The whole context of politics would change. Not with the TDC, but with a $60 T coin.

    •  Optics, Shmoptics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psyched

      If there were $60 T coming into the Treasury folloed by $6.7 T in debt paid off the first week, then all the optics would be on his side!

      The TDC's no good however. That hardly makes a dent in the situation and leaves all the problems still around. He has to big on this one or not do it all.

  •  I like the idea of playing hardball with the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, ColoTim

    Republicans and not rolling over and playing dead to their bullying the way we too often do.

    Also, I don't believe the President should agree to any reductions to social spending until military spending is reduced back to Clinton era percentages of GDP.

    Clinton had a thriving economy and surplus budget, and Bush destroyed it with enormous unfunded increases to military spending, and tax cuts.

    Howard Dean is saying the sequestration cuts are the best deal progressives are going to get since they are 50% to defense.  

    It seems our President has taken the social spending parts of the sequestration cuts and thrown them into the grand bargain leaving defense behind, instead of the other way around.

    If it comes dow to a choice between  making concessions that play into this Republican ploy or playing hardball and using trick, such as coinage to buy time, to use the bully pulpit I'd rather do the later.

    The Senate should pass another larger tax cut to make for the return of Social Security payroll tax withholding returning to the normal rates and then we should be prepared to let sequestration to kick in and Bush tax cuts to expire, blaming Republicans every for not passing the tax cut bill.

    President Obama ought to order the DOD to plan in implementing this cuts plus defer al possible deferrable expenses which in combination with the above should defer the debt limit crisis, which we can then debate on more favorable terms.

    To me the "grand bargain" increasingly looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors that create opportunities to hide unnecessary, unwise, and unjust cuts to social spending that we could avoid if we were willing to fight hard enough for it.

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:57:05 PM PST

  •  Saying that someone is "an attorney" ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, tojojo

    is hardly a credential as to his/her intelligence, etc.  I've worked with quite a few of them over the years and a good 80% proved to be useless ... as litigators anyway, and god help the clients who wind up with one of them.  They might do okay as contract writers and whatnot, I couldn't say, but they sure weren't too bright or competent when it came to strategizing or thinking on their feet.  I assume that the same could be said of some professors.  

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

    by Neuroptimalian on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:57:06 PM PST

    •  Well, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psyched

      I tend to agree about attorneys, but the fact is that they do have a more extensive and rigorous education than laymen and journalists. So qualification-wise beowulf is in a better position to opine on this than Kevin Drum. But I'm not the one who originally brought up the authority argument. I'm happy to forget about that and resolve things on the basis of reason. I just want to see Drum do that and not reply on "weird" and "outre." That's not an argument. It's BS.

      And btw, if you knew beo, uou wouldn't even be remotely suggesting that Kevin Drum might be better at strategizing or thinking on his feet than that guy.

      •  I did not say Drum was better at anything. (0+ / 0-)

        I just know from personal experience that, just because someone managed to get a degree, that doesn't automatically make them an expert at anything, which is what was implied.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 12:54:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  There is a reason why... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, ColoTim, offgrid, thestructureguy

    The government does not write checks out of thin air - it leads to inflation.  That's why we finance our deficits by selling debt - not just simply printing more money.  I think the better argument is challenge the notion that the congress gets two bites at the budget.  If they pass a deficit budget, it should be implicit that we are going to deficit spend - which includes debt to finance it.  They don't get to again vote on the budget by voting against the debt.

    'Goodwill' between the GOP and the President is as abundant as unicorn farts - Me'

    by RichM on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:58:37 PM PST

    •  We've considered (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psyched

      the issue of the inflationary impact of the coin and written about it here and here. I'll also be doing another one on that soon.

      But apart from that, this:

      The government does not write checks out of thin air - it leads to inflation.  That's why we finance our deficits by selling debt - not just simply printing more money.
      is flat wrong. First, all our money is traceable to government fiat now, so it's all "printed." Second, you're view that we need to sell debt to prevent inflation is flat wrong. Debt instruments are more inflationary than reserves since they can be made liquid very easily if needed; they can serve as collateral for loans and leveraged in the process, and the government pays out $245 B to the non-Governments sector that it would not pay if it didn't issue them, even at current low rates.

      And third, the quantity theory of money on which you're basing your statement is wrong. What's wrong with it is explained here.

    •  Except that those reasons are wrong and baseless. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psyched

      The government does not write checks out of thin air - it leads to inflation. First of all, it basically does do this.
      Then it just sells bonds in creates out of thin air to the public and takes back the checks, the dollar bills it just wrote.

      That's why we finance our deficits by selling debt - not just simply printing more money. We don't "finance" our deficits by "selling debt". It is just a stupid shell game. The only real effect is manipulating interest rates. But even that is a sideshow - the main purpose is to get people to hold crazy beliefs, like that printing money is magically inflationary and expansionary, while bonds mystically sterilize this evil force.

