NP Rank:
Selling the family jewels to get out of debt
Selling the family jewels to get out of debt
That’s what some people are recommending that the USA does. Sell the gold from Fort Knox. Who suggested that? Conservative economists that’s who.
Obama folks said that’s crazy and creates a “fire sale” atmosphere at a time when politicians should be raising the debt ceiling and acting in an orderly and responsible manner.
I for one would like to see the sale of some other assets such as the Smithsonian liquidating Egyptian and Arab artifacts. Sell them back to the Arabs who have money from the oil revenues.
We can keep the pictures and look at them instead.
“Selling off the gold is just one level of crazy away from selling Mount Rushmore.”
“U.S. should sell assets like gold to get out of debt, conservative economists say
By Joel Achenbach, Published: May 15
With the United States poised to slam into its debt limit Monday, conservative economists are eyeballing all that gold in Fort Knox. There’s about 147 million ounces of gold parked in the legendary vault. Gold is selling at nearly $1,500 an ounce. That’s many billions of dollars in bullion.
“It’s just sort of sitting there,” said Ron Utt, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “Given the high price it is now, and the tremendous debt problem we now have, by all means, sell at the peak.”
But that’s cockamamie, declares the Obama administration. Mary J. Miller, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial markets, said the U.S. should sell assets in an orderly, “well-telegraphed” manner, not in a “fire sale” atmosphere with a debt limit deadline accelerating the process.
“It would be bad for the taxpayers. It would be bad for the markets,” Miller said.
Another senior administration official, not authorized to speak for attribution, described the situation more bluntly: “Selling off the gold is just one level of crazy away from selling Mount Rushmore.”
The United States may have run up a huge debt, but it is not a poor country by any stretch of the imagination. The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres of land, close to a third of the nation’s total land mass. Plus a million buildings. Plus electrical utilities like the Tennessee Valley Authority. And an interstate highway system.
Economists of a conservative or libertarian bent have long argued that the federal government needs to get out of certain businesses, unload unneeded assets, and privatize such functions as passenger rail service and air traffic control. No one advocates selling Yellowstone, but why, some economists ask, should the federal government be in the electricity business?
Economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute said the federal government should consider the sale of interstate highways. Motorists would have to pay tolls to the private owners, he said, but the roads would likely be in better shape. Federal, state and local governments could raise hundreds of billions of dollars through highway privatization, he said.
“Many of the world’s roads were originally built as toll roads, so it would hardly be revolutionary to return to that model,” Hassett said. “If it can work for the River Styx, why not the Beltway?”
The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday released a plan for balancing the budget that did not include tax increases, but did include a proposal to sell $260 billion in federal assets over 15 years. The plan does not specify the assets. It refers to “partial sales of federal properties, real estate, mineral rights, the electromagnetic spectrum, and energy-generation facilities.”
“We’re not going to say we’re going to sell off the Smithsonian and the Capitol. We would not propose that anyway. There’s no specific building that we would point to,” said Alison Fraser, head of the Economic Policy Studies department at Heritage.
The Heritage group chose not to mention the Fort Knox gold when it included asset sales in the budget plan. Fraser said the group didn’t want to be “sidetracked” into a debate with the hardy band of folks who think the country should return to the gold standard. “We just opted not to go there,” she said.”



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 11:33 on May 16th, 2011
Jewels and artifacts for oil.
at 11:46 on May 16th, 2011
The gold in Fort Knox could be used to run the government rather than up the debt limit.
at 17:49 on May 16th, 2011
That is the smartest thing that I have heard all day. Once it is diminished or depleted, then what?
at 02:01 on May 17th, 2011
The original intent was to insure the dollar against the gold standard. We haven't tied the dollar to gold since 1971. Gold fluctuates and is now at it's most profitable ~$1500/oz. The last time the US set the dollar to the gold specie was when gold was ~$35/oz. If the Fed wants to replenish any reserve they can begin when gold drops to a price that makes it worth collecting. As a stored item gold no longer has the value it once had. As example; we have a debt in real dollars, plus the monies circulating or in deposit greater than all the gold mined in the entire world. EVER. There is no going back. Hanging on to the idea of a gold reserve in nothing more than useless sentiment, and the gold in Fort Knox is of no value to the nation held on ice simply to maintain a forgotten and unused economic ideal. Especially when it's use would save the nation from even greater debt and an increase in the debt margin is just that. A greater national debt thanks to Obama's spend spend big government ideology.
at 03:01 on May 17th, 2011
I think selling gold to pay down the debt is a good thing, if and only if, we can get government to ratchet back its size by one third and that includes the department of defense.
at 11:28 on May 17th, 2011
The last UK government sold their gold reserves and got a really poor price for it - a big mistake.