Dear Secretaries Juarez and Feldman:

 

I am beginning this early. I hope you are both well today.

 

First I want to acknowledge insofar as there may be a concern about the appearance of racialization in my initial cabinet appointments. I chose everyone I did with a mind toward what I knew about them at the time and their expertise and how I understood I could realistically believe they would perform if given an opportunity and resources commensurate with their abilities. For the record, Secretary Juarez was my first choice for Secretary of Defense, however, upon initial assessment I understood the reality of the risks involved would have exposed her to an unacceptable risk and at least initially there had to be a different priority in regards to cabinet positioning. I chose accordingly. Please recall two points therein:

 

1. That the specific focus of the Administration is on the role of “human labor as energy” and “ownership of the means of production.” This entails a focus on private, personal ownership relative to state ownership. It also intends to directly address matters pertaining to ownership of one’s body and its productive capacities. This is why the Department of Energy factors into priorities in the manner it does and it is also why I have aligned my strategy to address matters relative to the Department of State in the manner I did initially and until this time, including the current delegation of Undersecretaries of Property and International Relations. 

2. I feel strongly that our country’s relationship with “Indian tribes” via the Department of Interior is misguided and needs serious course correction. I have spoken on this extensively in the last three days, including insofar as some tribal governance structures include specific geographic delineations and a formal constitution. I contend the Constitution of the United States actually provides for the substantiation of “Indian tribes” self-determining as “sovereign nations” of their own – if they should so choose – and there are a number of domestic and international considerations that this provides, including ones that could greatly advantage “American citizens” as well as our international efforts. I also contend that the Department of Interior needs to be more directly involved with correcting for misguided policy regarding the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, as well as coordinating with the Department of Agriculture more comprehensively. These are matters that will not be “solved” quickly but I am confident that the redirection will provide substantial possibilities moving forward, including beyond our Administration. 

 

As a result there are a few matters that I contend need immediate attention. I understand that there are concerns that have been directed at me regarding the consideration of “workers’ rights” but more than that, considerations of participation in policy making in manners that thus far have been obstructed. For the record, I believe the United States needs substantial legislative overhaul when it comes to the abuse of antitrust laws that impact workers' rights; we also need substantial overhaul of legislation connected to taxation, including personal income tax. For instance, I contend now and have for years that the tax considerations on “revenue” or “earning” potential of minors that was part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act is a policy decision that was made in error and has impacted the country ever since it was permitted to be put into effect. I also contend that other changes to taxation or “personal income tax” and legislative change regarding the “futures market” needs to be addressed, including in connection with alleged “student loan debt.” I contend that federal student loan debt, going back to at least 1993, is not “debt” but is rather “obligation” that is factored into a long-term capital outlay process. Those capital outlays could and did include possibilities for fulfillment of obligations either via the public or the private sector in one manner or another, including insofar as “participation” in the public sector may be as a “service recipient” or a “consumer.” I am glad to say that this summer would be the first of what I hope is a permanent policy change that implements a “National Service Requirement” on all undergraduate college students toward fulfillment of their capital outlay obligations. These first eight-week internships for college undergraduates for the summers between their first and second or second and third year of college have been completed. These were eight-week internships – I personally participated in one that involved review of the history and policies of the New York Police Commission concerning Tammany Hall and the early political career of Theodore Roosevelt. This was profound, including insofar as this exposed a number of concerns that are relevant now, including concerning pension reform and civil rights. This week is the last of two ten-week special internships that will conclude this Friday. 

 

The intention is to allow for the work of this summer to be evaluated by a newly created department and to provide a number of perspectives on the potential for developing the material of the internships into policy issues that will be connected to future budgeting processes, ie., “outlays.” The participants will be contacted by next summer with an understanding of the possible options that are available to them and will be given support in making a determination about options that they will be willing to undertake for a predetermined period of time. This is not so different from what has been happening already for decades; this process, however, is much more transparent and intentional. The process also entails that any “student loan debt” is factored in as an expression of obligation under the terms of the outlay, and that individuals will have a choice in how to participate, as well as be provided with options in the event that they cannot make the expected obligation in the timeframe to which they agree. All Constitutional considerations including faith preference and other matters pertaining to conscience will be taken into consideration. 

