E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA $1 trillion platinum coin will not be minted as a way of sidestepping the debt ceiling, the Treasury and the White House said Saturday.
The idea has been floated as a way to avoid a bruising fight in Congress over raising the ceiling. Among the proponents is Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman.
“By minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all,” Krugman said in a column in The New York Times.
But the White House and the Treasury nixed that on Saturday.
"Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit," Treasury spokesman Anthony Coley said.
And the White House said in a statement issued by Press Secretary Jay Carney: "There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or it can fail to act and put the nation into default. When Congressional Republicans played politics with this issue last time, putting us at the edge of default, it was a blow to our economic recovery, causing our nation's credit rating to be downgraded. ... Congress needs to do its job."
Proponents of the coin have said they want to avoid a repeat of the near-self-induced default by the U.S. Treasury in July 2011. That battle caused the stock market to fall, cost the U.S. its Triple-A credit rating and produced the still ticking “fiscal cliff" budget time bomb.
The government has hit its $16.4 trillion borrowing limit, The Associated Press notes, and could begin running out of money by late February or early March.
On Friday, Senate Democratic leaders urged President Barack Obama to act unilaterally to increase the nation's debt limit, without congressional approval. But the White House has been loath to assert broad executive privilege to increase the amount of money the government is able to borrow in order to cover its obligations.
NBC News' John Schoen and Michael O'Brien contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Let it go bankrupt and shut down. Put some of these politicians out on the street along with about 50 million on welfare. None of them are worth what they are getting. That will show them.
I am convinced this country is have a complete financial collapse because of the policies of the democratic white house. Blame the Republicans because they want to balance the budget and not raise the debt limit. Good luck with that.
How about you left wingers convince me where I am wrong and tell all of us right wingers how the government intends to pay for all this deficit spending?
how come the house keeps voting resolutions that put us into debt? The president can't spend money without congressional approval. The GOP has shown a wonderful ability to run up debt too.
that's where you are wrong. both parties suck fiscally. The old GOP is dead.
Vermont.......Because they are foolish and actually think that democrats care about the future of the country. They keep buying into the lies and empty promises. The GOP are far from being fiscal conservatives as well.
Wow. What a great idea. At the current price of platinum the coin would have to weigh in only at a little over 30 million pounds. While we're at it why not mint a coin worth 16.4 trillion dollars and this would solve the whole U.S. debt problem. Even better, let's mint a coin worth 20 trillion and we could kick in an extra few grand for each family in America. They should make me treasury secretary... this is just too easy.
No coin is worth the amount printed on it based upon the materials it is made from. All world currencies are backed by the governments that issue them. There isn't enough precious metals in the entire world including that still in the ground to back the world's currencies.
That's the whole reason we came off the gold standard. We just didn't have the reserves to pay everyone who was trying to cash in, the piggy bank would have been empty.
"Congressional Republicans played politics with this issue last time", . . . again a false premise masquerading as fact, and used to justify the opinion piece, an oft-used liberal tactic that starts their herding instinct. The opposition was to going into greater debt. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with Liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other people's money".
well, the GOP isn't particularly full of fiscal conservatives anymore either. They love to spend too. How many GOP governors have turned down federal money, stimulus funds, etc?
The trouble with "conservatives" is that sooner or later they will run out of taxes to cut and crony spending (like defense) to increase.
happy now? :)
Vermont.....Once the money has been approved, the governors would be negligent if they didn't participate. The money was going to be spent anyways.
And that is pretty much the situation with the current debt ceiling. The moneys have already been spent in the form of spending bills passed by the Congress that cause government funds to be spent at a higher rate than revenues are taken in. The whole plan to hold the debt ceiling hostage is for future spending cuts but that is a dangerous game to play due to the devastating effects on the economy if a shut down lasts for any extended period of time.
I agree it is a dangerous game to play, but someone has to force people to be responsible in DC. Ignoring the problem like we have will end up being much worse for the economy.
Congress voting to raise the debt ceiling is ludicrous. They already voted when then spent the money. It’s like voting to put it on the credit card, then voting again to make the credit card payment.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress has to vote on the debt ceiling. It’s just a tradition. You know, like the GOP making up their own facts when things don’t go their way.
It is more than just tradition. It is law. Why are liberals so gullible and ignorant of the facts? Please get educated.
