Why won't the US Treasury redesign the $2 bill for features for the visually impaired

This issue has been getting me wondering for a while. Why will the U.S. government not add features for, or otherwise redesign the $2 bill to include features for the visually impaired and the blind? I read an article on the possible redesign of the $5-$100 bills to make them each a different length (1-D style) or even a different length and different width (2-D style) It was stated that NO design changes for the visually impaired were considered for the $1 and $2 bills.

My question is "Why?" and I ask why, because I had read a part of this study that said that the visually impaired had the hardest time denominating the current $1, $2 and $100 bills, due to these three denominations not having a large dark numeral on them. This problem will likely be fixed for the $100 bill due to the fact that it has been said, after the first $100 bill redesign "The next redesign of the $100 note will include a low-vision numeral similar to the $5-$50" and that was stated over 10 years ago when the first new $50 came out as the first denomination to include the numeral. The $1 bill was denominated by using the big spelling of "ONE" on the back, but would still be fairly hard to tell apart from a $2 bill. One reason is that, some visually impaired people said that they can tell a $1 bill from any other denomination, due to the thick, almost solid green ink on the back of the bill. Now what about comparing the $1 bill to the current $2 bill? The $2 bill also has very solid ink on the back, and a small portrait front that looks very much like a $1 bill at a quick glance.

So all I am saying is that, if not for security features, cant the $2 bill be redesigned to conform the FutureGen $5-$100 to have the enlarged portraits and enlarged numerals, such as a large dark numeral 2 on the reverse? I know that $2 bills pretty much do not circulate widely enough to redesign for anti-counterfeiting features, but if not for that, why not for the visually impaired? I know it would be cheaper for the BEP to simply cease production of $2 bills and the government could stop with the $2 denomination altogether, if not go to a $2 coin to go with the $1 coin. Although the cheapest thing to do, would be to eliminate both $1 and $2 bills and replace them with coins, in the study I read, it stated that "No consideration was made for a coin to replace any denomination" which should be the case for the $1 and $2 denominations, but unfortunately, they are not even considering it. But I do NOT want to see the $2 bill go away, unless the $1 bill goes away first and is replaced by a $1 coin. I do not want to see the $2 denomination go away, PERIOD. But if the government can afford to spend money on redesigning all other FRN's accept the $1 and $2, including the new $5 bill which I believe they sort of did an overkill job on security features (I know they had to because of people bleaching $5s to make fake $100s on them) for such a low denomination, and the fact that they can also spend billions on redesigned coins of various denominations for collectors, they should be able to at least redesign the looks of the $2 bill, with a large dark numeral in one corner of the denomination, and make the size of the denomination a little bit longer than the $1 bill like they talked about increasing lengths for all other denominations other than the $1 bill.

Some people here have argued for the elimination of the $2 denomination as well as the 50 cent denomination. Well, the 50 cent denomination already has features for the blind: Its size. So its time to fix that other rarely used denomination: The $2 bill. Instead of eliminating the $2 bill, why not come up for a new set of master plates for them, change the size of the $2 bill so that there would be no need for any security features on the $2 denomination what so ever. Problem solved. And if the government did not want to redesign the $2 denomination for a long time after the first redesign, there would almost be no need to anyway. As long as the $2 bill had larger numerals on it it and a low-vision numeral, and a different size, the problem would likely be fixed until the demise of cash.

So why not invest in at least one $2 bill redesign? Sounds CENTS'ible to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Short answer: it wouldn't be cost-effective. Long answer: I don't have the knowledge to give a long answer.

If it were up to me, the following would happen:

The $1, $2 and $5 notes would be discontinued, withdrawn from circulation and destroyed.

A $5 coin would be minted.

Reintroduce the $500 and $1000 note. These, in addition to the remaining notes, would be printed on polymer, rag notes to be withdrawn and destroyed.

 

My guess is that the $1 bill is going away soon and the $2 is basically a collector bill. The only place I've seen 50¢ pieces and $2 bills in circulation has been at the Laurel Race Track. What's the fun of going to the track if you can't see the horses? Hey, no offense intended...I'm just saying.

 

There really is no need to. I don't know of many people with 20/20 vision that actually come into contact with a $2.00 in the normal course of business. If they do, they usually speak up .."oh wow, a $2.00 bill" that would alert the blind/visually impared that they have one.