 

This is not “selective service.” It is not meant to be “secret” either. While some of the policy areas that will be analyzed and determined may include levels of sensitivity or confidentiality for national security purposes, no one is going to be secretly enlisted or prescribed into participation without their full consent. This is necessary not only to uphold the Constitution, but also to assure that obligations are met because we will commit to providing the structure necessary to assure they are met. 

 

While in some ways this may seem radical or provocative, it is important to address it because of the state we are in as a nation otherwise when it comes to workers’ rights and the rights and responsibilities of those in management and executive positions in the private, corporate, but also public sectors. It has come to my attention that a new manufacturing facility is being constructed in a state of the United States – Texas – that intends to offer 12-hour shifts. This is against everything about the history of labor law and labor struggle in the United States. I also contend that it violates the elements of the implementation of the War Powers Act that were allowed to be invoked in the context of COVID-19 in manners that are unacceptable and compel us to consider the full ramifications of what DID go on with “essential services” and industrial refitting or recapitulation as a result of COVID-19 and the invocation of the War Powers Act. I for one was opposed to the invocation of the elements of the War Powers Act that were invoked because of what was invoked and the manner in which it was invoked. This included what was and was not considered an “essential service.” It also was in consideration of changes to the labor force and sector regarding violations of labor laws regarding hours and wages, that I contend had health impacts on persons who were so subjected, including in the context of in what manner it impacted their need for medical care and in what manner it was made available. 

 

You should also understand that since the implementation of the USMCA, there has been a significant overlooking of matters that were outstanding from NAFTA that also have a material concern. The elements of NAFTA that were most concerning to me involved “trade representatives” from Mexico and their availability in the event of a “work stoppage” by American workers. The  source for this was an official publication of NAFTA policy available at a local public library that was also a repository for government documents prior to Hurricane Harvey, prior to the passage and implementation of NAFTA, and prior to announcements regarding COVID-19. That means that it is more than likely that it would be the resource a person would understand would be the official government document on NAFTA to which they would have public and immediate access for their own review. The possibility for accessibility of official government material such as this is an “essential service.” It was prior to COVID-19 and it still is. 

 

I have since contended with the implications regarding racism, xenophobia, but also “fraud” and the profundity of “fraud” when it comes to the manners in which it deprives people of their livelihoods and property, while also libeling them. This can impact a person and his or her family for generations, as it is at this time. The accessibility of bound documents in the form of books is correlative with our need to address cybersecurity concerning our legal requirements to make official government documents available in electronic form and via official government agency websites. I am very concerned about the program of the Trump-era Task Force on use of cryptocurrencies for the federal budgeting process, as well as other matters outstanding to the Obama-era commissions regarding technology and cybersecurity. I am also concerned about access to legal, official identification documentation to persons from and within the United States in a manner that does not conflict with the necessary review – and I contend dismantling – of E-Verify and other programs that abuse access to and use of biometric identifier information.  

 

This is particularly important insofar as I also am concerned that the effort to create manufacturing jobs with 12-hour shifts is to “pair” with other sectors that have 12-hour shifts for their workers. This was a practice that I understood was in effect prior to COVID-19, but since COVID-19 has compelled the increase in personnel need for sectors where such schedules had become normalized, my major interest is in preventing against any other sector believing that it is justified abusing workers’ rights in those sectors. We should instead focus on addressing concerns in the sectors where such normalization has thus far been permitted. In fact, in May of 2018 I did a comprehensive evaluation of budgeting and accounting considerations for jobs that were being offered in the gas and oil and other energy sectors and compared three 8-hours shifts with two 12-hour shifts at facilities declaring they had around-the-clock production and the comparison with information that was publicly available was alarming. I am concerned there is abuse of the “insurance” implications and an unacceptable “risk pooling” that is being offset by abuses of “workers’ compensation” and other insurance related to persons as opposed to facilities. This is comparable to the above-mentioned problems with “cyberinsurance” and the compounded effect of the relationship we have to “medical insurance.”

