Trump Administration Delays Issuance of Harriet Tubman Note by Six Years for So-Called Technical Reasons: C'Mon

June 15, 2019


No, this is not the end of the earth. But it is all-too sharply indicative of the Trump's Administration crude lack of appreciation of African-American leadership and the shabby willingness to bury the truth of the matter in facile, unbelievable explanations.

Harriet Tubman has been a personal inspiration to me and countless others for decades. The story of her going back to Maryland almost 20 times to help enslaved men and women to escape, being aided financially by a white business man, Thomas Garrett was driving, lifting example for me as I worked with others to create the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati. I hope I live to see her life properly recognized for the lesson of courage it will always teach. 

See a Design of the Harriet Tubman $20 Bill That Mnuchin Delayed

A previously unreleased conceptual design of a new $20 note that was produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and obtained by The New York Times depicts Harriet Tubman in a dark coat with a wide collar and a white scarf. This preliminary design was completed in late 2016.

Image
A previously unreleased conceptual design of a new $20 note that was produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and obtained by The New York Times depicts Harriet Tubman in a dark coat with a wide collar and a white scarf. This preliminary design was completed in late 2016.
WASHINGTON — Extensive work was well underway on a new $20 bill bearing the image of Harriet Tubman when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced last month that the design of the note would be delayed for technical reasons by six years and might not include the former slave and abolitionist.
Many Americans were deeply disappointed with the delay of the bill, which was to be the first to bear the face of an African-American. The change would push completion of the imagery past President Trump’s time in office, even if he wins a second term, stirring speculation that Mr. Trump had intervened to keep his favorite president, Andrew Jackson, a fellow populist, on the front of the note.
But Mr. Mnuchin, testifying before Congress, said new security features under development made the 2020 design deadline set by the Obama administration impossible to meet, so he punted Tubman’s fate to a future Treasury secretary.
In fact, work on the new $20 note began before Mr. Trump took office, and the basic design already on paper most likely could have satisfied the goal of unveiling a note bearing Tubman’s likeness on next year’s centennial of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote. An image of a new $20 bill, produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and obtained by The New York Times from a former Treasury Department official, depicts Tubman in a dark coat with a wide collar and a white scarf.

ADVERTISEMENT
That preliminary design was completed in late 2016.
A spokeswoman for the bureau, Lydia Washington, confirmed that preliminary designs of the new note were created as part of research that was done after Jacob J. Lew, President Barack Obama’s final Treasury secretary, proposed the idea of a Tubman bill.
The development of the note did not stop there. A current employee of the bureau, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, personally viewed a metal engraving plate and a digital image of a Tubman $20 bill while it was being reviewed by engravers and Secret Service officials as recently as May 2018. This person said that the design appeared to be far along in the process.
Within the bureau, this person said, there was a sense of excitement and pride about the new $20 note.
But the Treasury Department, which oversees the engraving bureau, decided that a new $20 bill would not be made public next year. Current and former department officials say Mr. Mnuchin chose the delay to avoid the possibility that Mr. Trump would cancel the plan outright and create even more controversy.
In an interview last week, Mr. Mnuchin denied that the reasons for the delay were anything but technical.

ADVERTISEMENT
“Let me assure you, this speculation that we’ve slowed down the process is just not the case,” Mr. Mnuchin said, speaking on the sidelines of the G-20 finance ministers meeting in Japan.

Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, announced last month that plans to unveil the bill bearing the face of Tubman would be delayed by six years.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Image
Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, announced last month that plans to unveil the bill bearing the face of Tubman would be delayed by six years.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times
The Treasury secretary reiterated that security features drive the change of the currency and rejected the notion that political interference was at play. He declined to say if he believed his predecessor had tried to politicize the currency.
“There is a group of experts that’s interagency, including the Secret Service and others and B.E.P., that are all career officials that are focused on this,” he said, referring to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. “They’re working as fast as they can.”
Monica Crowley, a spokeswoman for Mr. Mnuchin, added that the release into circulation of the new $20 note remained on schedule with the bureau’s original timeline of 2030. She did not, however, say that the bill would feature Tubman.
“The scheduled release (printing) of the $20 bill is on a timetable consistent with the previous administration,” she said in a statement.
In a separate statement released on Friday afternoon, Len Olijar, the director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, said the bureau “was never going to unveil a note design in 2020,” adding that doing so this far in advance of going into circulation would aid counterfeiters. He described the image obtained by The Times as a “facsimile” that contained no security features, and he echoed Mr. Mnuchin’s argument that it was too early to develop an integrated concept or design until security features are finalized.

