An amero for your thoughts: if America adopted a single currency (e.g., the "amero") with Canada and Mexico, we would no longer control our own monetary policy.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

On May 16, 2002, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox gave a speech in Madrid, Spain, in which he stated:

   Eventually, our long-range objective is to
   establish with the United States, but also
   with Canada, our other regional partner,
   an ensemble of connections and institutions
   similar to those created by the European
   Union....

      The new framework we wish to construct
   is inspired in the example of the
   European Union.

Part of the framework that fostered the creation of the European Union (EU) was an institution called the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The implementation of the EMU culminated with the adoption of the euro on January 1, 1999 as the official currency of 11 EU member states.

Even before Fox's Madrid speech, the example of the EU was already inspiring some academics to consider the creation of a North American Monetary Union. In a 1999 paper entitled, "The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union," Canadian economist Herbert G. Grubel explained his ideas for creating a North American regional currency, and coined the term "amero." On the U.S. side of the border, Robert Pastor, a noted political scientist and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is leading the charge for adopting a North American currency. In his 2001 book, Toward a North American Community, Pastor speaks approvingly of the concept of the amero, claiming that "in the long term, the amero is in the best interests of all three countries."

It is clear that those who favor "an ensemble of connections and institutions" along the lines of the EU feel that a monetary union is essential. Their main argument is that it would facilitate financial transactions.

Adopting the amero would have definite disadvantages, however. It would come with the same loss of sovereignty that the introduction of the euro has shown in Europe. The individual EU states now using the euro must accept the monetary policy dictated by the European Central Bank Executive Board. If the economy of a particular state suffers as a result, that country must simply grin and bear it.

If the experience with the euro is any indication, the introduction of the amero would not be universally popular. For example, a poll by Stern magazine released on June 1, 2005 revealed that 56 percent of Germans favored a return to the Deutsche Mark, citing the excessive increase in prices in the years after the introduction of the euro. Prices of small, everyday items were boosted significantly. For instance, a tube of toothpaste that previously cost DM2.00 might afterwards cost 1.50 euros or even 2.00 euros. Since Germans received one euro for every 1.96 Marks they originally held, the euro price for that same tube of toothpaste amounted to a 50-percent to 100-percent increase!

While the goals cited in the writings of Grubel and Pastor sound reasonable, it is also clear that the workings of a North American Monetary Union could easily be used to usurp the authority of the U.S. Treasury and redistribute economic power and wealth among the three North American nations. For example, at the time of the conversion to the amero, the exchange rates could be set to overly inflate the value of the Mexican peso in relation to the U.S. dollar.

The sovereignty of the United States is our most precious asset. It is part of the formula that has made our nation the greatest and most successful political, economic, and cultural experiment in the history of the human race. In order to protect it, it is imperative that we contact our representatives in Congress and demand that they oppose anything to do with a North American regional union, including the adoption of a common currency.