House panel hears proposals to save on currency costs
WASHINGTON — Americans should be carrying more change and fewer dollar bills, congressional lawmakers and currency experts said on Thursday.
Replacing the dollar bill with a $1 coin “would provide $4.4 billion in net benefits to the government over 30 years,” Lorelei St. James, director of physical infrastructure issues at the Government Accountability Office, told members of the House Financial Services subcommittee on domestic monetary policy and technology.
Subcommittee members said changing the metallic content of coins could save money.
Both ideas resemble changes implemented by Canada. In 1987, Canada replaced its $1 bill with a coin nicknamed the Loonie for Canada's national bird, the loon, which appears on the coin.
Canada changed the composition of its coins, beginning in 2000, to multi-ply steel.
Beverly Lepine, chief operating officer of the Royal Canadian Mint, said the changes have generated substantial savings.
“Lasting 25 years instead of one year for a bank note, the $1 circulation coin has saved the Canadian government $175 million over its first 20 years,” Lepine stated in written testimony.
Richard Peterson, deputy director of the U.S. Mint, said the Mint is conducting research on changing the composition of coins. A report is expected in December.
Some legislators and experts fear switching to a $1 coin could be inconvenient to some Americans.
“I think it will take a cultural change in this country,” said Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo. “Most men don't like to have a lot of change. We don't like to have our suits sag.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.