An open letter to The Honorable Dennis Kucinich: Re: H.R. 2990: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011 (NEED Act): Part 25: Monetary Reform: Series 1

An open letter to The Honorable Dennis Kucinich: Re: H.R. 2990: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011 (NEED Act): Part 25: Monetary Reform: Series 1:

An open letter to The Honorable Dennis Kucinich:

Tom Usher
15904 4th Ave S #33
Burien, WA 98148-1278

Friday, January 13, 2012

VIA: WEBSITE SUBMISSION FORM )

Re: H.R. 2990: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011 (NEED Act)

The Honorable Dennis Kucinich
US House of Representatives
2445 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Kucinich:

SUBJECT: NEED ACT, SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS (b)

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS (b) of the NEED Act reads as follows:

"(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment to the FDIA- Section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"`Such term does not include any amount on which any interest is paid or which is received or held by a bank or savings association pursuant to a loan agreement for a fixed term of time (as determined without regard to any designation on the agreement as a loan, certificate, or other particular instrument).'." (See: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2990&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A76; Note: Thomas search sessions timeout all URLs.)

The lack of an alphanumeric designator preceding "Such term does not..." results in ambiguity concerning the definition of the term "deposit." That resulting ambiguity runs through the NEED Act.

1813(l) ends with (5)(C).

Simply tacking "Such term does not include..." (per SEC. 3 (b) of the NEED Act) onto the end of 1813(l) does not make clear whether that additional language applies to (5), as in becoming 1813(l)(5)(D) or whether the additional language applies to the whole of 1813(l). {See (provides indentations for ease of reading): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_12_00001813----000-.html; See also: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/1000-400.html#fdic1000sec3l.}

I respectfully suggest the following in lieu of the NEED Act's current SEC. 3 (b):

"(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment to the FDIA- Section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)) is amended as follows:

"(l) Deposit
(1) Subject to 1813 (l)(2), the term "deposit" means—
[...; Here, the alphanumeric designators would all shift to their next lower levels. I refrained from making this letter unnecessarily longer by including all of the language with shifted designators. I trust that meets with your approval. However, I would be more than happy to include it upon request.]
(2) The term "deposit" does not mean—
(A) any amount on which any interest is paid or which is received or held by a bank or savings association pursuant to a loan agreement for a fixed term of time (as determined without regard to any designation on the agreement as a loan, certificate, or other particular instrument)."

By making the suggested change/clarification, the addition to 1813(l) without doubt will apply to the whole of 1813(l) and not possibly be taken as applying solely to 1813(l)(5), which results in the exact opposite of the definition you intend.

It is my understanding that you have worked closely with Mr. Stephen Zarlenga, Director of The American Monetary Institute, in developing the National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011. While I have a keen interest in monetary and banking reform, I have not contacted Mr. Zarlenga directly concerning this issue. I've dealt directly with one, Mr. Joe Bongiovanni, who appears to be a member of The American Monetary Institute. There has been an ongoing discussion on LinkedIn concerning the bill ("Monetary Reformer Bill Still has put his hat in the presidential race as a Libertarian candidate. What are your thoughts? | LinkedIn": http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2350080&type=member&item=81890443). Unfortunately, the discussion has been acrimonious at times. Mr. Bongiovanni has completely dismissed out of hand my point concerning the clear ambiguity presented by SEC. 3 (b) of the NEED Act as it stands as of the date of this letter. In addition, Ms. Ellen Brown is a member of the discussion group on LinkedIn and is a very strong and vocal proponent of public banking (publicly owned banks). I have read the following on The American Monetary Institute website pertaining directly to Ellen Brown's efforts:

"19) Should we have the individual 50 states own banks? Like North Dakota?
"More Kool-Aid and distractions...Look folks the objective is to get the banks out of the Money creation field, not to get the government into banking!! A highly distracting idea that does not in any way accomplish any necessary reform! Instead it gives our fraudulent banking system a moral free pass! It is mind boggling that progressive people fall for this. (see the home page for an in depth article by Jamie Walton on this)" (Source: http://www.monetary.org/intro-to-monetary-reform/faqs; last accessed 1/13/2012.)

Dear Congressman Kucinich, you are featured very prominently on The American Monetary Institute website. I believe you have great sway there. The NEED Act is your legislation proposed on behalf of the whole American people. There are many things about the Act that I truly love. Your plan for infrastructure (broadly defined, as it should be) spending and full employment are as bold and forward thinking as anything that has ever come out of Washington – bolder than the New Deal. I'm not sure how much thought you've given to publicly owned banks on the state or other levels, but I should think that after looking closely at the possibilities and how that concept could be federalized, you would at least request The American Monetary Institute to not dismiss out of hand all of the various publicly owned banking efforts ongoing in the US and around the world, in fact. We need to employ every tool we can to rein in the banksters, as FDR used to call them and rightly so.

Before closing, let me also add that while I know a great deal of thought has gone into the Act, thoughtful and astute people have expressed concern about the Monetary Authority (MA) as proposed by the Act as it now stands. My personal view is that it is 1930s thinking where we need 2012+ thinking on the subject.

There are better alternatives to a body of people manually versus in an automated fashion attempting to balance the economy into as little inflation/deflation as possible. I suggest that if you haven't already, you look into the huge work and successes of the opensource software community and consider that, that community could and would develop computer software that would analyze on a near "all-transactions, all-items CPI and wholesale PI" basis changes in price inflation/deflation and moderate the money supply accordingly. This could be done without taxation by virtue of causing the Treasury to become the central depository of all accounts which central depository would apply an exactly equal increase/decrease in all accounts to maintain the near perfect supply of funds. Of course, the supply would grow (which we want) to meet and create required and desired growth leading to the full employment you want with no inflation. Mine is a bold suggestion, I grant you; but you've already been bold, and I see no point in avoiding broadening the discussion so that fresh ideas and blood may enter.

Thank you, sir, for allowing me to assist and for your consideration concerning these and other matters.

I wish you well concerning the NEED Act and look forward to additional co-sponsors and new and improved iterations perhaps including 1) a public banking section 2) opensource development of the computer software to reduce to a minimum, in real-time, and with full transparency, oscillations in inflation-deflation, and 3) even Wall Street reforms and more.

My view is that the Act should be akin to FDR's first 100 days only more so, much more so.

Sincerely,

Tom Usher

Monetary Reform: Series 1

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.