Liberal Debt Accumulation May Need Liberal Solution
Keith Rulli
HUM 111
1-13-2012
Stephanie Washington
Liberal Debt Accumulation May Need Liberal Solution It is a mind-blowing thought to think of the U.S. Treasury having legal authority to to mint a coin and give to it any denominational value, the only condition being that the coin is created consisting not entirely of but including an amount of platinum, thus resulting in a platinum coin. In this case, the value is $1 trillion. The fact that such a coin, and strategic approach to deal with the debt burden on the shoulders of the U.S. government is unprecendented does make the idea interesting in theory. It is a viable option except in consideration of the potentially catastrophic consequences. The coin itself is just a novelty possession and a fancy trifle to associate a vast sum of money with. In the hands of an ordinary person, the coin would only be worth as much as it's highest bidder is willing to pay or it's weight in platinum if it were to be melted down. For this reason the idea, proposal, and strategy, freaks people out even if only at first when unexamined on its merits. A news article titled, "The Magic Deficit Coin" published on a conservative online news source, Human Events, conveys the sense of magical thinking that is associated with the theory perceived as unrealistic in terms of a solution to a very real debt (Hayward, 2013). Similarly, a news article titled, "The Platinum-coin Option," from a liberal online news source noted the idea as a "crackpot idea," "too weird to be taken seriously," and "wacky" (The Economist, 2013). The sense of humor was however more prevalent in the article written from the conservative point of view in which the author John Hayward entertained notions of fantasy solutions. While the article does provide some pertinent insight into how America's financial system works, no references to conservatives, liberals, Republicans, or Democrats were made despite the fact that essentially issues of the governments budget are political. In fact, the article from the liberal point of view mentions conservatives in the first sentence and mentions liberals in the second sentence. The opening statement reveals a parallel between the conservative and liberal views that emphasize the utilization of metals in the nations's financial pursuit of prosperity. The difference between the views is simply that conservatives favor the gold metal standard and the established monetary system while liberals have found a loophole that would allow the government to exploit the value of a newly minted platinum coin. This article also identifies the proposal with the Liberals (The Economist, 2013). The article from the liberal point of view comprehensively explains the reasons for and the purposes of the proposal. It's message is expressed in a more positive tone while admitting conclusively that it has very weak prospects. The article from the conservative point of view explains in more depth the consequent problems to the economy that would result. At times the rhetoric that is used not only censures the proposal but also gives many other details that give it a strongly opinionated quality. Both articles provided important details about how the proposal would be implemented. It is a complicated situation with several main factors in the equation: the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve, Congress, the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution, and President Obama. The details pertain to their responsibilities and liabilities. Both articles mention an upcoming deadline at which time the Treasury will lose its legal authority to incur new government debt and the current danger of default. Both articles mention the debt ceiling issue in Congress which involves the financing of the governments debts. One minor discrepancy I detected between the two articles is that in the conservative view authored by John Hayward, the 14th
