 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That's the story Cantor's office is spreading, though the Mint says the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding. What's clear, however, is that the Mint doesn't want next year's nickels looking like the ones now jingling in your pocket. The Mint would like to redesign all of America's coins. Its ongoing 50 State Quarters program has been a popular success. As a celebration of federalism, too, it's something conservatives can cheer. But not every newfangled coin design is a good one. The $1 Sacajawea coin is a monument to political correctness — and the nickel might have suffered a similar fate but for Cantor's intervention. January 2003 marks the 200th anniversary of the Lewis & Clark expedition, and the Mint thought that commemorating their journey on the Jefferson-head nickel would make sense. Jefferson, after all, was a vital supporter of their mission. So far, so good. To accomplish this, however, the Mint would have to replace the image of Monticello on the nickel's flip side — and it was proposing a picture of an Indian looking westward, plus an eagle. Indians and eagles are both traditional symbols on U.S. coinage — there was an Indian-head nickel before there was a Jefferson nickel — but what Indians and eagles have to do with Lewis & Clark is unclear. Did nobody at the mint think the most fitting commemoration of Lewis & Clark might be an image of Lewis & Clark? "We look at it as a way of acknowledging the Indians Lewis & Clark met as they went westward," says Michael White, a spokesman for the Mint. Of course, we already do that with the Sacajawea coin — Sacajawea was an Indian girl who traveled with the Lewis & Clark expedition. The Indians Lewis & Clark met on their way westward may have been fine people, but must they appear on two of the five main coins used by Americans? "The image is just a proposal. No decision has been made and we're in the process of consulting with Congress on what to do," says White. That's not Cantor's impression. "We were led to believe this was a done deal," he says. "So were the other members of the Virginia delegation." The Secretary of the Treasury is allowed to change the appearance of a coin once every 25 years without congressional approval. The Jefferson nickel was introduced in 1938, and it has looked the same ever since. If the Mint takes Monticello off the nickel, it doesn't have a mechanism for putting it back on until another 25 years pass. Only Congress could do that. This is what concerned Cantor: the fear that Monticello might be permanently expunged from the nickel. He may try to attach to his bill to a piece of legislation scheduled for markup next week by the financial services committee. "Monticello should stay on the nickel," says Cantor, perhaps aware that the nickel is a subliminal advertisement for Virginia tourism. The congressman, whose district does include Monticello, says he would not support a compromise bill that allows the Mint to circulate Lewis & Clark nickels for a few years before guaranteeing a return to the Monticello image. There's simply too much bad blood. The Mint appears to have botched a nifty idea. A more appropriate image for a Lewis & Clark commemoration paired with a smarter consultation with Congress might have led to another popular coinage program. And perhaps everyone could have worked together to get rid of that irritating little pony tail that hangs off the back of Jefferson's head on the obverse side. It makes our third president look like a hippie. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
he
U.S. Mint almost booted Monticello off the nickel this week — until
Virginia's delegation to the House of Representatives, led by Republican
Eric Cantor, introduced legislation to stop it. 
