[blindlaw] Cost of Currency

Sat Dec 2 20:58:06 CST 2006

Hi Angie,

    I'm sure the horse has accepted his death.  Yet, if I am going to submit 
a novel, I think it only fair to try to give you a response to your question 
of figure comparison.  Note I have never been personally in favor of the 
government granting money identifiers, so this is merely a reply to your 
inquiry.

    The 4.3 million we are working with is only a top side estimate.  And 
before we go any further, remember there are two very important, and 
overlooked, factors to consider: first, no system will feasibly find every 
blind resident in the country; and second, of the blind people that are 
found, only a small percent would volunteer to be called or seen as blind. 
The government does not have to force people to use these devices.  If 
people can visually distinguish their own bills there would be no incentive 
in using a product that would draw attention to a condition they would 
rather hide.  And, there is also the inconvenience factor which some have 
dutifully pointed out.

    But, in the way of figures, the American Foundation for the Blind, a 
more specific source than my previously cited Federal Census, reports that 
the current number of legally blind residents is actually 1.3 million.  80 
percent of this number have usable vision.  The other 20 percent have either 
light perception or are totally blind, bringing the number to only 0.08 
percent of the total US population.  So, if we take 20 percent of this 1.3 
million we get twenty-six thousand but for argument's sake let's assume low 
vision people also want to cash on these proposed devices and round the 
figure up to a healthy fifty thousand.  If we borrow your suggested cost of 
100 per device the government would only be spending five million.  I'll 
admit I cannot produce exact figures for administrative costs, but if we 
draw a parallel between distributing devices to reproducing accessible 
textbooks, a far more involved process, I believe our predicted costs to 
carry out the reproduction included a five million startup cost and one 
million annually thereafter.  So we're talking a round figure of 10 million, 
give or take.

    On the other hand, in order to change currency, the government would 
spend a minimal of 75 million in startup costs to upgrade their equipment, 9 
million annually to punch holes, 50 million annually if the bills were 
printed in varying sizes, and 178 million in one-time charges for 
production.  This does not include the projected 90 million for public 
education, and while we may want to downplay the role of counterfeiting for 
the sake of discussion, the fact remains that the US currency has 
proportionally increased in circulation abroad from 40 percent in 1970 to 60 
percent today, an increase that requires more prevention which requires more 
money.  We cannot overlook international repercussions.  We cannot overlook 
economic impacts here at home.  Remember, in the US alone there is an 
estimated 7 million food and beverage vending machines, each of which would 
require up to $300 to retrofit to meet the changed currency.  I am confident 
larger companies could front the cost, but I guess I would hate to put that 
burden on struggling smaller businesses.

    Anyway, that's a very brief comparison between devices and currency 
modifications.  Again, I don't believe the government should hand out these 
money identifiers.  The precedent this might create scares me.  On the other 
hand, some blind people can't get around without canes or dogs.  I mean, if 
people can't fully participate in their own neighborhood, the government 
should start subsidizing and distributing these tools to allow us to become 
equal citizens, right?  I think a better advocacy would have been a push for 
the means by which to read the credit card receipts I and 70 percent of the 
population get after making a purchase.  I think I'm more likely to get 
screwed there than I would on cash returns.

    On the whole, I was excited to see active dialogue on the issue. 
Disagreement should never be our primary objective, but disagreement often 
times helps us find the best course of action.  I would not be at all amused 
if the NFB spent money to legally rival the efforts of the ACB on this 
issue, because despite my preceding arguments, I do not believe accessible 
currency will stop me from leading a dignified life as a blind person.  I 
think a lot of people in the NFB would like to spare the industry a vast and 
unnecessary financial burden at the expense of a very small population, but 
seriously, no one is going to exactly complain if they wake up one morning 
with the ability to distinguish between bill denominations.  As long as the 
Treasury department can make its deliberations and we have room to debate 
the issue I think we should engage in active discussion to weigh the pros 
and cons of the matter, and I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to 
read my ranting.

          Joe Orozco

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."--Military 
Basic Training
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Angie Matney" <angie at mpmail.net>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:06 AM
Subject: [blindlaw] Cost of Currency

