Posted on 08/21/2010 7:17:45 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Today, the U.S. Treasury released a $1 coin commemorating former President James Buchanan. And people aren't happy about it.
To understand why, some background is helpful. In 2007, thanks to a bill promoted by then-Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, the Treasury began minting $1 coins with the likenesses of former Presidents, starting with George Washington.
The coins -- which have been appearing ever since, featuring a new President every three months -- are meant to improve use and circulation of America's dollar coins, which are often seen as an awkward misfit among currency, neither fish nor fowl.
Sununu's initiative drew inspiration from the 50 State Quarters Program, which launched in 1999. The runaway success of that effort, according to his legislation, "shows that a design on a U.S. circulating coin that is regularly changed... radically increases demand for the coin, rapidly pulling it through the economy."
The bill also suggested that a program wherein Presidents are featured on a succession of $1 coins, and First Spouses commemorated on gold $10 coins, could help correct a state of affairs where "many people cannot name all of the Presidents, and fewer can name the spouses, nor can many people accurately place each President in the proper time period of American history."
So the bill passed, and the Washington dollar coin appeared not long after. It was followed by Adams, Jefferson, et al., with the First Spouse coins minted alongside.
Now we're up to Buchanan, the fifteenth President, who took office in 1857 and turned things over to Abraham Lincoln in 1861, and whose coin (produced at the Philadelphia and Denver Mints and purchasable through the U.S. Mint website) has occasioned the aforementioned grousing. Here's where some feel the coin program is falling short:
1. The coins aren't circulating.
Many Americans have never gotten into the habit of using $1 coins, and as a result, over a billion commemorative Presidential coins are sitting around in a stockpile at the Federal Reserve. As BBC News reports, if these coins were stacked up and laid on their side, they'd stretch for 1,367 miles, or the distance from Chicago to New Mexico.
2. They don't seem to be educating people, either.
In February 2008, a year after the first presidential coins were minted, The New York Times reported that a survey had found large numbers of American teens to be woefully ignorant of their country's history. It was far from the first time Americans had gotten a dismal grade in history, suggesting that Sununu's commemorative-coin campaign isn't having much of an effect in that arena, either.
3. James Buchanan was kind of a crappy president.
In fairness, this is a grievance with a specific president, not the presidential coins program as a whole. Still, it seems to come up in all the coverage of the new coin: Buchanan wasn't very good at his job.
That's the consensus of historians, anyway, who have traditionally censured Buchanan for his failure to prevent the Civil War. Last year, a C-SPAN survey of historians granted Buchanan the dubious distinction of worst president ever.
Still, all of this isn't reason enough to declare the commemorative-coins program a total failure. If more coin collectors start avidly pursuing the presidential coins, it could have the effect of pushing down the national debt, thanks to the way the value of the coins fluctuates with their availability. And if the dollar coins were to catch on and replace paper $1 bills entirely, it could save the country between $500 and $700 million each year in printing costs.
Plus, if things stay on track, 2012 will see the release of the Chester A. Arthur dollar coin -- marking the first time that long non-commemorated president's face has ever appeared on any nation's currency. And who are we to deprive him of that?
Did you do anything about it? Need a kick in the pants?
Internet Wannabes Suck.
Where would you be without Southron bullshit? Without a single thing to post apparently.
You have that wrong. Everyone knows the real reason why Dixie hasn't floated away by now. It's because the South sucks.
The demographic North to South migratory shift of Yankee vermin over the last half century proves you point,unfortunately.
you=your
We think of the migration more as 'thinning the herd'. All the dumb, obnoxious, and rude ones drift South. Enjoying them?
As a Southerner, I am NO CONFEDERATE. I call it the "war of southern stupidity".
Why are you still there then?
"War of Southern Rebellion" is probably the most accurate title.
Nothing “civil” about it.
Rebellions seldom are. But I would defy you to point out a single instance where the leaders of a rebellion suffered less and were incorporated back into the body politic faster than the Southern United States.
Because I'm one of the smart ones. And if you consider me obnoxious and rude it's only because I return rudeness and obnoxiousness in kind.
But answer me this. I was born and raised in the North and other than the military I have lived by whole life in the North. Why would I want to move South any more than you would want to move North?
Moreover, why would the North and South want to remain as the same county? Clearly cultural differences as well as untenable political differences at this point are glaringly obvious and impossible to overcome.
I deal with "Yankee" liberals all the time at my work. They have no idea how I really feel about their kind. I can be charming as hell if I want, even to those people.To tell you how bad it is one guy has this hanging on his work area; I have to look at it everyday.
Do you mean where would we be without posting the truth?
Why, we'd be in your world, left posting nothing but lies, spin, red-herrings, political correctness, revisionism and northron mythology.
As ns and the coven are fond of posting: ROTFLMAO!!
YANKEES SUCK
You never did answer my question. Let's give it another try:
Are you a 'total war' advocate? For example, do you believe that the US military should wage 'total war' in Afghanistan?
----------------------------------------------
Typical libtard. Attack the messenger because the message is uncomfortable, and filled with truisms. Is it true ? Of course it is... and you know it.
Mike you seem obsessed with us, I thought we were unworthy, stupid throw backs, why all the attention from you? Are you a psycho?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.