Political Crossfire Forums

[flamboyant]

Judge: Make Bills Recognizable to Blind
Nov 28 6:10 PM US/Eastern

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

The government discriminates against blind people by printing money that all looks and feels the same, a federal judge said Tuesday in a ruling that could change the face of American currency.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson ordered the Treasury Department to come up with ways for the blind to tell bills apart. He said he wouldn't tell officials how to fix the problem, but he ordered them to begin working on it.

The American Council of the Blind has proposed several options, including printing bills of differing sizes, adding embossed dots or foil to the paper or using raised ink.

"Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations," Robertson wrote. "More than 100 of the other issuers vary their bills in size according to denomination, and every other issuer includes at least some features that help the visually impaired."

Government attorneys argued that forcing the Treasury Department to change the size of the bills or add texture would make it harder to prevent counterfeiting. Robertson was not swayed.

"The fact that each of these features is currently used in other currencies suggests that, at least on the face of things, such accommodations are reasonable," he wrote.

He said the government was violating the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in government programs. The opinion came after a four-year legal fight.

Electronic devices are available to help blind people differentiate between bills, but many complain that they are slow, expensive and unreliable. Visually impaired shoppers frequently rely on store clerks to help them.

"It's just frankly unfair that blind people should have to rely on the good faith of people they have never met in knowing whether they've been given the correct change," said Jeffrey A. Lovitky, attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Others have developed ways to cope with the similarly shaped bills. Melanie Brunson, a member of the American Council of the Blind, told the court that she folds her bills into different shapes: $1 bills stay straight, $5 bills are folded in half left to right, $10 bills in half top to bottom and $20 in quarters.

The Treasury Department had no comment on the ruling Tuesday. The government has 10 days to decide whether to appeal.

U.S. bills have not always been the same size. In 1929, the government standardized the size and shrank all bills by about 30 percent to lower manufacturing costs and help distinguish between genuine and counterfeit notes.

Since then, the Treasury Department has worked to stay ahead of counterfeiters. Security threads and microprinting were introduced in The portraits were enlarged in 1996, and an infrared feature was added to encourage the development of electronic readers for the blind.

The latest redesign is under way. New $10 bills, featuring splashes of orange, yellow and red, hit the market this year, following similar changes to the $20 bill in 2003 and the $50 bill in 2004. The $5 facelift is due in 2008.

In court documents, government attorneys said changing the way money feels would be expensive. Cost estimates ranged from $75 million in equipment upgrades and $9 million annual expenses for punching holes in bills to $178 million in one-time charges and $50 million annual expenses for printing bills of varying sizes.

Any change to the dollar's design could ripple into the vending machine industry, which participated in discussions regarding previous redesigns. The American Council of the Blind is not seeking changes to the $1 bill, according to court documents.

The Treasury Department spent $4.2 billion on printing over the past decade, Robertson said. Adding a raised number to the bills would have increased costs less than 5 percent over that period, he said.

"If additional savings could be gained by incorporating the new feature into a larger redesign, such as those that took place in 1996 or 2004, the total burden of adding such a feature would be even smaller," Robertson wrote.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/28/D8LMC4600.html

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

It's no surprise that there's going to be a disparity between the estimates given by each side, but $75 million up front and $9 million a year vs. $178 and $50? How do you make sense of that?

If it's anywhere near the 5 percent claimed, however that's more than a fair enough price to pay to allow blind people to have confidence in the money they're carrying.

It does make you wonder though just what kind of person would it short-change a blind guy like that. Seriously, total scum of the earth.

But back to this court case, do you agree with the judge's decision that U.S. currency is unfair to the blind and would the extra millions per year be justified in changing the currency?

(I have a feeling this is a rare chance to agree with my liberal friends on the board.)

[CountryGuy]

While I don't like judges dictating policy... I agree with this judge.

Not only would different-sized currency help the blind, but if sized upon the value, it could also be a means of helping those who do not read English (think of asian countries, for example, that use a completely different set of symbols).

Personally, I'm more for moving us to a paperless currency (smart cards), but that's a few generations away (too many people like cash).

[Nelson]

The fact that nearly every other country in the world has purposely made their currency in order to cater to the blind population except for the United States is evidence enough - some change is needed.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Disagree with this judge completely. There's nothing wrong with our money. The blind apparently have been doing fine with it so far... no need to change it.

[The Comrade]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Disagree with this judge completely. There's nothing wrong with our money. The blind apparently have been doing fine with it so far... no need to change it.

it's things like this that start taking things too far.


oh, you don't like god? well muslims and jews and jehovas need their own currnecy to say allah/yhwh/jehova. you know, to be fair.

