I am still trlying to figure out how to write so people can understant what I am saying

A short wile ago, I put out a call for help on how to publicize my plan to Democratize Money by Monetizing Citizens. I got one response that suggested the book was too difficult to read and that it, for lack of a better way to put it, needed to be written so that it is accessible to readers who are less well educated in the fields of accounting, economics, fiance and monetary policy. While, the comment did not give me a good idea what the problem in readability is, I decided to first attack the problem of readability by imposing an overview or outline or plan of the book at the front of the book for starters. Then do the same for each chapter. Also to take some pains to keep the writing as simple as possible. This later will be a challenge for me as I think in convoluted ways.

So, I have a second draft of the overview, outline or plan of the book. It is not a final version, I should think, but, I offer it for criticism, comment, picking apart or the like. The object is to turn this in to something readily accessible to more readers:

The author proposes in this book, Democratize Money, that every US citizen should receive a basic annual, tax free income of $20,000 paid in equal monthly or biweekly payments. That the Federal Reserve Bank, the Fed, make these payments by depositing newly created money in each citizen’s draft account, electronic banking service or by mailing a check to those citizens who choose not to have a demand account in a financial institution or to utilize an electronic banking service. This newly created money will replace some of the money the Fed currently creates in another way (see the discussion of market operations later in the book). It will not be drawn from US Treasury funds. The Fed making payments to citizens of newly created money is the central feature of democratizing money. This way of putting new money is circulation which in effect monetizes citizens1 is the central feature of the plan. There are three other components of this plan. The first is that the Feds will annually deposit $2,000 in the US Treasury for each citizen in the US, Territories, and living abroad; and, the Fed will annually deposit $2,000 in each State or Territorial treasury for each US citizen resident in its jurisdiction. The second is that citizen’s income under this plan can not be garnisheed or otherwise seized or encumbered even by law. Hence, it can not be used to determine a citizen’s credit worthiness or ability to pay. The third additional component is that citizens are required to participate in elections by voting in elections and serving on juries when called to maintain their eligibility to receive new money payments from the Fed.

This book will detail how the democratizing money by monetizing citizens will work; how it monetizing citizens will impact existing policies: and the book will suggest some consequences of the Fed putting new money in circulation by making direct payments to citizens. To give the reader a context, the book will begin with a brief history of what money is and how money was and is created. The book will then follow with an argument for why the current manner in which the Fed creates money needs to be supplemented by monetizing citizens. 2 The book will then address how the Fed will avoid inflation as it puts newly created money in circulation by making direct distributions of newly created money to citizens. The book will address how the need for entitlement programs will drastically change and largely result in eliminating some entitlement programs. Monetizing citizens will have implications for immigration. Democratizing money will significantly modify the and the traditional ‘tax and spend’ political debate in America. Finally, the book will discuss income inequality and wealth distribution changes that are likely to occur as this plan is implemented, matures and becomes a part of the fabric defining political, social, and economic equality in America.
Footnotes

1. The author uses ‘monetize’ here to mean the thing that underlies the issuance of new money is a citizen—in effect, citizens are what make the currency under this proposal have value.

2. To whit, to smooth out the business cycle of busts and booms.
So, again, any help by way of addressing the clearness, accessibility or readability of what I have done in the overview, plan or outline of the book above would be more than welcome.

Warmest regards, Ed

Advertisements

Where should I go? Who shoud I hire?

I think it is time to advertise, publicize and otherwise get folks to read my proposal to change the us versus them politics that exist in America by publicizing my book. So far I have tried to tell people what is in the book and get their attention. Last night I drafted the followind “blurb” which doe not quite tell them but teases them:

“You would think that if I told you there was a way to smooth out the business cycle, stop poverty in it’s tracks in America, and not spend a tax dollars to do that and more that people would be clamoring at my door for more I formation, for details. The way to do this will also stimulate more voters to vote. The way to do this will gradually eliminate the vast bulk of the welfare state. And , I repeat the way to do all will not cost the tax payers a single penny nor will it create inflation. But, no one is clamoring at my door for details. Perhaps I have chosen to tell the wrong people. Perhaps I have not found the right words to explain the way to smooth out the business cycle, stop poverty in America in its tracks, increase voter participation in elections, and begin dismantling the welfare state without spending a single penny or causing inflation. Indeed, these are only the tip of the iceberg of positive economic, political and social improvements which will result in the way to smooth out the economy, stop poverty in its tracks at no cost to taxpayers.

