¶18 Did the District Court err in ordering Eaton to pay restitution from his “net income,” which is defined as including his social security benefits? ¶19 Eaton argues that the District Court abused its discretion when it ordered him to make restitution payments equal to the amount of 20 percent of his net income, including income from his social security benefits. He contends that this condition violates 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). While the State argues that the inclusion of Eaton’s social security benefits in his net income for the purpose of calculating the amount of monthly restitution payments is not an “execution,” “levy,” “attachment,” “garnishment” or “formal legal process” in violation of § 407(a), we agree with Eaton th 9 U.S. 413, 417, 93 S.Ct. 590, 592, 34 L.Ed.2d 608, 611-12 (<HOLDING>). In Washington State Dept. of Social and
holding that use of social security benefits satisfied child support obligation holding that the express language of  407a and the clear intent of congress that social security benefits not be attachable holding that under 42 usc  407a social security benefits commingled with other nonexempt funds in a bank account remain exempt if the funds are reasonably traceable to social security income on a firstin firstout basis holding that  407a imposes a broad bar against the use of any legal process to reach all social security benefits holding that under 42 usc  407a social security benefits commingled with other nonexempt funds in a bank account remain exempt if the funds are reasonably traceable to social security income