Register to “Follow the munKNEE“ and automatically receive all articles posted
The “Trillion Dollar Coin” is a hot topic amongst economic policy analysts these days…The idea consists of a proposal for avoiding the inconveniences caused by the congressionally imposed “debt ceiling” in the U.S. by bestowing unlimited power upon the U.S. Treasury to issue money with no backing. When you reflect upon the economic and political implications of [taking such action] it becomes clear that the notion of the Trillion Dollar Coin is just plain stupid. Most importantly, when you look at the wider political, legal and ethical implications of this scheme for the rule of law and liberal institutions, it is beyond stupid. [Let me explain my views more fully.] Words: 2362
So says James A. Kostohryz in edited excerpts from his original article* posted on Seeking Alpha under the title The Trillion Dollar Coin Idea: Beyond Stupid.
Lorimer Wilson, editor of www.munKNEE.com (Your Key to Making Money!), may have further edited ([ ]), abridged (…) and/or reformatted (some sub-titles and bold/italics emphases) the article below for the sake of clarity and brevity to ensure a fast and easy read. Please note that this paragraph must be included in any article re-posting to avoid copyright infringement.
Kostohryz goes on to say, in further edited excerpts:
By way of review, and as most readers undoubtedly are aware, under current US law, Congress must establish a limit or “ceiling” for the amount of funds that the US Treasury is allowed to borrow. [In] early 2013, the U.S. Treasury will reach the most recently legally established limit and Congress must approve an increase in this ceiling in order for the U.S. Treasury to be able to fund government operations and obligations. In recent weeks, concerns have been mounting that due to legislative gridlock, Congress will not legislate an increase in the debt limit. The feared consequence is that the U.S. Treasury will not be able to fully fund government operations, and might even be forced to default on U.S. government debt obligations.
In the face of such a dire scenario, political and economic analysts have been proposing a number of ways in which the U.S. Treasury can invoke various legal loop-holes in order to evade the congressionally imposed debt-ceiling restriction….One of the ideas that has been garnering a great deal of (mostly favorable) press is The Trillion Dollar Coin.
Background on the Trillion Dollar Coin Idea
The Trillion Dollar Coin is the name given to a proposal that would enable the U.S. Treasury to avoid the restrictions legally put in place by the congressionally mandated debt ceiling. The idea behind it is disarmingly simple: If you don’t have the money, and you can’t borrow it, just make it up! Rather than adhere to long-established and institutionalized procedures for issuing debt when the government’s projected outlays exceed its revenues (which would increase the debt beyond the debt ceiling), it is proposed that the Treasury seize upon a legal loophole that would enable it to spend unlimited amounts of money without having to suffer the inconvenience of incurring debt. According to the plan, exploiting this loophole would enable the U.S. Treasury to create as much money as it wishes out of thin air as long as those dollars are obtained through issuance of platinum coins.
It must be understood that the U.S. Treasury is, by design, strictly limited in its ability to issue various types of money. However, despite the very clear institutional design and intent to severely limit the U.S. Treasury from financing its operations by directly issuing money, there is a loophole in subsection (K) of 31 USC 5112, which governs “Denominations, specifications, and design of coins” [which reads as follows]:
The Secretary (Treasury) may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof 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.”
This generally worded provision enabling the Treasury to mint platinum coins appears to have been hastily thrown in at the end of a section that deals with the minting coins used for small change as well as novelty coins made of silver and gold.
Advocates of the trillion dollar coin idea propose that the U.S. Treasury seize upon this broadly worded clause and create one or more platinum coins with a face value of one trillion dollars. This coin(s) would be deposited at the Fed and the Treasury would proceed to write checks or otherwise debit its account funded in this fashion.
It is quite clear that subsection of 31 USC 5112 in the numismatic legislation approved by Congress was never conceived of to enable the sort of shenanigans contemplated by the trillion dollar coin proposal. Indeed, it is very safe to say that it never occurred to the legislators that such mischief could be dreamed up, much less seriously considered for implementation. Nonetheless, proponents of this idea argue that subsection of 31 USC 5112 is drafted in such a way that does not technically preclude it.
Apparently oblivious or otherwise indifferent to the notion that the original intent of a law could have any legal or moral bearing on the matter, commentators all over the web have waxed positively giddy about the purported brilliance of this solution.
Proponents of The Trillion Dollar Coin idea essentially argue three things on its behalf:
- They claim that this is a “legal” way to avoid a potential economic calamity caused by dysfunction of the democratic system.