 

Now with that said, I understand there is a substantial area that I have not covered. As for wages and benefits, I am not a supporter of MediCare for All. I am not a supporter because of what Medicare actually is. I am also not a supporter of continuing to increase reliance on access to Social Security for those who are not of retirement age. I believe another program is needed. I am most interested in getting more information on proposals that were provided by the United Auto Workers for years and that were predecessors of both the efforts of the 1980s to address healthcare reform and the Universal Health Care Act efforts of the 1990s. I am specifically concerned about diagnoses and medical necessity, as well as alternatives to prescription medications in accordance with increased scrutiny of and policy adherence to prescription of medications. 

 

I am on the record as saying in 2015 during the 2016 campaign season that I supported a minimum wage for workers of $26. I identify this amount in consideration of work that I and others had undertaken in the mid- to late 1990s regarding the “Living Wage Campaign.” At that time, a “Living Wage” of $15 was being requested. This was prior to September 11, 2001 and prior to changes to the workforce and expectations of workers not so dissimilar from what has occurred with the onset of COVID-19. A “minimum wage” of $15 in 2015 was not acceptable in this regard. As someone at that time said to me about “welfare reform” versus “guaranteed annual income” – whatever happened to a “living wage?” I did support what I understood was proposed by Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang regarding his policy on “freedom dividends” and would like to see this expanded and provided with more context. I would be willing to make it a priority were suitable and reasonable proposals to be presented and provide it with all the support necessary.

 

This also should include increased consideration of modifying our passport program and visa program regarding provision of official documented support for those who DO work in the United States. At this time, local “ID programs” are problematic not only for people not originally from the United States – and not just because of my concerns about the manners in which programs like that were originally part of political campaigns for candidates and former office holders who are not identified in the consideration of the current issuance – but also for American citizens. My experience thus far has been in regards to them as legal security documents that may also duplicate official state identification documents and hence constitute a form of “fraud” by the issuer if misapplied. We need something that can reconcile this process without compounding the need to be able to verify in the event that consistent documentation is necessary to fulfill other requirements, including citizenship or compliance with other terms that may be a part of other intercession with or through public agencies.  

 

Finally, let me remind you of my considerations of “abstract” labor” and the implications of “abstract capital.” I have been and continue to be a proponent of “ownership” in manners that are often counter to what is represented as the “rights” of workers. It is important that the “time off the clock” for workers be considered off the clock for their employer. This is a matter that needs to be much evaluated, including in light of what COVID-19 has done regarding expectations of being available while “in their home” for what is supposed to be “work” that is exchanged to the employer for wages. There are not only concerns about insurance as well as taxes for the employer involved, but there is the real understanding of what is “production” and what is “development” and who owns it. Outside of an effort to nationalize sectors to support more state industries, these are Constitutional issues, including potential Fourth Amendment issues, and if the interference by the government permits for illegal obligations to be placed upon persons in their private homes – or private persons – it may also violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Without a Constitutional foundation – including one considered and set at the policy, ie., legislative level – then our common law processes will be impacted in manners that can only compel greater intercession with or via the state. 

 

By tomorrow, I will evaluate these comments in light of what was proposed and delegated otherwise. I need for you to consider this and scrutinize as necessary. Please let me know what needs more attention and what kind of attention it needs. Unless I get an indication otherwise, I will post this publicly before tomorrow morning at 10 am CST.

 

9:43 am CST

Aug. 8, 2023

President Charity Colleen Crouse 

 

1:27 pm CST

Aug. 8, 2023

President Charity Colleen Crouse

​

________________________________________________________________________

​

Posted at 9:07 am CST

Aug. 9, 2023

President Charity Colleen Crouse

​

​

​