Feb 18, 2012 | commentary, policy
There is an old adage that the two things you should not talk about in polite company is sex and politics. While it is easy to avoid talking about sex when discussing numismatics, it is nearly impossible to avoid the periodic discussion of politics when discussing what happens before United States coins are manufactured. All other countries, the mint or the central bank has the authority over coinage in the same manner that the Federal Reserve has over the printing of paper currency. While there are a few laws to govern their processes, coin content, and how the money is distributed, the United States stands alone as the only country where the entire coin manufacturing process is codified in its law.
Discussion of the politics of United States coin production came back in my previous post, “Figures Never Lie But A Liar Figures” where I wrote that Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) asked the GAO for a specific slant on their report regarding the benefit of the coin versus paper accusing him of playing politics in the light of his heated re-election campaign. Comments both public and private accused me of acting in various self interests for political reasons.
First and foremost, this is not a political blog. My look into the politics behind the actions of congress, the laws they pass, and how they go about passing those laws are in the view of the collector of the coins being produced by the U.S. Mint. The views expressed here are favorable to the collector and the collector’s interest especially since I am collector.
To answer quite a few private emails, I am not a member of any political party. I am registered as “not affiliated” in the State of Maryland, a closed primary state. I have not been registered as a member of any political party in nearly 30 years and will not change this in the future. Also, the link about the heated campaign between Sen. Brown and Elizabeth Warren was supposed to be to another story at boston.com about the race—but the stories are so fluid that I cannot find the original link. I apologize for using the wrong link and have removed it from that posting.
But when discussing the manufacturing of money, I have to remind everyone that the U.S. Mint cannot strike any coin or medal that has not been prescribed by law. If the coin or medal has not been voted on by congress, signed by the President, argued over by the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, then it will not be produced by the United States Mint. That is a lot of politics from the idea for a coin up until the dies are made to manufacture the coin. You can read more about this process in this story that was published in Numismatic News
When a GAO report about coins or currency is issued and the media grabs onto it like a dog grabs a bone only to find out there is more gristle than meat in the story, I will comment on it here. If the issue has a political slant to it, I apologize, but that is the nature of how the money manufacturing process in the United States works and cannot be avoided. The only way to remove the politics from the money manufacturing process is to privatize the U.S. Mint and change many of the current laws (United States Code Title 31, Subtitle IV, Chapter 51, Subchapter II ) to give the reorganized mint more authority. As I have written in the past, privatizing the U.S. Mint is not a good idea. Thus, we are stuck with the politics.
Feb 2, 2012 | coins, policy, shows
During Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s (D) State of the State Address in front of the Maryland General Assembly, he outlined his vision for the state and how it will support its citizens. As a resident, I was interested in what Governor O’Malley said because of some of the rumored policy initiatives.
Like every other state, Maryland needs to raise money in order to fulfill state current state obligations without considering new initiatives. O’Malley, who is in his second term and has not shied away from talk about seeking a federal office, put forward an aggressive agenda that includes “revenue enhancers” to pay for his proposal.
One revenue enhancer is one that was defeated last year: the repeal of the sales tax exemption for coin sales of more than $1,000, bullion, and coin shows. According to the Budget Highlights published by the governor’s office, it is estimated that repealing the exemption will bring in an addition $3 million in revenue.
One difference between the bill introduced in 2011 and this one being proposed by the governor is that last year’s bill was introduced late in the session making it easier for delegates to prevent it from being reported out of committee. This year, the bill will introduced early, possibly this week, giving legislators the entire session to work on its provisions.
I received a note from David Crenshaw, General Manager of Whitman Expos as I did last year talking about this proposal. Once again, Whitman is saying that if the law was repealed they would likely move their shows “to a friendlier state with no sales tax.” This would effect the loss of ancillary taxes at hotels, restaurants, and other establishments in the Inner Harbor that would be generated by show participants.
