Skip to main content

The issue of whether the Fed can really refuse to accept and credit a deposit of a platinum coin with its face value, is being raised frequently on blog posts about Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PCS) and the Trillion Dollar Coin (TDC). In the past, I've argued that the Fed cannot; and the final decision on taking the TDC off the table was actually made by the President, and not by Chairman Bernanke.

Ellen Brown, the well-known author of The Web of Debt, and also of this recent post on fiat money, direct financing of federal spending, and using platinum coin seigniorage made this comment in a discussion thread at Monetary Realism:

Per the Fed’s website (or maybe it was the Treasury’s), a gas station can reject a $100 bill before the gas has been pumped. You only have to accept legal tender after the service has been rendered or good delivered. The Van Nuys Flyaway won’t take dollar bills. Apparently then the Fed can reject a tender before it has rendered the banking services involved. It’s a privately-owned bank, after all!
Here's my reply to this comment.

The coin being presented to the Fed isn’t tendered as payment for services, or for a product. It’s a coin being tendered as a deposit into the Treasury General Account (TGA). Also, note these three considerations.

First, the Treasury Department is mandated to deposit its money into Fed accounts if it wants to enter the banking system. So unlike the gas station; the Treasury can’t find another bank; and it needs a bank to spend and implement Congressional appropriations. A Fed regiional bank, such as the New York Fed, in turning down a coin, would be refusing to perform a duty it contracted for to serve as the depository of the funds of the Treasury Department and the US Mint. I don’t think it can do that and remain a regional Fed bank.

Second, even though the regional Feds are privately owned banks; they cannot behave in ways that contravene the policy of the Board of Governors, a Federal Agency, and they are very tightly regulated by that Board. So, the regional NY Fed, the bank that has the Treasury General Account (TGA) will not be making any such decisions on its own authority. Additionally, in agreeing to house the TGA, the New York Fed has contracted to serve as the sole banking agent of the Treasury Department with respect to its spending account.

Somehow I don’t think the sole banking agent of the United States Treasury Department has the legal right to turn down a deposit of legal tender, and refuse to credit its face value in the Treasury’s own checking account. Imagine what the liability of that “private” bank would be to the US Government, if as a result of any such action, the US would be forced into defaulting on some of its payments and decided to sue the NY Fed for consequential damages. Not a pretty picture, and not a risk that the NY Fed would want to take w/o an explicit and specific instruction from the Board of Governors.

And third, consider the Board of Governors and the Chairperson of the Fed. What would they do? Well, they’ll tell the Secretary that they don’t want to do it. But if they say no; and the Treasury Secretary orders them to accept and credit the coin; then what? Then this:

12 USC § 246 – Powers of Secretary of the Treasury as affected by chapter
Nothing in this chapter contained shall be construed as taking away any powers heretofore vested by law in the Secretary of the Treasury which relate to the supervision, management, and control of the Treasury Department and bureaus under such department, and wherever any power vested by this Act in the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal reserve agent appears to conflict with the powers of the Secretary of the Treasury, such powers shall be exercised subject to the supervision and control of the Secretary.”
So, one of the powers vested in the Secretary of the Treasury before creation of the Federal Reserve system was certainly to spend its legal tender into the economy. But to do that under an arrangement where the Fed is its bank, requires that the Fed deposit and credit its legal tender into its spending account, the TGA. So, I think it follows that under 12 USC 246 the Secretary has the authority to order the Federal Reserve to credit that coin so Federal spending can proceed. If the Fed Chair still refuses, then the President can remove the Fed Chair for cause (12 USC 242)

And as beowulf has pointed out, the Fed really doesn’t want to go to Court over this because they risk a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality due to the Unitary Executive theory, which, in this case, may well have the support of some of the most conservative justices. My own view here, is that the Fed would not even make it to the Court because they’d be denied standing under 12 USC 246, if the Treasury Secretary also ordered them not to contest his order legally.

If you read through the discussion thread where Ellen Brown left her comment, you’ll see that both Philip Diehl, former Director of the US Mint under President Clinton, and Carlos Mucha (beowulf, or beo), the lawyer who first proposed the use of PCS and the TDC, and the author of the blog post, believe that no Secretary would treat the Fed this way. But what if the Secretary were ordered by the President to do it? And what if the President were somebody like FDR or LBJ? Then I think it could happen; and depending on how tough things get in the next few years who knows what Obama will do?

After all he’s the guy with the drones. And the guy who throws people under the bus when he thinks he has to. So, why wouldn’t he throw Bernanke under the bus too, if he thought he needed to? Just sayin'!

(Cross-posted from New Economic Perspectives.)

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    limpidglass, Jim P, katiec

    the reason Obama wouldn't throw the fed under the bus is because his private finance bosses wouldn't let him.  They also won't let the publicans throw the WORLD economy into a tailspin.  So it's austerity kabuki for everybody, every three months, until a publican is president, then it'll be heh, indeed and tut-tutting about the full faith and credit as they finance more wars on the credit card.  It's all to get our social security checks anyway.,  Once they have the money, thanks will all die down.

  •  What is needed for the US to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

    establish a national bank of its own? I imagine an Act of Congress, but maybe not. Maybe a decision by the Executive/Treasury is sufficient. I really have no clue.

    Markos! Not only are the Gates Not Crashed, they've fallen on us. Actual Representatives are what we urgently need, because we have almost none.

    by Jim P on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:05:34 AM PST

  •  I'm a bit shocked by the boxquote, actually. (0+ / 0-)

    I haven't looked at a $100 recently, but I thought all our money had something like 'Legal tender for all debts public and private' on it.  Now I can see that up until you pump the gas, you haven't actually incurred a 'debt', so maybe that's what they're basing that boxquote on.

  •  The Fed is an instrument of Congress, (0+ / 0-)

    not the Executive Branch.  The Fed is an independent Federal agency, which means it answers to Congress and not the President.  This means that it is very likely that the Supreme Court would rule that the Fed most certainly can reject a coin presented to it by the US Treasury.

    •  It is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Nevertheless, Congress has specified where the boundaries are between the Fed and the Executive Branch; and what will happen in case of disagreement. The law I've cited above seems quite clear and it says that the Fed Chairman will bow to the Secretary when their is a disagreement between them about legal interpretations. Notice also, that the law also says that the President can fire the Fed Chair for cause, another way in which the Fed's independence from the Executive Branch is limited.

      Also btw, there had better be some ways in the which the Fed's independence is limited by the Executive Branch, because if, as you imply, there are really none, then the Executive has a perfect case for challenging the Fed law as creating an unconstitutional agency of government; i.e. an agency that performs Executive functions while being clearly outside the Executive Branch. Please remember that the Constitutions i quite clear on the point that there are only 3 branches of Government, and that all Executive functions are to be performed by the Executive Branch!

      •  Until the establishment of the EPA, (0+ / 0-)

        virtually all regulatory functions of government were provided by independent agencies established by Congress for the regulatory purposes, not b y the executive branch.  This is a well known fact of US government history (Vocino is the policy studies scholar of note on this).  The first was the Federal Trade Commission.  Another was the Federal Reserve Board.  The idea that regulation, of which the Fed is a part as a banking system regulator) should be an executive branch responsibility at all is relative new in US history, dated to the Nixon administration for the most part, although FDR made some attempts at it as well.

        No complete independence, of course, ever exists in a system of checks and balances such as ours, so no such implication should be drawn.  However, there is no reason to suppose that the Fed is performing any Executive functions in its role of regulating banking (historically a legislative function), or conducting monetary policy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site