> Hi Joe,
>
> I don't have time to fully respond to your message, but I want to address 
> this one point:
>
>>Second,
>>even if the Department purchased devices to everyone who could not
>>independently distinguish their own bills, the cost of undertaking this 
>>task
>>will always be significantly less than changing the bills altogether.
>
> I'm not so sure. Do you know of figures to support this?
>
> I've been thinking a lot about the "cost" aspect of this debate. I want to 
> preface my comments by stating that I'm sort of "thinking out loud," and I 
> don't expect that these numbers are accurate. But we need to really 
> examine what we are claiming about costs.
>
> Suppose money identifiers could be acquired by the government at, say, 
> $100 each. Earlier in your message, you stated there were 4.3 million 
> legally blind individuals as of the 2000 census. That number is probably 
> larger now, but let's stick with it. If my cost estimate of $100 per money 
> identifier is accurate (and I'm
> completely making it up...), we're talking at an expense of 430 million 
> dollars to acquire the equipment. This does not include distribution 
> costs, administrative costs (someone has got to keep a database of all 
> individuals who are eligible, and while NLS's database might be a good 
> starting point, it will not cover
> everyone), costs for repairs/replacements/upgrades, and costs of educating 
> people as to the existence of the money identifiers. Also, this does not 
> take into account that people who have low vision but who are not legally 
> blind might lobby to receive money identifiers as well. Even if costs 
> could be reduced to $50 per
> money identifyer, we're still talking about an initial investment of $215 
> million for only the equipment. Some of the costs proposed by the 
> government are less, and it's believed that these figures were inflated by 
> including the costs of modifying the one dollar bill in the calculation. 
> The one dollar bill accounts for almost half
> the paper currency produced, and ACB's proposal would leave it unaltered.
> Here are some excerpts from the Roberts opinion that discuss some of these 
> cost issues. I'm posting this not because I think it's necessarily the 
> absolute truth, but because I would like to see a more thorough 
> examination of the costs involved. If someone has more accurate figures to 
> help me understand this, I would
> be genuinely appreciative. If we are saying providing money identifyers is 
> cheaper, I want to understand that line of reasoning, and I'm not sure I 
> believe it right now.
>
> *****
>
> The 1996 redesign cost the BEP approximately $34
> million, of which $26 million was devoted to funding a public
> education campaign.6 The redesign further increased annual costs
> by $31 million. Supp. Dec. of Thomas Ferguson (Aug. 30,
> 2005)[#33-7, at Ý 5]. The total initial cost for the 2004
> redesign was $113,037,205. This included approximately $38
> million for the purchase of six new presses and $50 million for a
> 5The 1996 redesign introduced several new security features, including
> watermark portraits, an embedded security thread, micro-printed words, and
> color shifting ink. Supp. Decl. Of Thomas Ferguson, (Aug. 30, 2005) 
> [#33-7,
> at Ý 4]. The 2004 redesign added small yellow denomination numerals on the
> back of each note, a more complex design and additional background colors 
> to
> the $10, $20, $50, and $100 bills. Id. at Ý 6.
> 6The total costs of the 1996 redesign also included $1.5 million for
> research, consultation and design, $4.5 million on engraving and 
> manufacturing
> new printing plants, $1.1 million on inspection equipment, $200,000 for 
> in-
> house contracts and $90,000 on site preparation.
> public education campaign.7 In addition, the 2004 redesign
> required over $25 million in increased annual costs. Id. at Ý 7.
>
>
> *****
>
> Here is another pertanent excerpt:
>
> *****
>
> 12Defendants initial cost estimates in this matter were startling, and
> ultimately misleading. Defendant first asserted that the changes sought by
> plaintiffs would require an initial investment of $26 to $101 million 
> dollars
> more than its total budget for 2001, and an annual increase in expenses of
> sixty-five to seventy-nine percent. See Def.s Mem. Oppn. [#43, at 24];
> - 21 -
> different sizes, the most expensive option, would require an
> initial investment of $178 million for new printing presses,
> inspection and verification machines, numbering machines, and
> processing equipment, and $37-50 million for new printing plates
> for each new bill. See Def.'s Resp. to Pls. Second Req. for
> Produc. of Documents [#43-3]. In addition to these initial
> costs, the BEP foresees increased annual costs of approximately
> $30 million to acquire additional paper and ink and $22 million
> to meet increased labor needs. Id. An embossed feature on each
> bill, such as a raised numeral, would have initial capital costs
> of $45.5 million and additional annual costs of approximately $16
> million. Supp. Decl. of Thomas Ferguson (Aug. 30, 2005), [#33-7,
> at Ý 9]. Perforating (punching a hole in) each note would
> require initial costs of $75 million, with additional annual
> costs of approximately $9 million. Id. at Ý 10. A foil feature
> would require an initial expenditure of $51.5 million with annual
> costs of approximately $15 million. Id. at Ý 14. In addition,
> the government notes, any change would require worldwide public
> education to ensure public acceptance of the new bills, which
> would cost between $70 to $90 million. Decl. of Thomas Ferguson
> (Aug. 28, 2002) [#33-5, at Ý 48].13
>
> *****
>
> Now, notice the following footnote from the opinion:
>
> *****
>
> Def.s Reply [#61, at 16]. This estimate appears to have been calculated 
> to
> include all of the changes proposed by plaintiffs, however. Just one such
> tactile feature would suffice. See Pls. Surreply [#67, at 15].
>
> *****
>
> And finally, one of the most interesting notes of all:
>
> *****
>
> All cost estimates were provided by the government. See Def.'s Resp.
> to Pls. Second Req. for Produc. of Documents; Supp. Decl. of Thomas 
> Ferguson
> (Aug. 30, 2005). These figures may be inflated, however, due to the
> governments inclusion of the cost of modifying the one dollar bill. See
> Decl. of Thomas Ferguson in Resp. to Pls. Mot. for Summ. J. (Oct. 25, 
> 2005)[#43-2, at Ý 11].
>
> *****
>
>
>
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> 