While the proposed tax change is yet another example of a government not looking at the collateral damage that may be caused by this type of proposal, I do not agree with Crenshaw that now is the time to act. Since the bill has not been introduced in the legislature for consideration, referencing an issue without a bill to associate it with will not make an impact. With the limited time that the legislature is in session (four months), comments need to be concise and germane to the legislative agenda—basically a bill that has been introduced. This was confirmed to me after a conversation with one of my representative to the General Assembly.
I will oppose this bill and some of the other “revenue enhancers” that will have regressive effects on Maryland’s economy. Once the bills are introduced and assigned bill numbers, I will have something specific to tell my representatives my opposition.
Jan 2, 2012 | ancient, legal, policy
Start your new year off right and help the ancient coin collectors in the United States!
On December 17, I posted “First They Came For The Ancient Coins…” about the State Department accepting public comment on the extension of the Memoranda of Understanding with Cyprus by the State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). The deadline for submitting comments is on January 3, 2012—TOMORROW!
Recently, the American Numismatic Association joined the cause. “We are deeply concerned that ever-expanding import restrictions have gravely damaged the ability of American citizens to learn about ancient cultures through handling common ancient coinage of the sort that is avidly collected worldwide,” ANA President Tom Hallenbeck said. “Such regulations, to the extent they exist at all, should be narrowly tailored to restrict goods that could only be the product of looting from archaeological sites. Coins cannot meet this test. By their nature, ancient coins have circulated far from their place of origin, have been extensively collected throughout the world in modern centuries, and like common mass-produced items, ancient coins do not normally have any verifiable provenance.”
To submit comments three pages in length or less electronically, go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0135-0002.
For more information and ideas of what to say, please reread my earlier post.
Allowing the State Department to entertain these types of actions should be abhorrent to any collector because if it begins with the ancient coins, then where does it stop? To borrow the concept from Pastor Martin Niemöller’s “First they came…”:
First they came for the ancient coins,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a ancient coin collector.
Then they came for all foreign coins,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a foreign coin collector.
Then they came for the obsolete currency,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a obsolete currency collector.
Then they came for the pattern coins,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a pattern coin collector.
Then they came for my silver and gold United State coins,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Make it your resolution to help maintain the hobby for all of us!
Dec 17, 2011 | ancient, legal, policy
I am sharing the following from Wayne G. Sayles, Executive Director of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). Please read my comment following Wayne’s letter.
The following is an extremely important message from Peter K. Tompa, ACCG Board Member and Chairman of the Legislative Affairs Committee:
Fresh on the heels of its deliberation over import restrictions on coins from Bulgaria, the US State Department has now announced a hearing on extension of the MOU (Memoranda of Understanding) with Cyprus that is now up for its 5-year renewal. The Cultural Property Advisory Committee is seeking public comment on the renewal request To submit comments electronically to the State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), see below:
Those present restrictions bar entry into the United States of the following coin types unless they are accompanied with documentation establishing that they were out of Cyprus as of the date of the restrictions, July 16, 2007:
- Issues of the ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 332 B.C.
- Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C. (including coins of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, and his Dynasty)
- Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D.
Why bother to comment when the State Department rejected CPAC’s recommendations against import restrictions on Cypriot coins back in 2007 and then misled both Congress and the public about its actions? And isn’t it also true that although the vast majority of public comments recorded have been squarely against import restrictions, the State Department and U.S. Customs have imposed import restrictions on coins anyway, most recently on ancient coins from Greece?
Simply, silence just allows the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment to claim that collectors have acquiesced to broad restrictions on their ability to import common ancient coins that are widely available worldwide. And, of course, acquiescence is all that may be needed to justify going back and imposing import restrictions on the Roman Imperial coins that are still exempt from these regulations.
Under the circumstances, please take 5 minutes and tell CPAC, the State Department bureaucrats and the archaeologists what you think.
How do I comment? To submit comments three pages in length or less electronically, go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0135-0002.
If you are having trouble, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), enter the Docket No. DOS-2011-0135 for Cyprus, and follow the prompts to submit a comment. To send comments via US Mail or FEDEX see the directions contained in the Federal Register Notice above. For further information, also see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html.