There is no need to redesign the $1.00 due to the process of elimination. If the bill in a blind/visually impared man's hand doesn't have a 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100 on it ...rest assured it's 99.9% of the time a $1.00 bill.

 

:d

 

This is what they should do-withdraw the $1 and $5 bill (the dollar bill averages 18 months in circulation, while a dollar coins can last at least 25 years) then the Sacs and Presidential Dollars can circulate. Replace the $5 with a $5 coin. Put Kennedy on the $5 coin and stop minting the Half Dollar, no one uses them anyway Lincoln is already on the cent, so he is covered. JMHO. And no Reagan on anything, except when it is his turn on the Presidential Dollar

 

Everything here has to do with the bottom line! Like everything else if it costs
To much they wont do it! I think this covers the short and long answer!

 

No numismatic "love" for the GOP. :crying:

 

I really think that they should try eliminating the $2 bill completely, but also replace it with a $2 coin, as they want to do with the $1 bill and see what happens, as a test.

If the plan proves positive with the public, then they should eliminate the $1 bill and replace it with a coin as well.

If the plan proves negative, bring back the $2 bill in a new design, or still just leave the denomination as a coin, as I doubt many people would care too much about whatever form the $2 denomination would take. I'd likely say, leave the $2 denomination as a coin, as the $1 denomination may catch up to that some day, and people can have a choice of carrying both $1 and $2 coins, so that people won't complain that "thats too many coins to carry and coins are heavy"

 

Where do you people hear these stories? As I said, the article said that NO denominations were being considered to be replaced with coins.

I seriously thought that the $1 bill would be eliminated, or at least redesigned by 2010. Well here we are, and no changes to the $1 denomination thus far. :headbang: Unless you count the changes to a bunch of Presidential and Natrive American series $1 coins coming out.

When do you think that the $1 bill will be completely eliminated in favor of the $1 coin? I'm hoping before the year 2020, but at this point, I'm not planning on holding my breath. I hope by that time we have a $2 coin as well, but I won't count on that either. Not until I see it.

 

I'm waiting for the 100 year redesign for the $2 bill

 

I'm tired of looking FDR and Kennedy on money but you don't hear me moaning. So yes to Reagan on money!

 

Anybody know why $2 bill is still printed? I'm not up on paper money history.

 

What, 2028? or 2076? lol

 

2076, I'll be 98 then. Hopefully medical technology will allow that.

 

100 here. I don't want to live that long.

 

No Reagan on our money (except for the 2016 dollar coin) he doesn't deserve it. I'd like to see Liberty back on the coins and not real people. The coins from the early 20th century were much more attractive.

Same reason the $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 are still printed. Congress would have to pass a law to take them out of circulation.

 

Well then, why did they take the $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000 bills out of circulation? The only reason I ever heard about them discontinuing them when they did, was due to lack of use. And I heard nothing about Congress having anything to do with it. I have also heard that the Secretary of the Treasury still has the authority to print all four large denominations, should he choose to do so. I have also heard that, if the Federal Reserve banks order any of these denominations, they would have to be printed by law.

Damn how I wish the Fed would order some $500s and maybe some $1,000s.

 

He deserves it WAY more than Roosevelt and/or Kennedy...but this isn't the place for a history lesson. :kewl:

 

I have a little bit different opinion on this topic.

The $2 bill doesn't circulate widely. The $1 coins aren't used much because of the dollar bill. So by eliminating the 1 dollar bill, both the $2 bill and the dollar coins would circulate more. A new $2 design could be introduced the same day as the dollar bill is eliminated.

The question is: When will be that day? The dollar bill is expensive and not cost effective compared to the coin. Why are we making all these dollar coins and the bills at the same time? I guess it's just habit. People are used to the bills, that's all. The Mint would need to get behind a dedicated marketing campaign to argue for the elimination of the $1 bill and promote the dollar coins. I don't see that happening in this political climate. Everything would be politicized, and there would be instant opposition no matter how much sense it would make financially.

So I expect the dollar bill to be made for a few years yet.

The coin that really has no useful purpose anymore in the half dollar. The only reason it's still made is that the Mint can make money off it by selling it as a collectible. I don't know anyone besides coin collectors who would even think about spending a half.

So if the Mint continues to make the half, why not change its reverse annually as well? That gives more commemoratives to buy!

Just my rant today........

Steve