Yes you are correct -- in further review, that certainly was alluded to. My only point is that when I read stuff like: "but Treasury had already pegged the $10 as the next to be updated. 'Bills are flagged for updates mainly for security reasons', Lew said. It was a 'happy coincidence' that a push to put a woman on American money happened as the $10 note came under consideration, I always have to reconcile that with the fact I am reading an article published by a reporter. They often get the facts messed up.

I can tell you that we went 64 years without any changes at all to the currency until 1996 when we embarked on a complete overhaul of the larger denominations ($5-$100). This new series of notes was necessary due to the need for inclusion of major anti-counterfeiting devices -- both overt and covert. We were being targeted by several overseas counterfeiters who were very good in their craft.

As I mentioned in my last post, it was only a few years later in 2003 that -- once again due to expertise from overseas counterfeiters -- we embarked on another new series for the higher denominations. From the Federal Reserve, I was in charge of the covert anti-counterfeiting features for the $20 note and the $50 note, and I had a lot of input on the $100 note before I retired. The anti-counterfeiting features of the current $10 note are totally adequate, just fine, especially when you consider there is no significant counterfeiting threat against that denomination -- almost zilch.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-is-reportedly-going-to-change-the-face-of-the-10-bill-2015-6

Therefore, I can only conclude, but can't prove (since I am no longer involved), that saying the $10 note needs new anti-counterfeiting features is nothing more than a straw man designed to over-shadow the incessant actions of the Obama administration to push their politically-correct agenda. Having said that, I fully support putting a woman on our paper currency, as long as the woman chosen is truly the most deserving, and not chosen just to please a certain demographic.

I too am totally confused why it is the $10 note chosen instead of the $20, when clearly Andrew Jackson is no longer considered suitable for being on the currency?