      We just happen to sell the kind of government debt called "bonds" for a microscopically different kind of government debt called "currency". They are basically the same thing. It is utterly preposterous that at today's low interest rates one is signficantly more inflationary than the other, and there is no evidence of this. If anything the evidence seems to indicate that "printing money", "writing checks" is less inflationary than "printing bonds", "selling debt".

  •  As a coin collector, I'd be willing to pay a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg

    fee to the US Mint if I were able to get a gram or two of that platinum coin after it gets melted down (once the debt is sufficiently low enough that the coins can be done away with).  It would be nice to have a piece (however small) of a trillion dollar coin.

  •  Money Is an Illusion (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, jabney, ssgbryan

    It exists because we have faith in its value. The ritual and mystique of the Federal Reserve Bank has a purpose: to embue our money with the sort of meaning that supports it. I'm guessing that financing our government by means of silly coin tricks would erode that faith a bit.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 03:39:45 PM PST

  •  I can think of at least one other.. (0+ / 0-)
    The Banana Republic Law is the debt ceiling law
    That  Citizens United v. FEC decision was banana-peel slapstick slippery.

    We have "Banana Republic Laws" coming out of our yellow-peeled ying-yangs.

    The dire straits facing America are not due poor people having too much money

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 03:52:03 PM PST

  •  I've been a big Dean fan since 2002 but he's a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psyched

    doctor not an economist. He has the instincts of a fiscally conservative New Englander. What he fails to acknowledge is that our basic problem is with jobs, not debt. Any spending cuts, be they entitlements or defense, will further depress the economy and cost us jobs.
    I do think PBO is not inclined to use the PCS or the 14th art.4 to fend off the debt crisis the R's are pushing. I also don't think the R's are willing to give up their perceived advantage (although I do think their wealthy donors are starting to freak out).
    For the President to start to pick & choose which bills to pay would not pass a Constitutional challenge. The Court already looked at this during the Clinton years when it decided that the Line Item Veto was unconstitutional.
    FDR is a good reference here. He basically expanded our money supply. PBO should do the same.
    At present, some bonds are paying negative interest. A modest use of the PCS would not be inflationary--there's just too much slack demand. If the R's don't fold (& I think they won't) PBO won't have much choice.

    Warren is neither a Clintonesque triangulator nor an Obamaesque conciliator. She is a throwback to a more combative progressive tradition, and her candidacy is a test of whether that approach can still appeal to voters.-J. Toobin "New Yorker"

    by chuck utzman on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:16:05 PM PST

    •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psyched

      about Howard Dean. His economics aren't far different from Herbert Hoover's. He doesn't understand anything about fiat currency. His performance as Governor was good, because States are users of the currency, not the issuer. Dean doesn't understand the policy space the Government has for fiscal policy and job creation. So, he'd a disaster as President.

  •  Anything inflationary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan

    would be a good thing. Only we missed the perfect time to do it, 2 years ago.

    Want to see corporate cash come spilling out? have inflation hit 10%.

    GOP- Fact Free since 1981!

    by KingGeorgetheTurd on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:47:26 PM PST

  •  In 1905, Einstein's miracle year, he proposed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psyched

    several ideas that were "out there" in the world of physics, not the least of which was his theory of special relativity. All of Einstein's ideas proved to be true and as a consequence our world and our understanding of the universe were transformed. I do not mean to say that letsgetitdone is in the same league as Einstein. But I will say that his ideas, at least the ones we have heard so far,have the potential to transform our world again--and I am sure that he has more ideas that he will reveal when, if ever, he thinks we are ready for them.

    Go get 'em, letsgetitdone.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:30:32 PM PST

  •  You ignore the fact that there is no way (0+ / 0-)

    Congress intended this law to be used for this purpose. And it means that Supreme court will likely declare this action illegal.

    •  Nah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psyched, Ian S

      No, there is evidence that this usage was the intent of Congress - or at least some of the Congressmen who put the language in. It's the kind of question the Supremes try hard to not touch with a ten foot pole, and it is manifestly legal, and not even so amazing or novel. The Constitution says the Congress has the power to coin money. That's all the platinum coin does, coin money as it has been for 200 years.

      The problem is that the brainwashing in basic economics in the last 30 odd years has been so intense that the general public is the worst educated, most deluded on economics, finance, and government finance in the history of the USA.

    •  Actually, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psyched, FG

      I don't ignore it. I argue against that notion a good bit in this series, See the other posts. There are two problems with the intent notion. First, the language of the legislation is clear. So, someone in the Congress wanted it that way. Second, lots of laws are on the books and enforced everyday in ways that have nothing to do with what their intent was thought to be at the time of their passage; and third, there's the problem of standing. I think only Congress would have standing to sue; and Congress can't because the Senate will not agree to do so.

  •  I'd like to see the Treasury publish the design (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calgacus

    ... for the $1 trillion coin. No one need ever have to mint it; the mere appearance of the design ought to be enough to convince the enemy that they can either raise the debt ceiling or the President will relieve them of that responsibility.

    The enemy they are. Let us treat them accordingly: no holds barred, and no quarter!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site