What should I say? The State Department bureaucracy has dictated that any public comments should relate solely to the following statutory criteria:
- Whether the cultural patrimony of Cyprus is in jeopardy from looting of its archaeological materials;
- Whether Cyprus has taken measures consistent with the 1970 UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;
- Whether application of U.S. import restrictions, if applied in concert with similar restrictions by other art importing countries, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and that less drastic remedies are not available; and,
- Whether the application of import restrictions is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.
(See 19 U.S.C. § 2602(a).) Yet, collectors can really only speak to what they know. So, tell them what you think within this broad framework. For instance, over time, import restrictions will certainly impact the American public’s ability to study and preserve historical coins and maintain people to people contacts with collectors abroad. Yet, foreign collectors-including collectors in Cyprus-will be able to import coins as before. And, one can also remind CPAC that less drastic remedies, like regulating metal detectors or instituting reporting programs akin to the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, must be tried first.
Be forceful, but polite. We can and should disagree with what the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment are doing to our hobby, but we should endeavor to do so in an upstanding manner.
For more information about these issues, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/
Please submit comments just once, before the deadline on Jan. 3, 2012.
With best wishes and thanks for your support,
Wayne G. Sayles
Executive Director
From Scott: I am not a collector of ancient coins, but as a member of the numismatic community, it bothers me that the State Department has been capitulating to nearly every foreign government regarding artifacts that have been in worldwide circulation for hundreds or thousands of years with no issue. Suddenly, when countries appear to have an issue with the United States, they appear to be using peripheral means to try to take action against the U.S. and its citizens. Allowing the State Department to entertain these types of actions should be abhorrent to any collector because if it begins with the ancient coins, then where does it stop?
To borrow the concept from Pastor Martin Niemöller’s “First they came…”:
First they came for the ancient coins,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a ancient coin collector.
Then they came for all foreign coins,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a foreign coin collector.
Then they came for the obsolete currency,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a obsolete currency collector.
Then they came for the pattern coins,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a pattern coin collector.
Then they came for my silver and gold United State coins,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Speak now before they come for your coins!
The letter was sent via email by Wayne Sales on December 15, 2011. It was reformatted to fit in this space and some information links were added.
Dec 14, 2011 | coins, dollar, policy
With the furor over the large number of dollar coins sitting in the Federal Reserve vaults, estimated to be over $1.4 million by a Federal Reserve report, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner exercised his his authority to “mint and issue such number of $1 coins of each design selected under this subsection in uncirculated and proof qualities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate,” (31 U.S.C. § 5112(n)) and will cease to strike dollar coins for circulation. Dollar coins necessary to meet circulation demand will be drawn from existing inventory. The U.S. Mint will strike dollar coins to meet numismatic demands.
Announced as part of a blog post on the Treasury website by Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal S. Wolin, those wishing to purchase future Presidential $1 Coins will be able to purchase them directly from the U.S. Mint starting with the Chester A. Arthur dollar in Spring 2012. Prices and shipping costs will be announced in the near future.
Although this may be seen as a significant move, there is precedent for reducing striking of coins to primarily meet numismatic demand. Using a current example, the last time the U.S. Mint struck the Kennedy Half-Dollar for circulation was in 2001. In 2001, only Denver struck coins were delivered to the Federal Reserve.
Touted as part of President Obama’s executive order that established the executive branch’s Campaign to Cut Government Waste, Treasury estimates that this measure will save at least $50 million annually. Wollin wrote that this is, “the right decision for taxpayers. And going forward, we’ll continue our work to identify additional opportunities to support President Obama’s critical objective to cut waste and improve efficiency across government.”
I wonder if this move will keep any of those bills to eliminate the Presidential $1 Coin Act from even being heard in committee?
Oct 21, 2011 | ancient, legal, policy
I received this in email and thought it was important enough to reprint here.
This message is being transmitted on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) concerning an urgent matter that affects all collectors of ancient coins.
