By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump announced on Truth Social his directive to halt the production of new pennies, citing the minting cost exceeding the coin’s value. This decision aligns with the administration’s broader cost-cutting agenda, aiming to eliminate wasteful government spending. The President claims the cost of producing each penny is over two cents. The order was issued to the Treasury Secretary, effectively ending the minting of new one-cent coins.
Read the original article here
Trump says he has directed the Treasury to halt the minting of new pennies, citing the cost as the primary reason. This move, while seemingly straightforward and even agreeable to many, immediately sparks a debate about presidential authority and the separation of powers. The assertion that the cost of minting pennies outweighs their value is a point of contention for some, who emphasize that the actual savings would be relatively small – in the millions rather than billions of dollars annually. Others argue that the potential for corporations to leverage this change to subtly increase prices, effectively transferring the “savings” from taxpayers to businesses, is a considerable risk.
The crux of the matter, however, transcends the economic debate. Many observers strongly question the legality of Trump’s action, pointing out that the power to regulate currency, including the minting of coins, is explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution. This raises concerns that Trump is once again overstepping his executive authority, a pattern that has sparked criticism throughout his political career. The act, regardless of its perceived merits, may be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the legislative branch and consolidate power in the executive. This action invites legal challenges and further fuels the ongoing discussion about the limits of presidential power.
The proposed solution of a one-time penny buyback at a premium (110% of face value) is suggested as a more efficient alternative to ceasing minting altogether. This approach would remove excess pennies from circulation without the need for a presidential fiat and would potentially minimize the risks associated with the sudden disappearance of a common form of currency. Buyback programs have been successfully implemented in other countries facing similar issues, offering a precedent for a less contentious solution.
The widespread agreement on the inefficiency of the penny is undeniable. Many commenters, including those who strongly disagree with Trump on other issues, point out that the penny’s cost to produce surpasses its face value, rendering it a financially unsound element of the currency system. The comparison to similar successful coin removal programs in other countries, such as Canada’s elimination of the penny years ago, is frequently made, demonstrating the viability of such a move.
However, the positive sentiment towards the concept of removing the penny is strongly intertwined with the method employed. The consensus is that achieving this goal requires congressional action, not a unilateral executive order. The lack of a formal legislative process is seen as a major flaw. This lack of due process raises concerns about the precedent it sets, regardless of whether one agrees with the underlying idea of removing the penny from circulation. Concerns abound about the potential for such actions to destabilize the existing system of checks and balances inherent in the American political structure.
Interestingly, this is an instance where many people can find common ground on a policy solution, but vehemently disagree on the method and its legality. The resulting discussion highlights a significant issue: while there might be broad agreement on a specific policy outcome, the constitutional and procedural aspects of how that outcome is achieved remain crucial for upholding the principles of democratic governance. The controversy surrounding this seemingly minor economic issue thus underscores a larger discussion about appropriate limits on presidential power and the importance of legislative processes. Even seemingly universally accepted changes must follow established legal pathways. The debate transcends simply getting rid of the penny; it’s about preserving a foundational aspect of American democracy.
Ultimately, the debate about the penny’s fate highlights the ongoing struggle between the desirability of efficient economic policy and the necessity of adhering to the established constitutional structure of power distribution within the U.S. government. The question of whether eliminating the penny is a good idea is largely separate from the question of whether a president has the authority to do so, emphasizing the importance of the rule of law over potentially popular but legally questionable actions.