Unfortunately it is a law that is creating a potential Constitutional crisis. The spending has already been authorized and the President cannot refuse to spend it as that usurps the role of Congress. Unilaterally raising the debt ceiling is also unconstitutional since a law requires Congress to approve a raise in the debt ceiling but is probably the lesser unconstitutional path to take if it gets that far.
So what prevents Congess from unauthorizing the spending? Other than the fact that they haven't passed an actual budget in years. We are not stuck spending money that we don't have...
Congress needs to do something to stop the spending. The time you vote to pay the bills is the perfect time to start the discussion about budgeting.
PutAmericaFirst
agree, but how long does it take the dem to put together a budget?
Congress can indeed vote to reduce spending after the fact. There are examples in previous years where the budget bills were held up and continuing resolutions passed. When the actual budget passed, some agencies saw reduced spending authorized compared to the continuing resolution.
Just as an aside, there is no Constitutional nor legal requirement for a President to actually submit a budget. If the President does so, it is simply a request that the Congress can do with as they please. They can approve it, modify it or even ignore it completely and pass their own. The President can then sign or veto what Congress passes. I am not sure when it became common practice for the President to submit budgets but it has not always been that way.
I only made it two-thirds of the way through this article before I passed out, dizzy from the left handed spin.
Just keep spending more than you take in. Libs did your pay check happen to get a little smaller on pay day, after the promise of not raising taxes on the middle class? Your job will properly be next with the higher taxes and extra business expenses that will have to be paid. It's going to be just like the last of the good old Clinton days. IS THERE GOING TO BE A BUDGET THIS NEXT 4 YEARS?? OR IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER BLANK CHECK.
I have a novel idea .....How about the Democrats giving us a budget for the first time since they have controlled the Senate?
If it was ever a good idea - well, then just mint a...1 centillion coin (600 zeroes) as opposed to the puny 12 zeroes in the trillion - and that will fix everything!
Honestly though - this idea was proposed by someone that won a nobel? Really?
Sad thing is - it appears to make more sense to Washington than say, the lunacy of...a balanced budget...
Us taxpayers have to balance our checkbooks - and if we write a hot check, we pay for it - and, if it's bad enough - we can go to jail for it. Our government CAN'T write a check that doesn't bounce - and they just keep making up more money to cover for it.
Our government, for years, has been running it's own little Ponzi scheme. They KNOW it's going to fail - but they are going to keep throwing money at it to keep it up as long as possible - making the inevitable crash worse as each day goes by.
Hell, why mint a coin. I have an empty beer can here. Slap a post it note on it and call it good for 100 trillion.
With the kind of logic that we see here - is it NO WONDER that we are in the financial shape that we are in?
The rich - and their house of cards. All coming together when they are making a serious attack on gun rights - how...convenient....
When I first heard this story I thought it was a joke. Unbelieveable that even the Democrats would consider it.
Not really.
The dim leader of the Senate, Harry Weed, has REFUSED to allow a budget in 4 years.
Obama has increased the federal debt from $10 Trillion to $16.5 Trillion in 4 years knowing he will bankrupt the country and his Dim friends go along with no protest.
Dims want the U.S. to go bankrupt......there is NO other explanation.
Congress has increased the debt, the President can only spend what Congress authorizes.
Hey Mickey
What happens when the President spends the money in 6 months instead of a year? Does the Gov't stop working then?
slodon,
That would all depend upon why the money had to be spent in 6 months instead of 12. About the only time I have seen that happen is when there was unexpected or unplanned drains on an agency's budget. Examples would be increased military operations in response to external events or a series of major disasters that caused FEMA to spend more than had been allocated. In these cases, the President goes back to Congress for additional spending authority for the affected agency. This is one of the reasons a Balance Budget Amendment is not a very good way to run a government. It leaves the government with unpalatable options to deal with contingencies. That is also one of the reasons the Constitution allows the government to issue instruments of debt. The problem is that the leaders of our government for largely political reasons have taken no steps to rein in spending during times a deficit is not needed.
.
I fear we are headed the way of Greece. There are far too many people not paying attention and continue to vote for the same philosophy that brought down Greece. Usually I suggest working together to try to solve problems, but with the democrats refusals to address our problems with the economy or the debt I almost feel like telling the GOP to just shut it down and give them a small taste of what our future will be if we continue down the course of the democrats.
The 14th amendment: Congress shall pay it's bills.
RoadKill
Why is it the Dems HAVE to follow the 14th Amendment, but can do whatever they want with the 2nd Amendment?
Get obama to sign an EO saying that they only have to pay the bills over say... a 700 Billion.