What is being asked of you is to take 5 minutes to write a comment to the State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee via a website. Please submit your comment once by the deadline of November 2, 2011, 5pm EST.
Please consider sending this to any coin collector you know:
The US State Department is seeking public comment on a new request for import restrictions made on behalf of Bulgaria. To submit comments electronically to the State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), go here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0115-0001. For further details of the request, see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html.
What is at issue? Despite President Obama’s efforts to foster government transparency, the State Department has not indicated whether coins are part of the request. Nonetheless, based on recent history, it is probable that import restrictions on coins will be proposed. As a practical matter, this means the State Department and US Customs may be considering restrictions on tribal coinages from Thrace, coins of Greek city states like Apollonia Pontica and Messembria, Roman provincial coins struck at Bulgarian mints, and even some Roman Imperial coins. It’s also possible that any restrictions will include later coins as well. Though details are few, the public summary the State Department has provided indicates that Bulgaria seeks import restrictions on objects from 7500 B.C. to the 19th c. AD. If restrictions are imposed on coins, many common types will likely become so difficult to import legally that they will become unavailable to most collectors.
Why bother? Large numbers of coin collectors have made their concerns known to CPAC. Recently, 70% of the comments CPAC received on an MOU with Greece were from concerned coin collectors. Even though recent extensions of import restrictions to certain Greek and Roman Republican coins from Italy and on coins from Cyprus despite the vast amount of public comment make it easy to become cynical, public comment can at least help moderate demands for import restrictions. For example, the archaeologists actively sought import restrictions on Roman coins as well during the discussions about the Italian MOU, but they remain exempted, and thus easy to obtain on the open market, likely due to the 2000 or so faxes CPAC received from concerned collectors.
What should I say? Tell the State Department and CPAC what you think about the bureaucracy’s efforts to deny you the ability to collect common ancient artifacts that are available worldwide. You might also might consider noting that coins from Bulgarian mints are common and often very inexpensive. Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands exist in collections around the world, and because of the low price the vast majority of these coins will never have been through an auction and will have no verifiable provenance.
If you are having trouble commenting from the direct link above, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search on docket number DOS-2011-0115. Further information about regulation.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the dockets, is available on the site under “How To Use This Site.” Kindly note that your comments will be public so avoid conveying any personal information, and, of course, be polite in commenting on the issue.
Please submit comments just once, before the cutoff of 5:00 PM EST Nov. 2, 2011.
NOTE: Click this link to see the Notice of Receipt of Cultural Property Request From the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria.
From a note sent by vauctions.com.
May 23, 2011 | commentary, gold, policy, silver
In recent months, there has been a call to either push for a gold standard or watch as states introduces bills coin their own money in response to the economy. On the extreme, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill that proposes repeal legal tender laws that will essentially bring the country back to the chaos of the United States pre-constitutional economies. Many of these arguments are interesting with some good and bad ideas, but they do not take into consideration issues of basic math.
If a proposal to move the United States to either a gold, silver, or bi-metal standard passes, we will probably see the biggest economic contraction in history because there is not enough gold or silver in the country’s storage in order to cover the total money supply.
First, in calculating the country’s value of gold and silver holdings, we find that according to the 2010 United States Mint Annual Report [PDF], there are 245,262,897 troy ounces of gold stored in the United States Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Kentucky. This amount has not changed in recent memory. In the Mint facility at West Point, nicknamed the “Fort Knox of Silver,” the country owns 7,075,171 troy ounces of silver. But what they worth?
Determining the worth of the metals in storage is an interesting exercise. If we valued the government’s total holdings in accordance with statutory requirements, gold is valued at $42.22222 per fine troy ounce (see 31 U.S.C. § 5117(b)) and silver is values at least $1.292929292 per fine troy ounce (see 31 U.S.C. § 5116(b)(2). Although these values are much lower than what the markets value these metals, when the federal government counts its assets, gold and silver is based on numbers written into law.
