A movement to audit the Federal Reserve – the private institution that virtually controls U.S. interest rates, money supply and other economic influences – is gaining momentum in the House and Senate while the Fed ramps up its efforts to thwart scrutiny of its books.
House Resolution 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, now has 260 co-sponsors with many members of the House Financial Services Committee – where the bill currently resides – signed on already.
Likewise, Senate Bill 604, Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, orders a complete audit of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks before the end of 2010. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., has eight co-sponsors and remains in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Members of the Senate recently blocked efforts by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to vote on his amendment to a spending bill that provides money for Congress' own budget. DeMint's plan was to add an amendment to the spending bill that would have provided for an audit of the Fed to include information about its funding facilities, market operations and any agreements with foreign banks and governments, DeMint told senators, according to Reuters.
In a July 9 hearing, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, questioned Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn about the Fed's transparency.
"I think the Federal Reserve has been quite transparent and has become much more transparent under Chairman Bernanke about what we're doing and why we're doing it," Kohn told Paul. "And I think we can retain our independence and your ability to trust what we're doing only by explaining to you what we're doing and why we're doing it."
Paul asked why the Fed cites "public interest" when it refuses to open up the central bank's most sensitive decisions to political scrutiny and release discretely recorded transcripts of its policy meetings in the next five years. Kohn made his case for continued Fed secrecy.
"I would be very concerned that releasing those transcripts would inhibit debate," Kohn said. "I think it's in the public interest that we have an unfettered debate within the Open Market Committee, that we are able to speculate among ourselves … that there be no inhibition on the back and forth within the Open Market Committee. Frankly, I've been at the Federal Reserve for several decades now. In my view, publishing the transcripts themselves have had a somewhat inhibiting effect on the way the debate is carried out. …
Tuesday
FED INDEPENDENCE OR FED SECRECY?
Last week I was very pleased that hearings were held on the independence of the Federal Reserve system. My bill HR 1207, known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, was discussed at length, as well as the general question of whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue to operate independently.
The public is demanding transparency in government like never before. A majority of the House has cosponsored HR 1207. Yet, Senator Jim DeMint’s heroic efforts to attach it to another piece of legislation elicited intense opposition by the Senate leadership.
The hearings on Capitol Hill provided us with a great deal of information about the types of arguments that will be levied against meaningful transparency and how the secretive central bankers will defend the status quo that is so beneficial to them.
Claims are made that auditing the Fed would compromise its independence. However, by independence, they really mean secrecy. The Fed clearly cherishes its vast power to create and spend trillions of dollars, diluting the value of every other dollar in circulation, making deals with other central banks, and bailing out cronies, all to the detriment of the taxpayer, and to the enrichment of themselves. I am happy to challenge this type of “independence”.
They claim the Fed is endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the market and that central bankers magically know what the market needs. We should just trust them. This is patently ridiculous. The market is a complex and intricate thing. No one knows what the market needs other than the market itself. It sends signals, such as prices, that should be reacted to and respected, not thwarted and controlled. Bankers are not all-knowing and cannot ignore the rules of supply and demand. They might act as if they are, but their manipulation of the market just ends up throwing it wildly off balance, which gives us the boom and bust cycles.
They claim the Fed must remain apolitical. No organization is apolitical that relies on the President to appoint the Chairman. In fact, it is subject to the worst sort of politics – power to create trillions of dollars and affect the value of every dollar in the country without the accountability of direct elections or meaningful oversight! The Fed typically enacts monetary policy that is favorable to particular administrations close to elections, to the detriment of long term considerations. They do this partly because of the political appointee process for the Chairmanship.
The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress’s constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue.
The public is demanding transparency in government like never before. A majority of the House has cosponsored HR 1207. Yet, Senator Jim DeMint’s heroic efforts to attach it to another piece of legislation elicited intense opposition by the Senate leadership.
The hearings on Capitol Hill provided us with a great deal of information about the types of arguments that will be levied against meaningful transparency and how the secretive central bankers will defend the status quo that is so beneficial to them.
Claims are made that auditing the Fed would compromise its independence. However, by independence, they really mean secrecy. The Fed clearly cherishes its vast power to create and spend trillions of dollars, diluting the value of every other dollar in circulation, making deals with other central banks, and bailing out cronies, all to the detriment of the taxpayer, and to the enrichment of themselves. I am happy to challenge this type of “independence”.