- They argue that the idea will “work,” in the sense that the Treasury will be able to pay its bills.
- They argued that the creation of money by the U.S. Treasury in this fashion is analytically almost indistinct from the manner in which the Fed already creates money via open market QE-type operations; the only thing that changes is the name of the government agency that is doing the “printing.”
Evaluating the Trillion Dollar Coin Idea
Let us analyze this proposal.
Let us set aside for the moment whether The Trillion Dollar Coin proposal is viable from legal perspective and could withstand judicial review. Furthermore, let us also set aside any arguments about whether the proposal would “work” in the narrow sense that the Treasury would be able to pay its bills. Even granting those assumptions, several considerations remind of us why this proposal is a testament to the capacity for human folly.
1. Makes an utter mockery of the rule of law. People need to understand that there is a very profound distinction between a society governed by the rule of law and a society governed by legalism. Anybody that is familiar with the study of jurisprudence knows that history is replete with examples of regimes which arbitrarily ran roughshod over the rule of law while adhering strictly to the doctrine of legalism – Nazi Germany being a prime example studied by virtually every student of the philosophy of law.
In any regime, because of the inevitable conflicts, gaps and ambiguities inherent in any system of laws, almost any arbitrary injustice can be deemed legal through a strict application of legalism. Whereas the rule of law is concerned with neutral application of certain fundamental principles of justice, legalism is an instrument of power wielded to advance particular interests through the legal system. Legalism is a doctrine sometimes employed by well-intentioned, but ultimately naïve, individuals that wish to utilize the law and its authority to advance causes they believe to be just and/or expedient. This, however, is ultimately the same doctrine employed by evil individuals to advance causes that they believe are just and/or expedient, utilizing the law and its authority to make what is precluded to appear legal; to make what is immoral appear ethical; and to make what is absurd appear rational.
If subsection of 31 USC 5112 can be utilized to implement this Trillion Dollar Coin scheme, then there is virtually no outrage or injustice that cannot be carried out by U.S. leaders in the name of some law or another on the books.
2. Flagrantly violates democratic principles and institutions. A plain reading of democratically approved U.S. legislation and institutions reveals, beyond any doubt, that:
- The U.S. treasury must finance any amount of government spending in excess of government revenues via the issuance of debt;
- The U.S. Treasury must seek congressional approval to issue debt beyond a certain level.
- The quantity of the monetary base in the U.S. is to be set by the Federal Reserve.
There are very important reasons why democratically elected legislators enacted these laws and designed monetary institutions the way they did. In particular, U.S. monetary institutions were explicitly designed to limit the ability of the U.S. Treasury from issuing money, thereby creating a clear separation of powers between the tax and spending authority on the one hand, and the monetary authority on the other. You can like or dislike the system but this is the system that has been put in place through a system of representative democracy over a period of about 100 years.
If a loophole such as the one found in subsection of 31 USC 5112 can be utilized to overturn 100 years of democratically guided institutional development then there is no institution in U.S. constitutional democracy that is safe. There is not a single institution or law in the U.S. that could not be brought crashing down by a legalistic interpretation of some law or another. Don’t believe me? Do an internet search on the controversies surrounding the ratification of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th amendments, for example. What you will learn if you study these examples is that there exist extremely sound legal(istic) arguments that prove that the constitutional amendments that outlawed slavery, that provided citizens with the right to equal protection and due process, that guaranteed the right to vote, enabled the Federal government to collect income taxes and that provide for the direct popular election of senators, were never properly ratified according to the strict procedures established in the constitution and other enabling legislation and therefore that these constitutional amendments are legally null and void.
Want to live in a legalistic dystopian society where the 13th through 17th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution could be swept away by the executive in an instant citing technicalities and loopholes? Want to live in a society where no right nor institution is safe from legalist self-annihilation? Then go right ahead keep advocating for that Trillion Dollar Coin.
3. Destroys a fundamental cornerstone of a sound modern economy. Advocates of so-called “Austrian” economics don’t like independent central banking because they say that generally too much money is created. Advocates of so-called “Modern Monetary Theory” don’t like independent central banking because they say that not generally enough money is created. Only one thing is certain: Independent central banking is a fundamental pillar of all existing modern liberal societies governed by the rule of law. Furthermore, this is an institution that finds very strong support in economic theory, political theory and the empirical record of modern history.