ADVERTISEMENT
“No bureau or department official has ‘scrapped anything,’” said Mr. Olijar, in what appeared to be a reference to Tubman. “Everything remains on the table.”
But building the security features of a new note before designing its images struck some as curious. Larry E. Rolufs, a former director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, said that because the security features of a new note are embedded in the imagery, they normally would be created simultaneously.
“It can be done at the same time,” said Mr. Rolufs, who led the bureau from 1995 to 1997. “You want to work them together.”
The process of developing American currency is painstaking, done by engravers who spend a decade training as apprentices. People familiar with the process say that engravers spend months working literally upside down and backward carving the portraits of historical figures into the steel plates that eventually help create cash. Often, multiple engravers will attempt different versions of the portraits, usually based on paintings or photographs, and ultimately, the Treasury secretary chooses which one will appear on a note.
Mr. Rolufs said that because of the complexity of creating new currency, circulating a new note design by next year was ambitious. He also acknowledged that making major changes to the money is an invitation for backlash.
“For the secretary to change the design of the notes takes political courage,” he said. “The American people don’t like their currency messed with.”

ADVERTISEMENT
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump called the decision to replace Jackson, who was a slave owner, with Tubman “pure political correctness.” An overhaul of the Treasury Department’s website after Mr. Trump took office removed any trace of the Obama administration’s plans to change the currency, signaling that the plan might be halted.

Packs of newly printed $20 bills being processed for bundling at the engraving bureau last year in Washington.CreditEva Hambach/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Image
Packs of newly printed $20 bills being processed for bundling at the engraving bureau last year in Washington.CreditEva Hambach/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Within Mr. Trump’s Treasury Department, some officials complained that Mr. Lew had politicized the currency with the plan and that the process of selecting Tubman, which included an online poll among other forms of feedback, was not rigorous or reflective of the country’s desires.
The uncertainty has renewed interest in the matter. This week, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland, where Tubman was born, wrote a letter to Mr. Mnuchin urging him to find a way to speed up the process.
“I hope that you’ll reconsider your decision and instead join our efforts to promptly memorialize Tubman’s life and many achievements,” wrote Mr. Hogan, a Republican.
On Friday, Democrats called on Mr. Mnuchin to provide more answers about plans for the $20 note and suggested that the Treasury secretary had misled Congress.
“The Trump administration’s indefinite postponement of this redesign is offensive to women and girls, and communities of color, who have been excitedly waiting to see this woman and civil rights icon honored in this special way,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire.
Representative Ayanna Pressley, Democrat of Massachusetts, who raised the issue with Mr. Mnuchin at a hearing in May, accused him of doing Mr. Trump’s bidding.

ADVERTISEMENT
“Secretary Mnuchin has allowed Trump’s racism and misogyny to prevent him from carrying out the will of the people,” she said.
At the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which offers tours and an exhibit on the history of the currency, some visitors said they preferred tradition, while others were seeking change.
“For me, it’s not important enough to spend the money to change it,” said Jeff Dunyon, who was visiting Washington from Utah this week. “There are other ways to honor her.”
Others believed that adding Tubman to the front of the $20 bill and moving Jackson to the back was an important symbolic move, and, for them, the possibility that it might never happen has been painful.
Charnay Gima, a tourist from Hawaii, had just finished a tour when she pulled aside a guide to ask what became of the plan to make Tubman the face of the $20 bill. The plan was scrapped, she was told, for political reasons.
“It’s kind of sad,” said Ms. Gima, who is black. “I was really looking forward to it because it was finally someone of color on the bill who paved the way for other people.”


Mikayla Bouchard contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Unreal Sight of a Nearly Real $20 BillOrder Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
ADVERTISEMENT
Give The Times for graduation. Starting at $25.
Give The Times for graduation. St

What Was Your Position When It Came Time to Decide Whether to Impeach President Trump?

May 30, 2019



It is striking for me to be reading right now Brenda Wineapple’s new book, The Impeachers:  the Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation.  I’m not far enough in it yet to be able to understand the tension which the members of the House of Representatives and then the Senate faced in whether to vote for impeachment of Andrew Johnson.  The substantive bases for voting for impeachment were readily apparent:  Johnson’s outright opposition (and vetoing; his vetoes were overriden) to legislation protecting the rights of the newly freed African-Americans and his violation of the Tenure of Office provision (by trying to remove Secretary of War Stanton from office).