Valuing these metals based on their market value, gold is worth $1,514.20 per troy ounce and silver is $35.16 per troy ounce (New York prices when the market closed on May 20, 2011). These values significantly raise the value of the government’s holdings. Using these numbers we can calculate the United States’ total holdings as:
|
Gold Statutory Value |
Gold Market Value |
Silver Statutory Value |
Silver Market Value |
| Inventories (troy ounces) |
245,262,897 |
245,262,897 |
7,075,171 |
7,075,171 |
| Valuation per Troy Ounce |
42.2222 |
1,513.20 |
1.292929292 |
35.16 |
| Total Value (in millions) |
$ 10,355 |
$ 371,205 |
$ 9,148 |
$ 247,985 |
| Total Statutory Value: |
$ 10,365 million |
| Total Market Value: |
$371,453 million |
This means that the amount of money the economy can have is over $371 billion. This seems reasonable until we look at the total amount of money that in economy.
Economists have several ways of calculating the money supply in an economy. The Federal Reserve used M1 and M2 as their basis of analysis. M1 is a narrow measure of money’s function as a medium of exchange. In other words, it is the purchase power of all liquid or near liquid assets. M2 is a broader measure that reflects money’s function as a store of value. For the Federal Reserve, M1 is basically the supply of ready cash. M2 consists of M1 plus other deposits that are not as readily available, such as savings and retirement accounts. The economists at the Federal Reserve are constantly updating these numbers to determine how well the economy is doing.
According to the Money Stock Measures published by the Federal Reserve on May 19, 2011, at the end of April 2011, the seasonally adjusted M1 money supply was $1,901 billion meaning that there is just under $2 trillion of ready cash in the economy. The M2 money supply, the count of all cash, is $8,945.7 billion.
When calculating what is needed to back the United States currency with precious metals, this is where basic mathematics shows the potential failure of the policy. If such a policy requires the instant conversion of all ready cash (M1) to be backed by metals, only the first $371 billion of the nearly $2 trillion could be converted. In other words, in order to back every dollar with the country’s store of metals, we are over $1.6 trillion dollars short. To cover the entire money supply (M2), there is a $7.2 trillion shortfall. Simply, there is only enough gold and silver to cover about 5-percent of all cash and equivalents in the United States economy.
In order to break even on the conversion, the country would either have to acquire precious metals on the open market, issue $7.2 trillion in bonds that had to be backed by precious metals to a world that does not have those kind of assets, or find a way to revaluate the dollar so that the total money supply can be covered by the $371 billion in physical assets.
And this only covers current assets. It does not account for any growth!
Regardless of how the metals advocates justify their positions, it would be impossible to back the entire economy with down payment of 5-percent.
May 22, 2011 | BEP, dollar, policy
Last March, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative research arm of the legislative branch, issued a report with the alliterative title “Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Provide a Financial Benefit to the Government” (GAO-11-281 [PDF]). The report opens by saying that “According to GAO’s analysis, replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin could save the government approximately $5.5 billion over 30 years. This would amount to an average yearly discounted net benefit—that is, the present value of future net benefits—of about $184 million.”
In 2008, I posted a similar analysis of the benefit of using “Paper v. Coin Dollars” with the political reasons of that time as to why the paper dollar would continue to be printed. Although the political landscape have changed, the will of the politicians to make this change does not exist.
Last month, a coalition that includes Brink’s, Inc., independent car wash operators, and public transportation officials responded against the GAO report citing the alleged logistical issues and increased costs in handling a dollar coin versus paper.
On their side opposing the sole use of a $1 coin is the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. They cite the differences in the weight and the public’s attachment to the paper dollar. In a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in 2006 found that while 54-percent thought the Presidential $1 Coin thought the program was a good idea, 79-percent said that they do not want the coins to replace the paper dollar.
The political and economic environment has change. The GAO’s report bolstered the Dollar Coin Alliance, who has reportedly spent $250,000 to lobby congress since December. With the emphasis on the budget, a plan to find ways to generate revenues with little political risk has the concept of eliminating the paper dollar being taken seriously. This has the anti-coin dollar coalition worried.