The Trillion Dollar Coin proposal essentially blows the principle of central bank independence to smithereens. Therefore, it is right for democratic citizens to expect that fundamental changes to the institution of independent central banking should be brought about through the democratic process and not through legalistic subterfuge.
4. Destroys the currency. Advocates of the Trillion Dollar Coin claim that there is little difference between the U.S. Treasury issuing money and the Fed issuing money [but that is simply not the case for two reasons:]
- The claim simply ignores the importance of the principle of separation of powers and the importance of checks and balances. Vast empirical evidence demonstrates that this has substantive long-term implications, not merely procedural ones.
- If the U.S. Treasury could issue a trillion dollar coin to finance its spending, it would be creating money that has absolutely no fundamental backing. By contrast – and contrary to popular belief – when the Fed engages in QE-type open market operations, it is not “creating money out of thin air.” The Fed is tendering one valuable asset (money) in exchange for another (U.S. Treasury bond). The Federal Reserve notes (money) are a liability of the central bank that is “backed” by an extremely valuable and powerful asset (the ability of the U.S. government to tax any and all assets in the U.S. economy) that in many ways can be worth more than gold. Thus, all money issued by the U.S. central bank is backed by very valuable assets. By contrast, any money issued by the U.S. Treasury under the Trillion Dollar Coin proposal would not have any such backing. The economic (e.g. supply and demand of money) and psychological implications of this distinction for the value and stability of the U.S. dollar are profound.
The proponents of the Trillion Dollar Coin say that their proposal:
- is “legal” and/or that “it will work”
- would be preferable to enabling the consequences that might arise from the U.S. running into the debt ceiling.
These arguments completely miss the point.
Weimar Germany was widely considered to be one of the most democratic, humane and “progressive” societies in the West at that time, backed by a legal system and institutions considered throughout the world to be exemplary. To this very day, legal scholars marvel at the ability of Hitler’s administration to take the preexisting system of laws in Germany and use it to erect a monstrous and arbitrary tyranny. Hitler’s administration was hugely popular because its policies “worked” (in stark contrast to the situation under the parliamentary gridlock experienced prior to Hitler’s arrival) and they were accepted because they were technically “legal.”
If subsection of 31 USC 5112 can be utilized to implement the trillion dollar coin scheme, then there is virtually no outrage or injustice that cannot be carried out by U.S. technocrats and leaders under the guise of enforcing some law or another.
…Just for the record, I do not believe that the culture of the USA has reached a level of depravity that would enable a proposal such as The Trillion Dollar Coin to be considered seriously to any significant degree, much less be enacted. One would really have to wonder about the long-term health of any society where a proposal such as The Trillion Dollar Coin idea were taken very seriously….[Indeed,] any healthy society would treat this sort of idea with a proper dose of bemusement and/or disdain. In fact, one might be able to use this episode as a litmus test of the overall societal health of US culture as regards to the shared commitment to the rule of law and liberal institutions.
Sign up HERE to receive munKNEE.com’s unique newsletter, Your Daily Intelligence Report
- Contains the “best of the best” financial, economic and investment articles to be found
- Presented in an “edited excerpts” format to provide brevity & clarity to ensure a fast & easy read
- Don’t waste time searching for articles worth reading. We do it for you!
- Sign up HERE and begin receiving your newsletter starting tomorrow
Editor’s Note: The author’s views and conclusions are unaltered and no personal comments have been included to maintain the integrity of the original article. Furthermore, the views, conclusions and any recommendations offered in this article are not to be construed as an endorsement of such by the editor.
Another take on this is that taxes will have to be RAISED especially on the Ultra Wealthy, since they are the only ones that can (will be able to in the future) afford it.
With the COLA now officially at 1.7% it means all those on Social Security are now being left by the side of the Fiscal Highway.
How about those looking forward to retiring “soon,” if the retirement age gets increased then each of these folks will be “TAXED” about $13,000 because of the delay in receiving their SS benefit (~$1,000+ per month).
If access to Medicare is raised to 67 instead of 65 all these same people will have to self insure their own health instead of being to access Medicare benefits.
Who is left to tax beside the younger workers that now have much less benefits and job security that “our parents did,” so they will vote for increased taxing of, you guessed it, the rich instead of themselves!
The GOP better take a good look into their fiscal crystal ball and start making a much higher percentage of voters see things their way or they will continue to lose elections, except in States where the “machine” still controls election outcomes, there the poor will get much poorer!