On The Horizon

As I ponder this, there is one thing I want to keep in mind. Millions of people out there have acted in good faith all these years, have put in a
hard day's work, have held on to a reasonable set of expectations, yet they are the ones who could severely suffer from our inactions or
self-serving actions. My thoughts are with the grandmother up the street living on a pension who after years of hard work now all of a sudden
has nothing. How can we live with that injustice?

Investment is at the very core of who we are as a people. Personally, I like to invest in ideas, in people. Monetary reward is secondary at best.
However, that is not typically the game of the marketplace. What I see in a government is a player who can structure programs around what is
'the right thing to do' with minimal concern to the financial costs (of course, within reason). A government can take unpopular financial risks that
seek to balance social concerns. It can provide the framework to empower and connect the small and successful endeavors that already exist.
We are still very much on the fringe of what the internet can do. It can offer far more than mere ad billboards. So I ask, why hand out money
directly in the form of another stimulus package? How does this differ from Einstein's classic quote of insanity - doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results?

I propose a program which empowers the people to make their own choices while encouraging a direction which benefits the commons and
looks to the whole of humanity. Basically, the government sends a check to each and every legal US citizen for $500 (with the exception of the
Local Venture Fund which is based on $750 fundings). The tables outline the various base choices available. Consider it an advance from the
work so many have already done for their country. Consider it in recognition of the value the country already has in the form of resources -
natural, works in process, and human. One could look to Alaska as somewhat of a model. All of Alaska's citizens participate in the wealth the
State resources generate.

To demonstrate the forward thinking nature of this trust in our people to invest, each recipient will have a choice for using the allotted funds. The
program is designed to encourage each recipient to invest, preferably locally, receive periodic matching funds from the government to
encourage a long term focus and a partnership relationship between the recipient and the selected fund.

The following tables and outlined points highlight such a program. Of course, the material is just preliminary. Dialogue is still needed. Consider
it a modern day War Bond program.

NOTE: The tables referenced are displayed in the slide presentation on the previous page.

1 Indexed or Principled Common Stock Fund - common Stock based, Indexed Funds are of a variety, eg Industry Classification, Exchange,
Market Capitalization… Principled Common Stock Fund is a fund of common stocks which strive towards a specific nationally recognized
principle and adhere to a preset criteria. Such Funds might include: Global Climate Change, World Water, UN, Sustainability, Clean Energy,…
These investments are clearly of an international basis. A recipient could create their own principled funds but locally based under the Local
Common Stock Fund option.

2 Local Common Stock Fund - These are Common Stocks of companies which have a 'significant' amount of business activity in the local
region.

3 Local Regional REIT Fund - This serves as a supplemental fund for Mortgage resources in the neighborhood of the recipient. It will help
support weak mortgages at a neighborhood level.

4 Local Business Fund - This is a new type of fund as described by the Proposals under submission to the Open Society Institute. Under the
Proposal a new locally based banking network is created. It would connect Grameen Bank style principles (regionally based/micro
financed/community managed) with Washington Mutual goodwill assets (pre JPM acquisition - acting as clearinghouse for the many small
innovative organizations) and SBA regional oversight.

5 Local Venture Fund - This is a new type of fund that allows the recipients in a defined region to empower idea generating in any sector. The
idea may or may not generate a profit. The idea may be in the Business, Government, Non-Profit, Arts, Civic, Parks, Education… Sectors. It
would connect Grameen Bank style principles (regionally based/micro financed/community managed) with a Venture Capital Consortium (to
serve as monitor and Clearinghouse) and College/University curriculum programs.

The Grameen Bank Washington Mutual collaboration is a possibility I am encouraging George Soros's Open Society Institute to take on.
Oddly enough the open society in the greatest difficulty seems to be right here in the US, the once beacon to the World.

Example 1:
Sasha is 5 years old at the time the Plan is enacted. His guardians choose the Local Common Stock Fund. They open an account for Sasha at
ETrade. Sasha's fund now has $1000, the original $500 plus the matching $500. If Sasha continues with this funding choice, when he reaches 20
he will have $5250 vested plus any accumulations resulting from appreciations in the fund investments.

Once vested, Sasha could then remove a portion of the funds for his own use, noting that 25% of the withdrawn amount will be paid to his
designated 'non-profit' beneficiary.

Example 2:
Abella is 13 years old at the time the Plan is enacted. She is old enough to have a say in the funds chosen. She and her guardians choose
Local Venture Fund. They want to empower ideas for the local retirement center where her Grandparents reside. They open an account with
the newly formed Grameen WAMU venture for local initiatives. The account is opened with $750 (the initial amount for the Local Venture Fund -
all other choices start at $500). Abella's fund now has $1500, the original $750 plus the matching $750. If Abella continues with this funding
choice, when she reaches 28 she will have $9,750 vested plus any accumulations resulting from appreciations in the fund investments.

Once vested, Abella could then remove a portion of the funds for her own use, noting that 25% of the withdrawn amount will be paid to her
designated 'non-profit' beneficiary.

