‘Susie’ Dollars

I keep seeing articles about how the use of Susan B. Anthony dollars could save the taxpayers millions because their life span is 15 to 20 years compared to the paper dollar life span of 18 months. I have no special interest in the “Susie” dollar, nor would I personally benefit by its use, other than the fact that I pay taxes and feel that $50 million here and $50 million there pretty soon begins to add up to real money!

Can’t get the public to accept Susie dollars, you say? Hogwash! If you hand one to a person on the street, nine times out of 10 they will ask, “What is it?”; that’s because they have never seen one before. The 10th person will say, “Hey a Susie. Where did you get that? Can I buy it from you?” The public sector (as Washington likes to call them), on the other hand, is the real crux of the problem; big banks and merchants squashed the Susie for reasons like “not enough slots in the till” and “too expensive to retrain all the clerical help.” What they were really saying was, “What’s the incentive to making a change that will cost millions to implement and for which there is no benefit?”

So, why doesn’t Congress create an incentive for banks and merchants to help the government save $50 million? Call in the paper dollars and give the buyers of new ones a choice between either Susie dollars at $1 each, or paper dollars at $1.05. Which do you think they will buy? Who cares? If the nickel covers the extra cost of making paper dollars, didn’t you just save $50 million anyway?

DAVID W. STOVER

Pasadena