That way I have named Democratizing Money. If at all interested read my Kindle book by that title. Then you get a politician’s attention and demand to know where your annual tax free $20,000 is. T. Edward Westen is my name and Democratize Money Monetize Citizens is the Kindle book I authored with answers to some of your questions.” https://www.amazon.com/Democratize-Money-Monetize-Citizens-Proposal/dp/1549614487

I wrote this last night and then slept on it. I would still face the same obstical of getting people to read or at least know what the basic plan is. So, another approach is needed. I think I need to hire a publicist or ad agency or promoter to do the selling. At 99¢ per e-book, of which Kindle gets the lion’s share, I am not looking to get rich. No, I really think the idea has merit and to back that up, I need to invest some money in some agency who will promote the book/idea. So, where should I go, whom should I hire. HELP!

A flaw in the plan or a flaw in Democracy?

This plan, https://wordpress.com/post/democratizemoney.wordpress.com/17 , to give every citizen in the United States of American $20,000/year in new money is a plan for a universal basic income as well as a way to democratize the creation of money by monetizing citizens. Everyone should receive equal amounts of new money. Rich and poor alike, middle class, you name it, but regardless of some needs or qualification test, every citizen should receive new money. If any identifiable section of Americans does not receive the payments it will create haves and have nots—a basis for conflict. Those excluded will be resentful.

But the plan put forward requires citizens to vote, do jury duty and any other kind of civic duty that is customary. Yes, that is a flaw in the plan, or it is a flaw in democratic governance. Democracy works poorly, but it works most poorly when the citizenry is uninformed and not participatory (low voter turnout for example). Most empirical studies of citizens show that significant numbers are uninformed abut politics and government if not ill informed. Democracies need citizens to vote, and communicate with office holders. If a universal basic income is put in place that does not given citizens an incentive to participate, evidence shows participation deteriorates, That can result in upheaval at some point (rioting in the streets for example). This is because those who govern are too far removed from the people’s wants and needs. They get reelected until the people take to the streets (or some equivalent of taking to the streets). Requiring people to vote to receive a universal basic income is an attempt to get some of the people to focus on issued at least during election campaigns. Perhaps this is a feeble attempt, but it is an attempt.

This author is proposing a flawed universal basic income to attempt to keep some citizen participation in government. For, unlike people’s economic wants, political wants are often of secondary wants, at best, compared to people’s economic and personal ones.

I have read the Department of Justice memo setting forth the policay of not indicting a sitting US president: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

I have set down some thoughts about the Department of Justice Memo establishing the “policy” of not indicting a sitting US president. I am not going to refute the memo point by point. Rather I will present a set of presumptive reasons why a sitting president must be indicted if evidence suggests and a grand jury finds a true bill.

Part of the rationale by the Department of Justice memo for not indicting a sitting president is that it would result in some functions of government not being performed. Other than an immediate military response to foreign aggression the Justice department overstates this “issue.” Most government operations carry on without even awareness by the president or even of that agency’s or department’s head. So unless the president is a complete twit or nitwit, I am relatively confident he or she could rise to the occasion in case of military threat from abroad–even a nuclear one. If the president is a complete twit, the 26th Amendment should have been employed.

To over simplify the Justice Department memo also stresses that indicting a sitting president would look bad abroad. Prestige and image are so important that we should continue a person who has met all the criteria for an indictment from a grand jury or a finding from a prosecutor? In the simplest legal terms, “give me a break.”

Go back and read the Declaration of Independence. The charges against the King were that he was above the law–unaccountable to anyone for his actions. Clearly Americans did not fight a war to institute a head of state that is above the law-unaccountable, indictable. So, any failure to hold a president accountable is a violation of one of the fundamental pillars upon which this nation was forged. Three paragraphs in the Declaration of Independence directly apply to the twit today:
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices…” Note, the asking for personaly loyalty as he did James Comey. AND “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:” Note, the taxes he has imposed are though tariffs which we pay in our purchase of those goods.

