Listen to Ross and Burbank weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Ross+Burbank


treasurydepartment_money_economy_taxes_coins_ap980.jpg
But it goes like this: If congress won't let the treasury borrow more money to pay America's bills, why not just let the US mint - MINT - a bright shiny new coin. With a face value of $1 trillion. (AP Photo/File)

Should America go platinum?

BY Dave Ross  on January 10, 2013 @ 6:00 am (Updated: 12:20 pm - 1/10/13 )

At first glance, its seems like a nutty idea. At second glance, it also seems like a nutty idea.

But it goes like this: If congress won't let the treasury borrow more money to pay America's bills, why not just let the US mint - MINT - a bright shiny new coin. With a face value of $1 trillion.

You see, the debt limit only limits how much debt the treasury can issue. It does not apply to cash. If a pile of cash suddenly landed on Treasury's doorstep, there's nothing that says the Treasury couldn't spend that.

There are strict rules about minting gold and silver coins, but, thanks to a loophole, there is NO limit on the face value of platinum coins. And this idea - which has been percolating through the Internet for a couple of years, has now been endorsed by one Philip Diehl, the former director of the U.S. Mint - and the man who helped write the loophole.

"I have to admit we never foresaw this application of the law," Diehl admitted in an interview with Seattle's Morning News.

So the U.S. Mint would strike a trillion dollar platinum coin, put it in a armored car, deliver it to the Fed, which adds it to the Treasury's bank account, and just like that, this year's deficit is erased, and Congress doesn't have to do a thing. You know how fracking is discovering all that hidden oil? This is monetary fracking.

Diehl said it wouldn't cause rampant inflation or allow Congress to spend a trillion dollars more, so there's really no downside.

"All this would do is allow the treasury to continue paying the bills that come in that Congress has already racked up," he said.

The only weak point in this plan, is who transports the coin across town to the Fed. It had better be the president himself, since we know where he is at all times.

Yes it's crazy.

But since it's also pretty crazy that members of Congress are considering actually defaulting on the debt of the richest country on earth - why not fight crazy with crazy?

Diehl said it likely won't happen (a White House spokesman dismissed the idea Wednesday.) But perhaps it'll get Congress off the dime and actually doing something to avoid default.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Ross and Burbank

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (47)


  • Add A Comment

  • Mavila wrote...
    Dave,
    January 10, 2013 6:31 am
    At least you have the sense to call the platinum coin plan "crazy." I wonder if you also think the president's claim that there is "no spending problem" is "crazy?"
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    The proper place...
    January 10, 2013 6:42 am
    The Congress could respond by eliminating the fed reserve since congress is the proper authority to manage the money supply in the first place. It was a progressive that moved it out of the govornment's hands and into the private corporation in the first place which coincides with most of the physical problems the US has had ever since.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Well since
    January 10, 2013 7:23 am
    The republican's control congress, I am sure they are going to move quickly to eliminate the Federal Reserve because it is unconstitutional. I am sure the tea party are in backroom negotiations as we speak on how to remove the Federal Reserve and move the flow of money BACK to our congressional delegates. Problem solved.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    When are you People going to Learn
    January 10, 2013 9:10 am
    CONGRESS is the House and Senate Put together.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    sportsguru
    January 10, 2013 5:29 pm
    Faulty premise. The republican party contains a majority of progressives just as the democrat party is almost entirely progressives. That's why democrats ask why there were no spending cuts during the Bush or whoever era...it's because you never get spending cuts from progressives, that is antithetical to thier worldview, and it doesn't matter if they are democrat or republican progressives.