Of course, there are variations and parameters to discuss. Some may include:

1. The primary objective is to encourage regions and individuals to promote Self-governance for the long term based on a set of agreed upon
Principles which are in line with the basic principles of International Documents, eg the US Constitution, the UN Charter, the Earth Charter… It
encourages us to actually take ownership in the true value of America - Our Ideas and Innovations.

2. How to reward the forward looking organizations which have already innovated in this direction?

3. The Local Business and Venture Funds are designed to provide the tools for recipients to create their own ideal concepts within a broad
range of program parameters.

4. How could the plan evolve so that other institutions provide the annual / bi-annual matching funds?

5. Use of all fund-based choices at all levels would be tax-free.

6. How to keep the plan simple to understand yet flexible to encourage innovative funds?

7. Matching funds would be based on contributions to the fund by the recipient up to a certain amount (instead of the initial investment amount).
However, only recipients below a certain Gross Income level would be eligible for this type of matching.

8. At anytime during the year (except for the 3 weeks immediately preceding the matching date), the recipient could choose to change funding
options, effective at the start of the new matching date. Existing funds will transfer to the new selection.

9. When changing to funds listed left of the current fund, matching amounts will be based on the lower of the original value (had the recipient
chosen this option from initial point) or the actual amount.

10. When changing to funds listed right of the current fund, matching amounts will be based on the higher of the original value (had the recipient
chosen this option from initial point) or the actual amount.

11. When the recipient changes address and had chosen any of the Local based funding options, 25% of the funds are transferred at the next
matching date, subsequent matches are based on the original choices but applied to the new Local option.

12. When the recipient maintains the same fund (individual investment choices can still be made and changed within the fund), the recipient will
receive full matching at each matching date.

13. When the recipient maintains the same fund throughout the 15 year period, there will be a 100% single payment match (ie $500 or $750) at
the end of the 15 year period, fully vested.

14. The recipient will receive extra matching benefits and tax breaks when the recipient ties the fund directly to the recipients tax network, ie
instead of the recipient paying taxes to a government fund which then allocates those funds to the desired programs, the recipient will be able
to directly apply a portion of taxable funds to the chosen local fund.

15. Hedging and derivative instruments may minimize downside risk but restrictions apply to all funds.

16. How do those born after implementation of the plan participate?

17. How are funds disbursed upon the death of a recipient? All to beneficiary 'non-profit' organization?

18. How are local funds encouraged to reach out, spread the benefits earned, not restrain and hoard?

19. A criteria of allowable investments in each category of funds would have to be established.

20. How to empower the recipient who wants to benefit by the plan from one intent on abusing it?

21. A criteria for allowable beneficiary non-profits would need to be determined. How to strengthen rural and remote regions which would have
smaller numbers of participants than urban locales?

22. These investment funds are not eligible for use as collateral in the first 6 years.

23. Investment firms chosen by recipient to hold funds could not charge fees of any kind on this fund.

24. All funds would have complete transparency via the internet. Technology will be a valuable tool.

Again, the intent here is to challenge ourselves to think with a broader perspective. Someone once said, "We are better than this." Personally, I
would like to start seeing the evidence confirming that statement. No doubt one can look at this altruistic proposal and see problems/conflicts,
but can one see the possibilities? I agree in what I surmised from other comments I heard in recent months. If we want to get beyond the
challenges of today, we need to change our mindset. This win-win proposal presents numerous windows of opportunity to do exactly that.

If we choose not to pursue such far-out alternatives, can we still minimize the possibility of such collapses in the future? Yes. And it can be done
very simply. Remove the mechanisms that encourage 'big money' to as easily make that 'big money' in a down market as in an up market.
The concept of hedging, including derivatives, was to serve as an insurance policy for protecting the core underlying asset. When the hedge
or the derivative became the asset, absent oversight the 'policy' lapsed.

As always, if you are in need of the type of perspectives I present, I am available to get things rolling. You certainly do not need to solve these
problems on your own. And you certainly do not need to focus on the views of those who led us here in the first place (although we did follow).
Remember, you indicated the solutions are within the American people. Let us help.

BTW, no doubt you have looked at many of the other challenges before us. Wouldn't surprise me to learn that they too have some innovative
possibilities. (I call it visionary simply because I have yet to hear anyone else describe such a sight.) And while lives are at stake, it can be a
very exciting and gratifying process to uncover those possibilities. I look at the real estate mess before us and I think there is a very simple
possibility to get us to a new mindset - change the definition of what 'value' is. One of the many benefits of this Invest in America is that it
addresses other problems too, eg Lobby Strong-arming, Immigration, Mortgages, Climate Change, International Relations…

No doubt the naysayers will look at these possibilities and immediately counter with a more conventional bailout that serves specific interest or
simply answers "Why?". But I look at the situation before us and I question whether those in the positions of leadership want to solve the
problems in the best interest of the country and its future or in their own immediate best interest. Simply, I ask "Why not?" Why not use the
technologies available to us and the innovations within us and create an amazing legacy for our kids? Why not?

Who among us carries the visions? Are we listening?

NOTE: The core program, Invest in America, is also in a simplified slide presentation format.

Timothy W. Gerth - Director
BaseCamp Solstice - Bringing the UN Home