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

  • BarnDerk wrote...
    They should mint 1000000, $1000000 coins.
    January 10, 2013 11:28 am
    They would be more circulative, but it would cost about 2 billion dollars to do it, and a big truck to deliver.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Annualized growth in Federal Spending, once again according to the Wall Street Journal...
    January 10, 2013 3:16 pm
    of course, as these numbers don't support the RW rhetoric about Obama's spending, these statistics will be dismissed as "opinions" by the disciples of various RW talk hosts.

    Annualized growth of federal spending.

    Reagan 82-85, 8.7%

    Reagan 85-89, 4.9%

    Bush I 90-93, 5.4%

    Clinton 94-97, 3.2%

    Clinton 98-01, 3.9%

    Bush II 02-05, 7.3%

    Bush II 06-09, 8.1%

    Obama 10-13, 1.4%

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    @Chuck Gould
    January 10, 2013 5:40 pm
    The only way Obama can get a 1.4% growth rate is if you saddle Bush with the Stimulus for fiscal year 2009. Bush had nothing to do with it (nor did any Republicans).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Mavila: Not my numbers....tell it to the
    January 10, 2013 6:36 pm
    Wall Street Journal.

    But put a pencil to it. Move the stimulus from Bush's spending to Obama. I haven't done the math, but I would be surprised if the four year average were as high as Bush (after you make the downward adjustment) or even Reagan.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Chuck...
    January 10, 2013 6:56 pm
    If you aren't interested in defending the numbers, why persist in posting them? What's your point? The reality is that for fiscal 2009, the US spent $2.91T (actually $200B under the $3.1T budget Bush signed in June, 2008). The next year (i.e., the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress and the WH) spending was at $3.52T. That's a 21% increase. Not 1.4%.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Mavilla
    January 10, 2013 10:53 pm
    The 2009 budget was set by Bush. When Obama leaves in 2016, the 2017 budget will be put in place by Obama.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    John Boner said today the most fiscally responsible thing to do
    January 10, 2013 6:37 pm
    is for the U.S. to stop paying its bills, or at least most of them.

    John Boner did say we shouldn't be worried. Although old people won't be getting their social security checks and military members won't get paychecks he wanted to assure everyone by saying, "don't worry about us, we made sure congressional members will still get full pay and free healthcare after the house majority shuts the government down."

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    SeattleD
    January 12, 2013 6:54 am
    Typical lying progressive. So prove the quote you site is real and not a fabrication of yours...you can't, liar.

    Now I can't stand Boehner, he's just another useless progressive. If you had a brain you'd be shocked at how you and Boehner are alike...rather ironic.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Numbers
    January 10, 2013 7:33 pm
    GDP & Spending are in thousands of billions Spndg Pctg Incr Yr GDP Spndg %ofGDP in Spndg 80 2788.1 590.94 21% 81 3126.8 678.24 22% 15% 82 3253.2 745.74 23% 10% 83 3534.6 808.36 23% 8% 84 3930.9 851.81 22% 5% 85 4217.5 946.34 22% 11% 86 4460.1 990.38 22% 5% 87 4736.4 1004.02 21% 1% 88 5100.4 1064.42 21% 6% 89 5482.1 1143.74 21% 7% 90 5800.5 1252.99 22% 10% 91 5992.1 1324.23 22% 6% 92 6342.3 1381.53 22% 4% 93 6667.4 1409.39 21% 2% 94 7085.2 1461.75 21% 4% 95 7414.7 1515.74 20% 4% 96 7838.5 1560.48 20% 3% 97 8332.4 1601.12 19% 3% 98 8793.5 1652.46 19% 3% 99 9353.5 1701.84 18% 3% 00 9951.5 1788.95 18% 5% 01 10286.2 1862.85 18% 4% 02 10642.3 2010.89 19% 8% 03 11142.2 2159.9 19% 7% 04 11853.3 2292.84 19% 6% 05 12623 2471.96 19% 8% 06 13377.2 2655.05 20% 7% 07 14028.7 2728.69 19% 3% 08 14369.1 2982.54 21% 9% 09 13939 3517.68 25% 18% 10 14508.2 3456.21 24% -2% 11 14958.6 3603.06 24% 4% 12 15601.5 3795.55 24% 5% The increase for 2009 is the result of the so-called "Stimulus".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Formatting Problem...
    January 10, 2013 7:44 pm
    with that last post, lol. I don't know how to post paragraphs or a table-like presentation. Sorry.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Dave
    January 10, 2013 10:21 pm
    I like the Coin idea!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Jay Parker wrote...
    Monetary Fracking
    January 13, 2013 3:03 pm
    Your definition of Monetary Fracking is slightly off course. I coined the term last month while emailing Paul Krugman at Princeton.edu. The minting of the trillion dollar coin and its deposit at the Fed to pay bills doesn't go far enough. In my definition the Fed must inject the newly minted funds deep into the bowels of the economy much like high pressure chemicals being infused into the earth to release the encapsulated gas. My theory was based on my own financial demise during the Great Recession. Through no fault of my own I was driven into bankruptcy and foreclosure, had to use all my retirement and available funds to survive and was forced to liquidate assets including my wife's diamond ring and my coin and 1950's/60's baseball card collection. Because of the devastation, decimation and financial destruction caused by (the Wall Street greed, the complicit ratings agencies, the malfeasance of the Fed - fill in the blank) I postulated that what was needed was a massive infusion of money forced upon those of us directly financially damaged by the unprosecuted perpetrators. By making me and millions of people like me whole again we would be able to resume a normal life and contribute significantly to economic growth. In my case I would require $400,000 to break even. Of course there would never be a 100% bailout to me in the way that Goldman Sachs received but at least give me 20 cents on the dollar or $80,000! To wit, Monetary Fracking - the massive infusion of funds to those injured parties of a recession due as a result of fraudulent activities to create an equitable adjustment in the economy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }