Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Philip Diehl, Former Head of the US Mint Addresses Confusion Over the Platinum Coin Idea

Recs

3

January 08, 2013 – Comments (1)

This is a must read

-------------------------

Philip Diehl, Former Head of the US Mint Addresses Confusion Over the Platinum Coin Idea
from PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM by Cullen Roche
http://pragcap.com/philip-diehl-former-head-of-the-us-mint-addresses-confusion-over-the-platinum-coin-idea


Philip Diehl, former head of the US Mint and co-author of the platinum coin law comments on the recent confusion and discussions over the use of the platinum coin.  This is a must read:

I’m the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff who, with Rep. Mike Castle, wrote the platinum coin law and produced the original coin authorized by the law. Therefore, I’m in a unique position to address some confusion I’ve seen in the media about the $1 trillion platinum coin proposal.

* In minting the $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years. The Secretary’s authority is derived from an Act of Congress (in fact, a GOP Congress) under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8).

* What is unusual about the law (Sec. 5112 of title 31, United States Code) is that it gives the Secretary complete discretion regarding all specifications of the coin, including denominations.

* Moreover, the accounting treatment of the coin is identical to the treatment of all other coins. The Mint strikes the coin, ships it to the Fed, books $1 trillion, and transfers $1 trillion to the treasury’s general fund where it is available to finance government operations just like with proceeds of bond sales or additional tax revenues. The same applies for a quarter dollar.

* Once the debt limit is raised, the Fed ships the coin back to the Mint, the accounting treatment is reversed, and the coin is melted. The coin would never be “issued” or circulated and bonds would not be needed to back the coin.

* There are no negative macroeconomic effects. This works just like additional tax revenue or borrowing under a higher debt limit. In fact, when the debt limit is raised, Treasury would sell more bonds, the $1 trillion dollars would be taken off the books, and the coin would be melted.

* This does not raise the debt limit so it can’t be characterized as circumventing congressional authority over the debt limit. Rather, it delays when the debt limit is reached.

* This preserves congressional authority over the debt limit in a way that reliance on the 14th Amendment would not. It also avoids the protracted court battles the 14th Amendment option would entail and avoids another confrontation with the Roberts Court.

* Any court challenge is likely to be quickly dismissed since (1) authority to mint the coin is firmly rooted in law that itself is grounded in the expressed constitutional powers of Congress, (2) Treasury has routinely exercised this authority since the birth of the republic, and (3) the accounting treatment of the coin is entirely routine.

* Yes, this is an unintended consequence of the platinum coin bill, but how many other pieces of legislation have had unintended consequences? Most, I’d guess.

Philip N. Diehl

35th Director

United States Mint

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_N._Diehl

The post Philip Diehl, Former Head of the US Mint Addresses Confusion Over the Platinum Coin Idea appeared first on PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM.

1 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 08, 2013 at 7:27 PM, outoffocus (23.59) wrote:

I dont know...Sounds like a slippery slope.  I'm just wondering how long before I'm buying trillion dollar bread.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement