Blog Post

Blogs review: The trillion-dollar platinum coin option to the debt ceiling

What’s at stake: What started as an arcane idea on a finance blog a couple of months ago – that the debt ceiling crisis could be averted by exploiting a legislation designed to govern the issuance of commemorative coins, which allows the Treasury to mint platinum coins, and only platinum coins, in any denomination – has moved center stage in the punditry debate and gone viral on Twitter under the hashtags #MintTheCoin and #StopTheCoin.

By: Date: April 20, 2013

What’s at stake: What started as an arcane idea on a finance blog a couple of months ago – that the debt ceiling crisis could be averted by exploiting a legislation designed to govern the issuance of commemorative coins, which allows the Treasury to mint platinum coins, and only platinum coins, in any denomination – has moved center stage in the punditry debate and gone viral on Twitter under the hashtags #MintTheCoin and #StopTheCoin. The idea has gotten so much traction that U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) announced plans to introduce a bill to modify the current legislation on commemorative coins to prevent such a scheme and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney came under heavy fire during the daily news briefing to give the official position.

An absurd solution to an idiotic problem

Ezra Klein gives a refresher: to avoid running into the debt ceiling in the next couple of months, the Treasury secretary could exploit a legal loophole, create a platinum coin, assign it a value of $1 trillion or some other very high number, and deposit it at the Fed, thus enabling the government to carry out its previously promised tax and spending policies without broaching the legal cap on debt issuance.

Carlos Mucha – who first articulated this option in a 2010 comment on Brad DeLong’s blog according to history of the idea put together by Devin Smith – wrote that the Treasury isn’t authorized to just “print” money, the Federal Reserve Act gives that power to the Fed. However, the Coinage Act grants the Secretary of the Treasury rather broad coin seigniorage authority.

Interfluidity has the legal background: here’s the law, the relevant bit of which — subsection (k) — was originally added in 1996 then slightly modified in 2000.

The Secretary 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.”

Here is appropriations committee report from 1996, see p. 35; and legislative discussion of the 2000 modification.

Philip Diehl – the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff wrote the platinum coin law – writes on the Wonkblog that writes that 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.

Laurence H. Tribe (HT Paul Krugman) – Professor of Law at Harvard University – thinks it makes no sense to think about this as some sort of “loophole” issue. Using the statute this way doesn’t entail exploiting a loophole; it entails just reading the plain language that Congress used. The statute clearly does authorize the issuance of trillion-dollar coins. First, the statute itself doesn’t set any limit on coin value. Second, other clauses of 31 USC §5112 do set such limits, but §5112(k) — dealing with platinum coins — does not. So expressio unius strengthens the inference that there isn’t any limit here. Of course, Congress probably didn’t have trillion-dollar coins in mind, but there’s no textual or other legal basis for importing this probable intention into the statute.

Implementing the idea

Greg Ip writes that coins are a liability of the Treasury, not a liability of the Fed, and are therefore not part of the monetary base. In fact, in economic terms, coins are analogous to perpetual, zero coupon Treasury bonds. The Treasury can issue coins to the public and use the proceeds to finance the budget, just as if it issued bonds.

Monetary Realism writes that if Treasury were to mint and then deposit a $ 1 trillion Platinum Coin at the Federal Reserve, its deposit account at the Fed would be credited with $ 1 trillion in new balances.

One option might be for Treasury to buy back Treasury debt now held by the Fed (assuming appropriate available supply from Fed inventory). That would drop utilization under the current debt ceiling by $ 1 trillion, allowing Treasury to “reload” on new Treasury issuance. This would allow Treasury to execute already authorized spending without the overhang of imminent debt ceiling “negotiations”. One disadvantage of that approach is that it constrains the Fed’s flexibility in using Treasury bond inventories to best advantage in a complex monetary policy environment. Those inventories would suddenly drop.

The other option is for Treasury to conduct already authorized spending from a now flush bank account balance at the Fed. Then, that money would gradually find its way into the deposit liability and reserve accounts of the banking system. The resulting gradual increase in bank reserve account balances is a form of quantitative easing. Instead of buying bonds, the Fed has bought the coin.

Philip Diehl – the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff wrote the platinum coin law – writes on the Wonkblog that 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. Once the debt limit is raised, the Fed could ship the coin back to the Mint where the accounting treatment would be reversed and the coin melted. The coin would never be “issued” or circulated and bonds would not be needed to back the coin.

#MintTheCoin

Ryan Avent writes that the first oddity is the debt ceiling: it is possible for the government to pass spending and tax bills, which lead to an illegal amount of accumulated debt. Once the tax and spending choices are made, the resulting debt load is a fait accompli, a residual. Yet said elected officials have also seen fit to pass a law declaring that debt must fall below a specific limit. Mike Konczal writes that, technically, we’ve already breached the debt ceiling on December 31st, but Treasury has started extraordinary measures to juggle payments and borrow money.

Paul Krugman writes that Barack Obama will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious. So if the 14th amendment solution — simply declaring that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional — isn’t workable, go with the coin.

Ryan Avent writes that the most compelling argument for the solution is that while it seems both risky and bonkers it is less risky and bonkers than a continued series of showdowns over the debt limit, any one of which might send America into recession or worse. Avent further notes that there is a proud history of presidents doing monetarily "crazy" things with generally salutary effects. The best examples are the decisions by Presidents Roosevelt and Nixon to suspend gold payments.

Mark Thoma writes that the key to winning the public battle is to make absolutely sure the public knows that it is only being done because the other side refuses to play fair, refuses to play by the explicit and implicit rules of political engagement. Putting John Boehner’s face on the coin, as Paul Krugman suggested, would certainly be a step in that direction.

#StopTheCoin

Felix Salmon writes that there’s a reason why the proponents of the platinum-coin approach are generally economists, or at least economically-minded. The idea makes gloriously elegant economic sense, and attempts to shoot it down on economic grounds generally fail miserably. You can try a legal tack instead, but that doesn’t work much better: the coin is as logically robust as it is constitutionally stupid. But this move would effectively mark the demise of the three-branch system of government, by allowing the executive branch to simply steamroller the rights and privileges of the legislative branch.

Kevin Drum wonders if this is really the road liberals want to go down. Do they really want to be on record endorsing the idea that if a president doesn’t get his way, he should simply twist the law like a pretzel and essentially do what he wants by fiat?

Ezra Klein writes that the interesting question is whether that would show up, either immediately or over time, in the form of higher borrowing costs. I suspect it would, even if not immediately, but this is the realm of guesswork.

Trading bad ideas

Josh Barro writes that Barack Obama should offer to sign a bill revoking his authority to issue platinum coins – so long as that bill also abolishes the debt ceiling. The executive branch will give up its unwarranted power to print if the legislative branch will give up its unwarranted restriction on borrowing to cover already appropriated obligations.

Mike Konczal writes that, instead of a trillion-dollar coin, what if the president said, "I have a constitutionally obligated responsibility to carry out the spending Congress has authorized. I have no legal authority to prioritize payments, and the process is too risky for us to try. Therefore I will mint a $20 billion coin each day until Congress raises the debt ceiling. That is just enough to make the payments Congress has required me to make." It takes the trillion out of the headline. The focus is back on day-to-day spending rather than higher-level arguments about whether or not the United States government can run out of money. With actual speechwriters, the pitch could make sense to the public.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Topics

Tags

Comments

Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

Blaming the Fed for the Great Recession

What’s at stake: Following an article in the New York Times by David Beckworth and Ramesh Ponnuru, the conversation on the blogosphere was dominated this week by the question of whether the Fed actually caused the Great Recession. While not mainstream, this narrative recently received a boost as Ted Cruz, a Republican candidate for the White House, championed it.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 1, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

IMG_20151009_103117 (3)
Pia Hüttl

Lost in assumptions: assessing the economic impact of migrants

What’s at stake: Many research institutes have estimated the economic impact of migrants, in particular regarding fiscal budgets and the labour market. These studies often give contradictory results. This blogs review looks at the different assumptions and approaches behind these results.

By: Nuria Boot and Pia Hüttl Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 18, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

The use of models by policymakers

What’s at stake: The latest discussions on the blogosphere have been dominated by a back and forth trialogue between Larry Summers, Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong on the appropriate use of models as policy guides. While they all agree that the Fed’s decision to raise rates was a mistake, they disagree on the intellectual reasons behind it.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 11, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

Finland and asymmetric shocks

What’s at stake: Finland exemplifies the difficulty of dealing with asymmetric shocks within a Monetary Union as the Finnish economy has struggled to recover from a series of idiosyncratic shocks – the decline of Nokia, the obsolescence of the timber industry, and the fallout of the Russian crisis.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 21, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

The predictability of political extremism

What’s at stake: The rise of the extreme right in the latest French election has mostly been treated as surprising or reflecting special circumstances like the November 13 Paris attacks. But a large literature linking extreme right votes to persisting depressed economic conditions suggests that longer run factors are at play.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 14, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

The puzzle of technical dis-employment and productivity slowdown

What’s at stake: Larry Summers made an important speech a few weeks ago at a Peterson Institute conference on the productivity slowdown arguing it is hard to see how recent technical change could both be a major source of dis-employment and not be associated with productivity improvement.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 7, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

Unlearning economic paradigms

What’s at stake: Both the crisis, its aftermath, and the empirical econ revolution have changed our understanding of economics. Conventional wisdoms about the supply side of the economy, the length of the short run, or the international adjustment process are all being challenged. Even conventional microeconomic wisdoms about the role of minimum wages and welfare programs are being challenged by new data raising questions about how economics should be taught and used to guide policymaking.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: November 30, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

augustin_lagarde

The economic debates behind COP21

What’s at stake: France will chair and host the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) at the end of the year. While the scientific community has reached a consensus that climate-warming trends are very likely due to human activities, the discussion about how to address is mired in huge political disagreements.

By: Augustin Lagarde Topic: Energy & Climate Date: November 23, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

The persistence of slow growth

What’s at stake: The persistence of slow economic growth in the Great Recession has been puzzling. Two recent papers have tried to present a coherent framework for understanding this phenomenon. The first paper argues that we may have underestimated the importance of hysterisis effects. The second paper argues the global safe asset shortage cannot be resolved by lower world interest rates once we reach the zero lower bound. It is instead dissipated by a world recession that rebalances global asset markets.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 16, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

The uncertain decline of the natural rate of interest

What’s at stake: Controversies over whether and by how much the natural rate of interest – the rate compatible with full employment and stable prices – has declined in the past few years has shaped views about the pace and extent to which central banks should normalize policy rates.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: November 9, 2015
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

QE and investment

What’s at stake: Quantitative Easing has been criticized for generating inflation risks, financial stability risks, and distributional risks. The newest criticism from Kevin Warsh, a former Fed Governor, and the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate Michael Spence is that QE actually reduced investment!

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: November 2, 2015
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Uuriintuya Batsaikhan
Pia Hüttl

The global debt overhang

What’s at stake: Seven years after the financial crisis, recovery is still weak in most parts of the global economy. The general debt overhang across sectors, which was not reduced in the last years, has often been cited as as the main factor weighing on global growth and inflation.

By: Uuriintuya Batsaikhan and Pia Hüttl Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 26, 2015
Load more posts