[eXploiTeD]

It's not going to "change the face of American currency." They'll just put a few indented dots on the bill, allowing the blind to feel what bills they've received.

Anybody who opposes this is f****d. Of course the government should print money accessible to everyone...

[CountryGuy]

The Comrade wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Disagree with this judge completely. There's nothing wrong with our money. The blind apparently have been doing fine with it so far... no need to change it.

it's things like this that start taking things too far.


oh, you don't like god? well muslims and jews and jehovas need their own currnecy to say allah/yhwh/jehova. you know, to be fair.

The difference here is that the current money is impossible to use by the blind without some risk. Yes, when someone who is blind gets a stack of 20s they can bend a corner, etc., but who's to say they actually got 20s? Making a change to the currency enables the blind to know what they are getting day in and day out. Imagine having to trust every single teller / cashier / etc. to give you correct change!

There is a big difference between this and the word "God" on the bill.

[The Comrade]

CountryGuy wrote:

The difference here is that the current money is impossible to use by the blind without some risk. Yes, when someone who is blind gets a stack of 20s they can bend a corner, etc., but who's to say they actually got 20s? Making a change to the currency enables the blind to know what they are getting day in and day out. Imagine having to trust every single teller / cashier / etc. to give you correct change!

There is a big difference between this and the word "God" on the bill.


they've been doing fine for centuries. why the need to change it now?

and there may be a different to you, but to some whiny person with a lawyer the two are completely linked.

[flamboyant]

The Comrade wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Disagree with this judge completely. There's nothing wrong with our money. The blind apparently have been doing fine with it so far... no need to change it.

it's things like this that start taking things too far.


oh, you don't like god? well muslims and jews and jehovas need their own currnecy to say allah/yhwh/jehova. you know, to be fair.

Just put yourself in a blind person's shoes. That would suck to have to rely on complete strangers to be completely honest in giving you change. I just don't see it being a step on the slippery slope, this goes down to giving the blind the ability to just properly use money. If we're talking $75 million up front and $9 million annually, that's pocket change for the government and well worth the cost.

[CountryGuy]

The Comrade wrote: CountryGuy wrote:

The difference here is that the current money is impossible to use by the blind without some risk. Yes, when someone who is blind gets a stack of 20s they can bend a corner, etc., but who's to say they actually got 20s? Making a change to the currency enables the blind to know what they are getting day in and day out. Imagine having to trust every single teller / cashier / etc. to give you correct change!

There is a big difference between this and the word "God" on the bill.


they've been doing fine for centuries. why the need to change it now?

and there may be a different to you, but to some whiny person with a lawyer the two are completely linked.

And physically handicapped people have been doing fine going up stairs with wheelchairs for centuries... with help. Yet we created a law to provide them some independence in their lives.

Blind people may also be getting along fine... With help. That doesn't mean we, as a society, shouldn't try to provide them with the means of independence.

[flamboyant]

CountryGuy wrote: The Comrade wrote: CountryGuy wrote:

The difference here is that the current money is impossible to use by the blind without some risk. Yes, when someone who is blind gets a stack of 20s they can bend a corner, etc., but who's to say they actually got 20s? Making a change to the currency enables the blind to know what they are getting day in and day out. Imagine having to trust every single teller / cashier / etc. to give you correct change!

There is a big difference between this and the word "God" on the bill.


they've been doing fine for centuries. why the need to change it now?

and there may be a different to you, but to some whiny person with a lawyer the two are completely linked.

And physically handicapped people have been doing fine going up stairs with wheelchairs for centuries... with help. Yet we created a law to provide them some independence in their lives.

Blind people may also be getting along fine... With help. That doesn't mean we, as a society, shouldn't try to provide them with the means of independence.

My guess is The Comrade has never really met a blind person because all you need to do is befriend one (my friend has macular degeneration, so his blindness is slowly but surely progressing) and realize that these people are well worthy of a little extra effort from the government to have the same opportunities we enjoy.

Even if I didn't have a friend who was losing his site as my friend is, I think I would still be able to picture how it makes perfect sense to extend a little extra to them so they can function, but I do think that would be a sure fire way of getting you to see the light. Maybe spend a day volunteering at a school for blind children, that would get you to see the light on this.

After all, they're all your Comrades too, aren't they?