In the United States no other head of a unit of governments, agency, state, local unit of government or government corporation has immunity from indictment, arrest, trial or imprisonment. The president should not have this kingly privilege either.

The Department of Justice asserts, and again I over simplify, that indicting a president interfere with the separation of powers doctrine. Nonsense. Only the executive branch is involved until trial. To assert that the Judicial Branch is interfering when the case goes to trial is also foolishness, for the Judicial Branch depends upon the Executive Branch to execute decisions coming out of court cases/decisions. I seem to recall President Jackson noting this in a Georgia Indian Removal case, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him carry it out.”

The bulk of the Justice Department memo is built on case law. However, the memo, originally written as a consequence of, shall we say, the criminal al Richard Nixon, is hypothetical. All officers of the Court, employees of the government, appointed or merit, take an oath to uphold the law and defend the Constitution. If there is evidence persuasive enough for a grand jury to make a true finding and issue an indictment, then any person who has taken an oath to uphold the law and is in any position to act, must execute that indictment with all due haste or be liable for failure to meet the terms of their oath.

That those working in the Justice Department are either civil servants or hold political appointments from the president make the argument of breaching separation of powers all the more absurd. A note on The Declaration of Independence and naturalization laws and the encouragement of immigration. Specifically the current occupant of the White House is guilty of the same grievance King George III was in 1776 and earlier.

So, to not indict and try a sitting president is contrary to the very reasons the Founding Fathers gave for separation and founding a new nation.

 

Principles of Democracy

I recall doing library work for research years ago. Sitting on the floor in a section of the Dewy decimal system looking at tables of contents, indices and illustrations from books on the same subject often took one in strange directions, off on new ones or even reminded one of basic information that one often overlooked in the excitement of the new research topic. While sitting at my computer desk using search engines, I almost recreated part of that old experience when looking for pointers to democratic principles, I inadvertently stumbled upon the online Robert’s Rules of Order. In doing a Bing Search, over 15 million results “pop” up (assuming something that massive pops and doesn’t actually recreate the big bang). Google produced over 250 million results. Checking, Robert’s Rules of Order popped up in that one, too.

As I say, I was looking for references to “democratic principals.” Heaven knows I should know what they are, but in writing about them, even in a small chapter of a book, I figure an author’s presentation should be backed up by other authors—after all, that is the way the information game is played—evidence even if the evidence is just some other bloke’s word. But, I had forgotten about the basic source for governing most democratic organizations: Robert’s Rules of Order. I was grateful for the reminder. Not only that, but the way Robert’s Rules presents democratic principled, brings them down to a local and very personal level. We all can envision ourselves as members of a small group. So, when we understand the democratic principles in the context of that group, it makes it a bit easier to place our selves in a larger group, say as a citizen (member) of the United States of America.

Democratic principles can be summarized in may ways. Perhaps they are best summarized as they are in Robert’s Rules of Order as “six essential principles that ensure that the democratic process is upheld in any organization [including a government].
1. “All members are equal—they have equal rights and responsibilities.
2. “The organization is run with impartiality and fairness.  The rules are applied equally and fairly to all and not just a few. There is no favored group within the organization [which] will get preferential treatment or who considers itself above the law.
3. “Ideas come from the members and are presented to the assembly to decide upon. Everyone gets the right to present ideas, speak to these ideas, and vote on the ideas, not just a select group…
4. “The majority rules but the rights of the minority and absent members are protected.
5. “Everything is accomplished in the spirit of openness, not secrecy. Members have the right to know what is going on within the organization by attending meetings, inspecting the official records and receiving notices and reports form committees, officers, and boards. And
6. “Leaders come from the people through an election process which is fair and not slanted so a favored group can control the organization. When a leader’s term of office ends, he or she returns to the people.  A hierarchy of power doesn’t exist; it is shared equally.  All members have the right to be considered for office.”
https://www.parli.com/index.php?mod_name=newsletter/basic-principles-of-democratic-government (10/20/2018)

A coupld of points stick out. First the notion that everyone is equal because of membership (citizenship in the context of the United States of America) Second that the minority’s rights and rights of members not present ARE protected from the majority. This one makes lies of vote suppression attempts in the name of voter fraud, or even laws requiring fixed addressed. With the low turnout rate in American elections, those who are not voting fall into the group of members not present. The third things that strikes me is the “spirit of openness.” Interestingly, this is not apparently a part of confirming justices of the Supreme Court.
If one reads the Robert’s Rules of Order statement of prinicples of democracy carfully one might begin to translate the operations of our elected representatives in a wholly different light.

