Even if you do not read The Wall Street Journal with any regularity, you probably know that the American dollar has not been faring well in the global markets, especially when matched with the Euro and British pound. McDonald's commercials notwithstanding, students abroad have certainly noticed the recent pinch in the currency market.
This is especially disheartening when coupled with recent downturns in the national economy, which prompted the Federal Reserve to cut the federal funds rate by three-fourths of a percentage point and spurred President George W. Bush to announce an economic stimulus plan.
This is very difficult news. While everyone has focused on the value of the dollar, however, I have been monitoring a more pressing fiscal matter: the weak $10 bill. It is nothing less than an injustice that Alexander Hamilton is stuck on the $10 bill while Andrew Jackson, that political rapscallion, has his day in the sun on the twenty. This may be America's largest (and longest-lasting) fiscal debacle since the Gilded Age's Panic of 1873.
Allow me to refresh your memory. Alexander Hamilton, after fighting redcoats and pernicious Anti-Federalists alike, accepted the position as the first secretary of treasury and served from Sept. 11, 1789 to Jan. 31, 1795. Despite the notable distinction of "first," Hamilton was waging an uphill battle by defending American financial interests after the costly Revolution without the benefit of stable credit or currency.
Hamilton could have sulked or even wept, but this stalwart American did neither. Instead, Hamilton fastened his seatbelt and talked some sense into rowdy farmhands and Jeffersonians, establishing the First Bank of the United States in 1791.
Hamilton's brainchild allowed him to adequately regulate trade, stabilize the fledgling American currency, and ensure the inflow of foreign investment. Unfortunately, Hamilton's series of economic brilliance was cut short in a duel by the world's premier communist and general ne'er-do-well, Aaron Burr.
On the other hand, Andrew Jackson's economic legacy can be seen as a general and total reversal of Hamilton's fiscal initiatives. After losing the "stolen election" of 1824, Jackson rushed into the presidency filled with the spirit of a backwoods whiskey-monger. "Old Hickory" especially loved the veto, and he used it most notably to kill the Second Bank of the United States (established in 1816 after the demise of the First Bank in 1811).
Jackson also began to transfer federal income tax funds into state banks, effectively bankrupting the Bank, much to the chagrin of then president Nicholas Biddle. Despite Jackson's seeming good intentions in condemning this federal bank as being "subversive of the rights of the states," the fiscal aftermath was not exactly what he had expected.
Many historians blame the Panic of 1837 on Jackson's economic policies, most notably his issuance of the Specie Circular, which required all land purchases to be made with gold and silver. This act curbed the amount of paper money in circulation and was highly deflationary.
To me, this is a not even a question. When these two leaders are compared on the merits of their fiscal policies, there is one clear winner. Certainly Hamilton deserves to be honored in the upper echelons of American currency. How were these monetary representatives chosen in the first place? Did the government pick names out of a hat? That would certainly explain Ulysses S. Grant's appearance on the fifty. I think that it is high time Secretary of Treasury Henry M. Paulson amend this national outrage and ensure that generations to come will not be forced to scratch their heads when buying expensive items from outlet malls.
Joseph Zaleski is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Be the first to comment on this article!