[The Comrade]

flamboyant wrote:

Just put yourself in a blind person's shoes. That would suck to have to rely on complete strangers to be completely honest in giving you change. I just don't see it being a step on the slippery slope, this goes down to giving the blind the ability to just properly use money. If we're talking $75 million up front and $9 million annually, that's pocket change for the government and well worth the cost.


people said the same about the brady bunch when the two parents were seen in bed. everyone threw a fit saying that sex and nudity would be all over television in no time. oh wow, what do you know, they were right!

all it takes is a little push for people to take things too far.

and like i said, things have been working fine for centuries, why change it now?

[eXploiTeD]

The Comrade wrote: flamboyant wrote:

Just put yourself in a blind person's shoes. That would suck to have to rely on complete strangers to be completely honest in giving you change. I just don't see it being a step on the slippery slope, this goes down to giving the blind the ability to just properly use money. If we're talking $75 million up front and $9 million annually, that's pocket change for the government and well worth the cost.


people said the same about the brady bunch when the two parents were seen in bed. everyone threw a fit saying that sex and nudity would be all over television in no time. oh wow, what do you know, they were right!

all it takes is a little push for people to take things too far.

and like i said, things have been working fine for centuries, why change it now?

Because they haven't been working fine... for blind people.

Really, though, you are bizarre. You'll be cool with spending billions throwing people in jail for drugs, yet you'll scoff at spending a hundred million to make money accessible to blind people.

Simply bizarre.

[The Comrade]

CountryGuy wrote:

And physically handicapped people have been doing fine going up stairs with wheelchairs for centuries... with help. Yet we created a law to provide them some independence in their lives.

people not being able to leave their house and blind man not having brail on his money...hmm the two don't seem to fit.

CountryGuy wrote:
Blind people may also be getting along fine... With help. That doesn't mean we, as a society, shouldn't try to provide them with the means of independence.

ummm the fact of NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE will always leave them dependent on something.

[flamboyant]

I'm not sure I see the analogy between sex on tv as a slippery slope and blind people being able to properly identify money just the way you and I do.

I'm looking at your quote in your sig here:

Quote: Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named...but a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant then a riot

Doesn't it seem the polite thing to do to make it so blind people have an easy way to identify their money?

[The Ferryman]

Judge is full of kahkah. Just another secular-progressive judge trying to legislate from the bench.

[The Comrade]

flamboyant wrote: I'm not sure I see the analogy between sex on tv as a slippery slope and blind people being able to properly identify money just the way you and I do.

I'm looking at your quote in your sig here:

Quote: Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named...but a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant then a riot

Doesn't it seem the polite thing to do to make it so blind people have an easy way to identify their money?


no, it seems like a waste of money and time to fix something that isn't broke.

[CountryGuy]

The Comrade wrote: CountryGuy wrote:

And physically handicapped people have been doing fine going up stairs with wheelchairs for centuries... with help. Yet we created a law to provide them some independence in their lives.

people not being able to leave their house and blind man not having brail on his money...hmm the two don't seem to fit.
Umm no - The law requires public buildings provide handicapped access. A person can build a ramp at their home, but couldn't force a business to supply a means of entry. They now have to, allowing the handicapped to be independent. In the case of the blind and money, either they rely on people to be honest in public, or have to have someone come with them.

The point is, just because they've survived "for centuries" doesn't mean as technology progresses we shouldn't try to provide more independence for them. In the case of the monetary changes mentioned -- Different sizes of paper or multi-leveled printing has been around for a long time -- Its overdue.

The Comrade wrote: CountryGuy wrote:
Blind people may also be getting along fine... With help. That doesn't mean we, as a society, shouldn't try to provide them with the means of independence.

ummm the fact of NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE will always leave them dependent on something.
Not so. I've seen people who work in the city: Take a bus / train from their home, get to their destination (most trains now provide braille maps, and synthesized vocal announcements of stops), work, then return home the same way. They are not dependent on people, but there are risks - such as with money.

[The Comrade]

CountryGuy wrote:
Umm no - The law requires public buildings provide handicapped access. A person can build a ramp at their home, but couldn't force a business to supply a means of entry. They now have to, allowing the handicapped to be independent. In the case of the blind and money, either they rely on people to be honest in public, or have to have someone come with them.

there is already something that puts brail on money. it's a little plastic thing that fits on your keychain. why should the government spend millions of dollars to fix something that already has a solution?


CountryGuy wrote: Not so. I've seen people who work in the city: Take a bus / train from their home, get to their destination (most trains now provide braille maps, and synthesized vocal announcements of stops), work, then return home the same way. They are not dependent on people, but there are risks - such as with money.


you just stated above that they are dependent on others, and in a previous post you said they lackedi ndependence without this.

so which is it?

[agentkgb]

I'm all for the change. The blind shouldn't have to trust random strangers to give them a ten instead of a one.