Another factor working against the anti-coin dollar advocates is the loss of a major ally in congress. The late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) did not want to see the paper dollar eliminated because it would hurt the Dalton, Mass. based Crane & Co.. Crane is the sole supplier of currency paper that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing uses to produce the one dollar note. John Olver (D-MA) represents the the Massachusetts First Congressional District that includes Dalton.
Although the political environment favors the elimination of the paper dollar, the risk adverse members of congress will look at the 2006 poll and probably not vote to eliminate the paper dollar. Unless key congressional leaders agree that ending the printing of the one-dollar note is in the best interests of everyone, including their political careers, the political reality is that printing of the dollar note is here to stay.
Dollar note image courtesy of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Dollar coin image courtesy of the U.S. Mint
Apr 20, 2011 | commentary, currency, policy, video
Should the United States stop producing $100 bills? According to Timothy Noah, a senior writer at Slate and contributor to CBS Sunday Morning, thinks so. Here is the report that Noah filed for CBS Sunday morning on April 3, 2011:
While a compelling argument but it is not a viable one. Because the U.S. Dollar is the most stable currency even considering our current economic situation, $100 notes will be hoarded overseas and will continued to be counterfeited. It has been reported that rogue nation states like North Korea have successfully counterfeited the $100 note which is why the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is working on its redesign. Having these note continue in circulation could endanger the U.S.
Further, it is doubtful the European Union will discontinue the $euro;500 note even though it is nicknamed “the Bin Laden.” The EU central bank would love to have the euro become the standard currency, the currency all economies are based. It would give more clout in the world markets and provide more incentives for the EU bankers to convince the worldwide commodity markets to price their goods and trade in euros, not dollars.
It is a different world from 1969 when the U.S. government ceased production of the $500 note. Between new counterfeiting measures and the technology to better investigate criminals, the U.S. Secret Service is better able to bring counterfeiters to justice and work with other law enforcement organizations to stop criminals. It is not a perfect system, but making any move that could lower the U.S.’s financial status with the rest of the world will not be well received in Washington.
Apr 8, 2011 | BEP, legislative, policy, US Mint
If congress cannot settle on a budget to keep the federal government operating past midnight on Friday, April 8, the U.S. Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing will continue to operate. Even though both agencies are bureaus under the Department of the Treasury, both are funded through their respective Public Enterprise Funds. The Public Enterprise Funds contains the seignorage (profits) made from the manufacture of the money.
Although Treasury Department has not made any official announcements, the U.S. Mint did send a note to their employees in February. U.S. Mint employees were told that “unless specifically instructed otherwise, United States Mint employees are required to report to work as usual even if there is a government-wide shutdown.”
Regardless of what the non-federal political leaders say, the Washington, D.C. area is a essentially a company town. In addition to the agencies based in the District, there is a significant federal presence in Maryand and Virginia that will impact the communities where they are located. A shutdown will affect the area as far north as Baltimore, Fredericksburg to the south, and many border towns in West Virginia that host “remote” federal facilities. This does not include the commercial contractors that provide support and services to many federal agencies. I saw one estimate that said 80-percent of the DC Metro Area would be affected by a government shutdown.
I know I am not objective on this subject because it is personal. Not only will a government shutdown hurt the economy of everyone in the region, but it can affect me personally. Since my current project is essential in the long term it is not essential for the short term operations of the government. This means I could be furloughed with my colleagues a lot of other people in a similar situation.
Television news shows us stories about the small towns that lost its mill, plant, or factory and its economy crashes. The stories are all the same, the facility closes and the small town of a few thousand is devastated—almost to the point of turning it into a ghost town. If that happened to an area with over 5.5 million people, what will be the economic impact to the entire nation?
While I agree that we need to fix the budget, get rid of government waste, and figure out how to get out of debt for the overall economic health of the nation, drastic measures are not the way to do it. Very few people can kick any habit “cold turkey” and neither can the government. It will just bring pain and suffering to the people who will not have the money manufactured by the U.S. Mint and BEP to circulate in the economy necessary to promote growth.
Loading ...