A Note on Global Warming in Response to My Friend, Cj

 

Yesterday I wrote on deartedandjody that the new version of a book on my proposal to democratize money was moving at a snail’s pace. My friend Cj commented “I wouldn’t worry too much about the money thing, in 80 yrs time the global warming will have finished us all off with several ‘big ones’ by the sounds of things.” Her comment got me to thinking about the way we, human beings, seem to respond to small changes around us—we either don’t notice or we don’t believe they are real changes. But then, we do notice some that seem to threaten our grasp of things and our grasp on things. By grasp I mean both our understanding and our ownership.

Out understanding of things is predicated upon our experiences (experiential and indirect experiences we have by reading or listening) our beliefs and our wants. All too often, our understanding does not include empathy for others in who have had different experiences than we have had. All too often our understanding is based on a very local or parochial view of the world. So, Cj’s comment that “in 80 years time the global warming will have finished us all off,” is one that accurately expresses our, human beings, response to a subtle change that has manifest itself in regions of the world in which most of us do not live or even visit—the Arctic, the Antarctic, low islands, and high altitudes. While the rest of us experience once in a thousand year storms, droughts, wild fires, and the like about once a year, we brush them off as anomalies. Besides, those once in a thousand year events, on average happen to someone else (millions of someone else). So, understanding will come too late to too many that global warming is taking place and eventually it will reach a tipping point with too much carbon in the atmosphere will make the change impact everyone and be, as scientists say, irreversible.

But understanding is not the only reason for our doom in 80 years. Ownership is another. We grasp things, own them and hang on for dear life. While we might argue that we manage what we own and keep it up to snuff and increase its value, on balance, that is not quite accurate. Largely prolonged ownership tends to cause real and other property to deteriorate over time. We get comfortable with the small cracks and inefficiency so we call them character and let them go. Large corporation tend to get a bit complacent with its resources and over time giant corporations tend to become ‘historic’ and no longer the titans of an industry they once were, if they continue to exist at all. They too get set in their ways and some of their inefficiency catch-up with them. None-the-less they, like human beings, hang on to what they have with a death grip—that all to often is a death grip. In a very parallel sense, people who hold white supremacist thoughts, either explicitly or implicit, hold on to power by denying others access. This is becoming more and more obvious in the US today as whites slip into minority status. These with supremacists talk of values and history as if that alone were reason to hang on to something they never had. By the same token we localize this ownership and trash our neighborhood property with our garbage and trash—check out floating islands of trash in the oceans and on some remote beaches as evidence of this lack of stewardship beyond our immediate property lines.

Finally I would add our wants, desires, or wishes for how we want things, fantasies if you will, to the list of culprits for our demise in 80 years at the hands of climate warming. Simply put, we don’t want the climate to change. So, we don’t beleive3it or we deny it. Then too, if we are in business and it costs us something to minimize our carbon footprint, we will eschew the cost on the basis of either belief or denial. As the Gore lecture serice made into a documentary was titled it is “An Inconvenient Truth.” https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/ A truth which will cost everyone something in the short term and everyone everything in the longer term.

I would submit that our wants and desires or wishes for how we want things in the future is the biggest problem as it is the one which dictates if we, human beings in every country, will take action. I assert this ad all of our political will and decision making processes are tied up in moneyed interests. Moneyed interests rule the world. So, a better response to my friend Cj’s comment would be, it is more imperative than ever than we change how money is created. For under the current system, dominated by moneyed interests, there is no motive to ward off climate warming, for it is in the moneyed interests of the word’s short term interests to keep making a profit.
If the average citizen were the recipient of newly created money rather than the bankers and financial wizards as they are now, perhaps, our priorities could be modified to the point where the warming climate may get noticed and an impetus to take action can be made?

 

Inflation under the plan to Democratize Money by Monetizing Citizens? NO WAY!