    Furthermore, even if the fed reserve were to be disbanded and control of the money supply appropriately returned to congress that doesn't solve the problem for 2 reasons. Firstly, the problem is already so enormous that I doubt much could be done to fix it anyway, and secondly because you still have progressives running congress...so their policies aren't likely to be much different than the fed. The only advantage is you take, at least to some extent, the siphon effect of the banks out of the direct money control...but they will still get their money...they'll just have to get it directly from the corrupt politicians.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pressman wrote...
    Uh, rational-
    January 10, 2013 8:18 pm
    So you're saying privatization is bad, government is good? Seems at odds with what the "conservatives" have been saying...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Pressman
    January 10, 2013 8:31 pm
    I'm saying corruption and theft is bad. There is no transparancy to the federal reserve...it's just a scam and we're the suckers being ripped off. Why to progressives want to set up a system to rob the nation? Nevermind...guess that was a rhetorical question...the answer is obvious.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    According to that disgraceful rag of liberal aplogism, The Wall Street Journal, spending is not out of control!
    January 10, 2013 7:17 am
    Cite: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

    According to the Wall Street Journal, in the 2009 fiscal year (the last fiscal year of the previous administration), federal spending rose a walloping 17.9%, from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.

    In fiscal 2010, (the first fiscal year of the current administration), spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

    In fiscal 2011 spending rose by 4.3% to $3.6 trillion.

    In fiscal 2012, budgeted spending rose 0.7%, (yes, less than 1%) to $3.63 trillion.

    In fiscal 2013, the final budget of Obama's first term, spending is scheduled to *fall* 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, "Over Obama's four budget years,federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear."

    Another remark from the WSJ: "The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama's legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were already made by George W. Bush and the previous congress."

    We need, as a nation, to get past the idea that our spending problems are all "Obama's fault" and that simply replacing him with a Republican would magically fix everything. Like a family that is making $100,000 a year and trying to live in a $2,000,000 house; we've just bit off more government than we can chew. Let's have both parties concentrate on shrinking the size of government, substantially.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Chuck Gould
    January 10, 2013 7:49 am
    Does that fiscal 2009 deficit number include TARP?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Mavila: Once again, per the Wall Street Journal, TARP was included in the 2009 budget created before Obama was president
    January 10, 2013 7:51 am
    In the article I linked above, the Wall Street Journal printed:

    "Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations."

    While the article didn't specifically refer to the term TARP, the program seems well described in the paragraph quoted above.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    How About...
    January 10, 2013 8:05 am
    The 2009 "Stimulus"?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Apples vs Oranges
    January 10, 2013 8:23 am
    There was a TARP bailout in early October, 2009 of $700B (reduced later to $475B) and "Stimulus" bill of nearly $800B in the spring, 2010. Now one of those was a bipartisan loan program that has been all but repaid in full, while the other was a strictly partisan affair that has continued via continuing resolution to this day. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which is which and also, which of those two accounts for the increased spending charged to the 2009 fiscal year.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Why not fight crazy with crazy??
    January 10, 2013 8:33 am
    I agree. That's the problem with electing a bunch of know nothings. They have no sense of the chaos defaulting could cause.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    Gould You should facts check your facts
    January 10, 2013 8:39 am
    before citing editorial articles.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    cdbtx: I'm merely reporting what the Wall Street Journal says...
    January 10, 2013 10:32 am
    not swearing that it's true.

    Maybe I should give Rush Limbaugh a call and see if the WSJ is full of shiites?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Chuck
    January 10, 2013 10:53 pm
    You know what they say about opinions....they're just like A- holes....everybody has one. It doesn't make it a fact....come on man.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • flipper wrote...
    Congratulations...
    January 10, 2013 8:44 am
    Dave and Linda for getting John Curley fired.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Correction
    January 10, 2013 9:47 am
    TARP was in early October, 2008, and the "Stimulus" was in the spring of 2009.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Mavila, so spring of 2009 was included in the numbers
    January 10, 2013 10:29 am
    for the 2009 fiscal year.

    Hey, no point arguing with me....if you don't like the numbers write the Wall Street Journal.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Yes
    January 10, 2013 11:03 am
    Spring, 2009 is smack dab in the middle of the 2009 fiscal year budget. It amounts to an amendment of the budget. Why do you think each successive year's budget expenditure total is roughly the same?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    stop with the gimics, the games, the finger pointing and
    January 10, 2013 10:23 am
    TCB on the JOB or get out.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }