Neutering Congress before the upcoming debt ceiling dispute by asking the U.S. Department of the Treasury to mint a platinum coin worth $1 trillion was an idea that emerged from somewhere in the blogosphere in 2010. A couple years ago, Congressional gridlock over whether one of the wealthiest nations in the world would pay its bills wasted time that should have been spent on anything else and, despite the nick-of-time agreement not to default, degraded the nation’s credit rating anyway.
One coin to rule them all
Neutering Congress before the upcoming debt ceiling dispute by asking the U.S. Department of the Treasury to mint a platinum coin worth $1 trillion was an idea that emerged from somewhere in the blogosphere in 2010. A couple years ago, Congressional gridlock over whether one of the wealthiest nations in the world would pay its bills wasted time that should have been spent on anything else and, despite the nick-of-time agreement not to default, degraded the nation’s credit rating anyway.
With the nation facing an impasse similar to the one in 2011, Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal and Josh Barro of Bloomberg View resuscitated the trillion-dollar coin solution.
By handing the coin over to the Federal Reserve System, the Treasury could get its paws on enough cash to ignore the arbitrary debt ceiling altogether. Harmless, says economist Paul Krugman.
Though easy to ridicule, the plan is legally sound and less destructive than giving House Republicans a month to lord their control of the debt ceiling over President Barack Obama, Krugman blogged.
Krugman went on to suggest the coin be pressed with House Speaker John Boehner’s likeness. “Because without him and his colleagues,” Krugman wrote, “this wouldn’t be necessary.”
Spite is one way to go about choosing whose face belongs on the most valuable coin in the world. But who wants Boehner’s dead eyes and sagging jowls immortalized in platinum? If we’re going to mint a coin worth $1 trillion (a figure with 12 zeros in it), we need to think on a scale much bigger than cheap punks like Boehner.
Beyonce Knowles came to mind when I first read about the coin.
The first time I heard Destiny’s Child’s “Survivor” I wanted it to replace “The Star-Spangled Banner” as our national anthem. Knowles’ lyrics make Francis Key’s sound dusty and boring. Better than any song I’ve heard, “Survivor” nails the defiant grit of the American psyche.
King George III, in his dazzling raiment, thought that we’d be broke without him, but we’re richer. In 1776 he scoffed at us, thinking we would self-destruct without him, but we’re still here. The British thought we would fail without them, but we’re on top. They thought we’d be stressed without their protection, but we’re chilling.
Realizing that minting a platinum Beyonce coin would make presidents on smaller bills appear blowsy and run-down, my thoughts turned to Optimus Prime.
Prime, a 30-foot tall robot who, when it helps, becomes a red, silver and blue Peterbilt 379 truck, is the epitome of the American spirit. Rather, he’s the embodiment of the true-hearted America we learned about in elementary school. Prime exemplifies the soul we wish America had.
Obsessed with freedom for everyone, Prime is a war hero with an unwavering sense of justice. Selfless, courageous, wise and compassionate, he is the best parts of Jesus Christ and George Washington combined. Prime is the obvious choice for the trillion-dollar honor.
Unfortunately the Treasury released a statement Saturday saying there’d be no trillion-dollar coin. Even if the Treasury changed its mind, the Fed said they wouldn’t recognize the coin. Leave it to the Fed to spoil our fun.
I honestly can’t believe that this went to print. The main source is a no-name blogger and the second half legitimately does nothing but fantasize about pop culture icons appearing on a coin. This is the kind of article that I would expect to appear in a middle school’s paper. Who flushed the standards of journalism down the toilet?
Um, little boy, did you just call Nobel laureate and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman a “no-name blogger”? Perhaps people who’ve apparently never read the Times should think twice before moralizing on the subject of journalistic standards.