OH COME ON!!
"Little Big Headed Timmy" can stamp one out for his daddy!
After all, he printed a trillion in monopoly money, whats one more before he leaves office.
This once proud nation has gotten to the point where the politicians don't even need to pretend to do their jobs, anymore. The Dem controlled Senate just laughs at us.
Basically what I get out of this is that the "solution" they wanted to implement was to symbolically create...as in completely make up, fabricate...1 trillion dollars in what is effectively imaginary money, deposit into the bank, and then pay all their bills and debts with it. I say "symbolic" and "imaginary" because this single platinum coin would not be worth anywhere near $1 trillion...they'd just be saying it was.
Hell, I'd like to try this with my rent, with my gas and water bills, etc etc. I'll just grab some of the money from my kids' Monopoly game and send them to the bill collectors along with a note saying "please accept this as symbolic payment on my account. The government does it, so why can't the rest of us?"
Yes, let's keep spending and let's keep printing money. We have NOTHING to fear. Print away!!
Somehow I wasn't surprised that Paul Krugman would be one of the proponents of an Idea like this.
But I thought Pigotry was a Democrat?
She started the thread with Republicon rants...
No magic beans, now what?
Perhaps Harry Reid could consider the merits of trying to pass a budget.
Gumby. More signs of the POOR schools in AZ.
The debt limit is for MONEY ALREADY SPENT.
It put in terms you will understand:
Last month you went to Best Buy and bought a new TV, and put it on your Credit Card.
Today, you got the credit card bill.
"raising the debt limit" is if your wife will let you pay off the CC. If she says "NO", it impacts your credit score, and it makes it hard to get a new car loan. You are simply paying for something you already bought. And that's what the US Debt limit means.
Do I need to get you pictures to color so you can really understand? Those AZ schools....
america's founding comrades;
frank marshall davis - saul alinski - george soros - francis fox piven - anthony van jones - bill ayres
bernadine dorhn - rev wright - valarie jarrett - david axelrod - cass sun stein - andy stern - annita dunn
america's motto: share the wealth, fair, forward (copyright infringement, communist manifesto).
america's first dear leader, comrade obama.
oop's I miss spelled comrade obama's amerikka!!!!
Gary. How many times did Reagan and GW Bush each raise the debt limit?
I'm not concerned about Presidents Reagan or Bush, at this time!!!
comrade obama is the issue at hand???
The better question is when was the last time we exceeded the debt versus GDP, It was during/after WWII, During Reagan the debt versus GDP was less than 50%, During Bush(GW it reached a high of just under 70%, Our current debt to GDP is now over 103%. So while Reagan and Bush both raised the debt limit the debt never exceeded the GDP or even came close and yes there is no doubt that 2 wars did cause those debt limit increases just as the Revolution The War of 1812, The War with Mexico, WWI WWII,Korea,Viet Nam and every other war we have ever been involved in raised the public debt. The problem is not that we have debt, It is that we have debt that exceeds our ability to make payments on anything but the interest on the loans.
With the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in the 14th amendment, if the tea stains in the House vote down raising the debt limit, they violated the Constitution and their oath, and can be impeached.
And their actions will destroy the US economy.
So it is Ok for Obama to hold the country hostage by threatening veto but if the Republicans try to use it for leverage to reduce spending they are treasonous.
So let’s check out how Obama did on his campaign promise to raise taxes on the top 2%. Did the legislation he signed into law by auto-pen raise taxes on the top 2%?? No it did not! Well then maybe he raised taxes on the top 1%?? Not exactly! It turns out that taxes have been raised on only those with the top 0.7% of incomes and then not fully back to the Clinton era rates. Even billionaires are getting a tax cut. But why should anyone be surprised at Obama's failure to fulfill another campaign promise since we all know that Obama is "math challenged". I'm sure Pelosi called Obama in Hawaii and told him to just sign the bill; he could read it and find out what was in it when he returned from vacation. Then he could have Timmy present to explain everything to him. What a hoot!
I wonder if Obama would reject a Platinum Coin if his picture on it. Hardcore Liberals look up to their "Dear Leader".
You are just proof of why AZ schools always rank in the lowest 3. Even behind Alabama!
Nah, they already have EBT cards coming out with his picture on them.
Poor Herron, He has no argument so he/she has resorted to insults.
Mint an Unobtanium coin, that stuff runs 20 million a kilo; way more than a platinum coin! Hell, it doesn't matter how much the material is worth, so long as you slap a value on it.