I sent a copy of my book to an old college friend months before I published it https://www.amazon.com/Democratize-Money-Monetize-Citizens-Proposal-ebook/dp/B0756RQRPG He was concerned about inflation under my proposal to have the Fed put new money (give) into adult citizen’s bank accounts. However, inflation would not be a problem that the Fed could not deal. There were less than 208 million adult citizens in the US in July of this year. The Fed held over $17 trillion in debt. If the Fed thought doling out money to the citizens in monthly or biweekly installments created a bubble (too much) money) and stimulated inflation they could sell the debt instruments they hold to contract the money supply by as much or more as the new money in the hands of citizens created. During the first year Fed deposits into citizen accounts would amount to (rounding up) $4.982 trillion (including new money the governments will get. The feds hold more than three times that in debt instruments they could sell. So, there is absolutely no reason for a surge in inflation caused by too much money entering the system given the Fed’s resources (which are in debt so it is strange to call them resources, but that is finance) to manage the money supply.

Yes there are, theoretically different cause of inflation. So, pick out one and then we can examine the tools that are used to combat it. In all cases it is a matter of psychology (Greenspan used to call it jawboning), open market operations (buying and selling debt instruments), reserve ratios (the percent of a bank’s depositors accounts it can lend) and what they call the window (the rate at which the Fed allows banks to borrow). None of the Fed’s tools are changed by my proposal. So they can still manage the money supply in the ways they have learned over the years.

Footnote: I did not cit my sources for numbers. I did that on purpose. This way a reader has to look them up on their own. I always felt more comfortable checking other people’s numbers when I could find them on my own. But to give you a hint, I googled two questions: how many adult citizens live in the US? And, How much debt does the Fed hold?

 

I tried to respond to the Redford Statement

Basically I got trapped in the I am not a robot verification and eventually gave up.  I just thought to let the Sundance Folks know about my post here.  Big mistake.  What we need to work on is a way to have dialog.

A 226 word statement from Robert Redford. And, a way to escape from the vicious cycle of Transfer Payments.

https://www.sundance.org/blogs/news/robert-redford-a-brief-statement-about-big-things

“Robert Redford
Friday, October 5th, 2018 

Tonight, for the first time I can remember, I feel out of place in the country I was born into and the citizenship I’ve loved my whole life. For weeks I’ve watched with sadness as our civil servants have failed us, turning toward bigotry, mean-spiritedness, and mockery as the now-normal tools of the trade.
“How can we expect the next generation to step up and serve, to be interested in public life, and to aspire to get involved when all we show them is how to spar, attack, and destroy each other?
“It’s hard to blame young people for calling us out, and pointing to our conflicts between the values we declare, and those we stand behind only when it’s convenient to partisanship. Many people are rightly calling it a damn mess.
“But I want to encourage you to dig deep for hope and civility right now—to try to make connections with people you disagree with, to be better than our politicians.
“We don’t have to share the same motivations to want the same outcomes. Let’s focus on each other, and strengthening our communities, and reflecting on what’s happening. “Let’s live in justice and respect and let others fight it out now to the bitter ends.
This is our country too. Every woman, man, and child in it, our American future.
“We’ve got work to do.”

Sometime in the last month or two, Kevin Costner was on the View when I was riding my stationary bike to nowhere. He comment that he no longer recognized this country. This morning I caught reference to a statement that Robert Redford published  (see above): https://www.sundance.org/blogs/news/robert-redford-a-brief-statement-about-big-things It would seem that Mr. Redford has said it most succinctly and non-threateningly in 226 words! The only question is how do we begin to start with the current three ring circus that passes for the three central branches of government today? History shows that the big name bank robbers and mafia chiefs of the 1930s were heroes to a segment of the population too? How do we get through to today’s worshipers of false heroes?