However, quite apart from the substantive issue, there was the political issue,  a big one, as to whether, for the very first time, impeachment proceedings should be launched against the President of the United States. 

In due course, the charges were agreed to by a majority of the House of Representatives but ultimately failed in the Senate to achieve the required two-thirds majority—by a single vote.

Substantively, for me, there is no doubt that President Trump obstructed the investigation of Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in our election.   It is clear to most legal and prosecutorial authorities that, if the charges had been levied against anyone other than the President of the United States, that person would have been indicted.

The decision which Democratic legislators are facing appears in the main to be a political one.  That is would moving ahead with impeachment proceedings increase or lessen the likelihood of President Trump’s being re-elected in 2020?

As to what we can be virtually certain of, impeachment charges, if agreed to by a majority in the House, would fail in the Senate to achieve the required two-thirds majority.  

Thus, the question really is:  substantively (in terms of doing what’s right) and politically (in terms of increasing or decreasing the likelihood of Trump’s re-election), should impeachment proceedings be pursued in the House?

As to whether proceeding with impeachment proceedings would increase or decrease Trump’s chances of re-election, the short answer is:  we don’t know

 I would argue that almost all people who already support Trump will not be materially influenced by the impeachment proceedings.  They’ll stay with him.  

And those who are opposed to Trump—especially his character—will have their beliefs affirmed by the proceedings.  

As to those in the middle--of whom there are very few-- I don’t believe we can predict how many would move one way or the other.  I do not believe this should be a consideration.

Decades from now, people will be writing books like Brenda Wineapple is today about the debate and the outcome of that debate as to whether to impeach President Trump.  Individual names will be identified with the different positions and they will be acclaimed or declaimed based on the position they took. 

I would want to be one of those identified as having  advocated proceeding with impeachment proceedings. 

 Why?  Because I believe the evidence indicates that President Trump’s conduct falls within the guidelines justifying impeachment as provided in Article A II, Section 4, that “a federal officer can be impeached for treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor.”

I believe President Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice are so flagrant and so numerous as detailed in the Mueller report that failure to proceed with impeachment proceedings would be an ultimate abdication of intellectual and moral integrity. I say this especially knowing that for any other individual an indictment almost certainly would have been issued. 

I do not see any substantive or political rationale sufficiently important or persuasive to justify failure to proceed with this inquiry. 


Avoiding First Impressions--Giving Another Person the Benefit of the Doubt

May 29, 2019

I have often been reminded of a life-long lesson: we must beware of leaping to a judgment of another person based on initial, superficial impressions.

Most recently I was reminded of this by an eloquent perspective offered in one of the finest novels I have ever read: "A Gentleman in Moscow" written by Amor Towles.

Here it is:

In describing how his understanding of the actress, Anna Urbanova, changed as he, the Count Alexander Rostov came to understand her story, Towles writes: 

 “The Count had to acknowledge once again the virtues of withholding judgment.  After all, what can a first impression tell us about someone we’ve just met for a minute in the lobby of a hotel?  For that matter, what can a first impression tell us about anyone?  Why, no more than a chord can tell us about Beethoven, or a brushstroke about Botticelli.  By their very nature, human beings are so capricious, so complex, so delightfully contradictory that they deserve not only our consideration, but our reconsideration and our unwavering determination to withhold our opinion until we’ve engaged with them in every possible setting at every possible hour.”

What an eloquent, poetic, literary enunciation of why we must avoid reaching premature judgements on people and avoid falling prey to implicit bias.

What Is My Philosophy of Life?

May 24, 2019

The novel, "A Gentleman in Moscow"written by Amor Towles,  is one of the greatest novels I have ever read. 

The author offers what I found to be deeply thought provoking perspectives through the voice of the novel's main protagonist, Count Alexander Ilyich Rostov. 

Here is one of them:

“It is a fact of human life that one must eventually choose a philosophy…Whether through careful consideration spawned by books and spirited debate over coffee at two in the morning, or simply from a natural proclivity, we must all eventually adopt a fundamental framework, some reasonably coherent system of causes and effects that will help us make sense, not simply of momentous events, but all the little actions and interactions that constitute our daily lives—be they deliberate or spontaneous, inevitable or unforeseen.”
 
So I found myself  asking as you might to:  what is the philosophy that I have chosen. Central to it is my belief that Everyone Counts.  And that we must do our level best to do the right thing, even knowing we won't always succeed. To never give up on a cause we believe in.  And to honor and support our family.  And seek to do what with careful thought we believe God would have us do.