The Week magazine had a discussion of two proposals to reduce the deficit by changing the currency. The main one was replacing the dollar with a coin, and the other one was stopping the production of pennies.

A penny costs two cents to be made by the government. For those who have not done graduate work in economics, I will point out that means we lose a penny for every penny minted.

Paper dollars move fast, and one lasts an average of three years. But in order to get a new dollar from one that is falling apart, you have to send that dollar, and presumably a number of other destroyed dollars, to the US Treasury Unlike the penny, the government makes money by printing dollars because very seldom does anybody bother to send a shredded dollar to the Treasury.

So the government makes money by printing dollars because those who have worn out or torn dollars throw them away. The Week did not mention this point, probably because they didn't know it.

After discussing these profound issues, The Week reported breathlessly that the only people who seemed interested in these profound Treasury proposals for the dollar and the penny were, respectively, the printing industry and the metals industry.


Back in 1976 I published a book a major theme of which was the fact that, in the real world, the left is not made up of the idealists National Review argued with, but of a giant interest group just like any other active in government.

You see, in dedicating itself to arguing about abstract ideology and using untranslated French phrases, National Review, like The Week, was out in lala land.

I wonder how it feels out there in that little world made up of commentators?

Who ELSE would give a flying horse hockey about ending the penny and, once again, trying to impose a metal dollar?

And for all those years until my book came out, respectable conservatives didn't even NOTICE that, when government spends hundreds of billions of dollars, somebody RECEIVES hundreds of billions of dollars.

The entire leftist persuasion, from professors to bureaucrats to "activists" like the left's Uncle Tom in the White House, make their livelihood either on money that comes directly from government or from money that is donated by organizations which are deductible from GOVERNMENT taxes.

Like our pro-white leaders who just don't GET the Mantra, the respectable conservative just didn't GET the relationship between government money and the people who live on it.

I did get it across, people understood the point, and Reagan won big in 1980.

My whole life seems to be devoted to dragging the paid leadership out of lala land.