There is a sense in which a segment of the population view tax supported programs to give the poor a leg up as taking money from them through taxes and giving it to the poor. Unfortunately, they do not similarly view the tax loopholes, subsidies and outright payments to big money interests as giving the rich money. An analysis of the amounts transferred to the poor would pale in comparison to the amounts transferred to the rich. But the segment of the population that feels their money has been taken and given to the poor does not seem to see the vastly greater amounts their tax dollars have gone to programs to aid the rich. Then too that same segment of the population feels they have been discriminated against with Affirmative Action and Equality Opportunity programs designed to bring minority members of our communities into the mainstream with “equal treatment.” A segment of our white middle class and working class population saw Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity was opportunity and action for minorities only.
Rather than try to debunk these perceptions. Le me take a completely different track. Aside from individuals biased against minorities, a big reason minorities, or any one needs a leg up in our economic system is lack of money to get the education, skills, experience or the like to get ahead. Lack of money is the reason families can not provide the secure home for raising children ang moving them into productive adulthood. So, rather than taxing people to get money to give to those who need money, we can merely change the way we create new money by giving new money to all citizens in equal amounts. (See earlier posts in this bog or check out the book form on Kindle for 99 cents below for more than you ever wanted to know about new money and how to democratize it.) Then, the segment that is truculently being taxed to provide benefits to others, will not be taxed to do that any longer.

I estimate that we can give every adult citizen $20,000 a year without creating inflation (there are some hoops the Fed will have to jump through, but it can be done). Then the only argument against this, aside from the very rich who will not longer get all the newly created money as they currently do, will be from those who do not want others to get what they are getting.

I have to find a way to get the word out.

“We’ve got work to do.”

To All Americans: I need you to help me with a 50₵ stamp, envelope two pieces of paper and ink from your printer.

To All Americans: I need you to help me with a 50₵ stamp, envelope two pieces of paper and ink from your printer.

It is time we changed the political dialog in America and bring the focus on the people rather than the rich and corporations. We need to introduce Members of the U. S. House and Senate and the media to the possibility of democratizing the economy. At a time when wages are stagnant and even lower than they were four decades ago, at a time when income inequality is growing, and even while employment is at a high along with the markets, we need to move away from a trickle-down economic system that is failing the masses. Please send my letter to your Members of Congres or anyone you can think of who might be able to start a dialog. We need to get the word out about how to finance a basic universal income. The way is to democratize money. Send my letter with a cover letter from you. The Congressional email system will not take this missive, too many hyphens, and links. So, it has to be a snail mail letter. https://www.congress.gov/members to find the addresses of your representatives and senators.
Thank you,
Ed
P. O. B0x 831
Castle Rock, WA 98611
Theo1066@yahoo.com
September 3, 2018

Dear

I ask you to consider a small but significant change in how we create money in America. We currently base our money supply on debt. Behind all the new dollars the Federal Reserve issues, are promissory notes they purchased with those newly created dollars. Basing the money supply on debt instruments means dollars enter the economy at the top of the economic pyramid and some trickle down to the average citizen—trickle-down economics. Basing the money supply on debt instruments means the supply is dependent upon the need for debt and results in a business cycle—expansion (growth or booms) and contractions (recessions and depressions). Basing the money supply solely on debt instruments means there is a growing income disparity in this country and an increase in the proportion of the pollution in poverty. Basing the money supply solely on debt instruments means governments’ revenues are at a low when governments need more and at a high when government program needs are not so pressing.
I propose we change the basis for creating new money from debt instruments to monetizing citizens. As an example, pay each adult citizen $20,000/year, tax exempt (as it would constitute a poll tax) in monthly or biweekly installments. Pay the governments an annual flat sum for each citizen in their jurisdiction, in lieu of taxes—say, Federal $2000, and states $1,000.
As a side issue, basic income proposals have been under serious discussion for the past few decades. There have been some experiments with basic incomes. However, the problem with basic incomes has been how to pay for or fund them. Monetizing citizens, a change in what we base our money supply upon, is a way to pay for basic incomes. Monetizing citizens seems like the next step toward achieving equality in the United States.
The details will impact most domestic policy and political issues. I have outlined some possible policy implications in a book, https://www.amazon.com/Democratize-Money-Monetize-Citizens-Proposal-ebook/dp/B0756RQRPG/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1535834900&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Democratize+Money%3A+Monetize+Citizens , and a series of blogs, https://democratizemoney.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/about-democratizemoneywordpress-com/ . Note the blog is free and the eBook is 99 cents (free if you have a kindle reading subscription). I will be happy to answer questions abouthe t mechanics of such a change, inflation, poverty programs and other policy areas the change will impact.

Respectfully, T. Edward Westen, Ph.D.
(Professor Emeritus, Central Michigan University)