They claim the Fed is endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the market and that central bankers magically know what the market needs. We should just trust them. This is patently ridiculous. The market is a complex and intricate thing. No one knows what the market needs other than the market itself. It sends signals, such as prices, that should be reacted to and respected, not thwarted and controlled. Bankers are not all-knowing and cannot ignore the rules of supply and demand. They might act as if they are, but their manipulation of the market just ends up throwing it wildly off balance, which gives us the boom and bust cycles.
They claim the Fed must remain apolitical. No organization is apolitical that relies on the President to appoint the Chairman. In fact, it is subject to the worst sort of politics – power to create trillions of dollars and affect the value of every dollar in the country without the accountability of direct elections or meaningful oversight! The Fed typically enacts monetary policy that is favorable to particular administrations close to elections, to the detriment of long term considerations. They do this partly because of the political appointee process for the Chairmanship.
The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress’s constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue.
Friday
WHAT i THINK....ANDY HOFFMAN
As you know, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is one of my heroes, a real-life American Patriot in a world of sleezy, self-serving, amoral politicians.
For years, he has stated exactly what I have been saying, that the country is being destroyed by loose monetary policy (i.e. printing money) by the Federal Reserve, not to mention equally loose fiscal policy by Congress, which appears motivated by one thing and one thing only; the lobbying funds of WALL STREET (what funds are left, mostly because Congress just GAVE them out to those insolvent institutions courtesy of the taxpayers).
Mr. Paul has introduced a bill to have the Federal Reserve, the most secretive group of slime in the world, audited. By the way, the Fed is NOT a government institution, but a privately-owned bank by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc., charged with monetary policy. The Fed was created during a special Christmas session of Congress back in 1913, where very few members even showed up to vote, and has since debased the currency by more than 95% (and counting) while generating wild profits for the banks that own it.
Actually, the Constitution prohibits such an institution, stating that only the government should print money. But then again, when was the last time the Constitution was heeded? Or better yet, the last time the people showed even the slightest interest in its destruction?
Remember when Bush was allowed to bomb Iraq without a Congressional vote? Yes, that was a blatant disavowal of the Constitution as well, and look how that turned out. How about Obama taking over the auto industry and unilaterally imposing sanction and terms on the union members, bondholders, etc.? Or Paulson arbitrarily deciding that the major banks (which nearly single-handedly destroyed the economy) needed printed taxpayer money to “save” them?
The Constitution was created by a group of men trying to account for all of history’s most destructive government practices, which time and again have been repeated (such as hyperinflation) by greedy, destructive politicians at the expense of the people. In other words, it was a direct attempt to prevent such things from occurring in the newly formed America. But alas, in just over 200 years, we have nearly completely repudiated its aims (mostly in the past decade), and not coincidentally the country is far along the road to ruin.
The U.S. passed its peak of power and prestige, what a surprise, roughly a decade ago, principally due to the movement of its manufacturing base to China. And since that time the government has done what it always does; try to restore the “status quo” by taking moronic, destructive steps, in this case by ignoring the Constitution which was created to prevent just such actions. Plus, in this case the entire world has been aiding and abetting this stupidity because they own so many dollars (and thus don’t want it to crash), which in and of itself was due to the most moronic and history-repudiating decision of all, the complete renouncement of the gold standard (led by the U.S., of course), in 1971.
Anyhow, in the below U-Tube video, Paul for the first time PUBLICLY states that the government manipulates the dollar AND the gold price, something he has been obviously careful about stating. But now he does. I’ll forgive him the fact that the Fed does this in collusion with the Treasury Department, but you get the point. Actually, the entire last five minutes of this video is fascinating.
www.gata.org/node/7573.
And just to show just how lethargic and uncaring Americans are about their cratering country, watch the below U-Tube video of soon-to-be ex-Fed Chairman Bernanke, one of the most idiotic and inept people I have come across in my life, stating how passage of the Paul bill would cause ‘destruction of the dollar, the U.S. economy, and the financial system.’
Think he’s got anything to hide?
And do you yet care? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRSvq0D35dU
After all the evil that has been perpetrated on the U.S. public over the past year by Washington and Wall Street, still not a hint of outrage, disbelief, or care.
But that will change, I am 100% sure.
By now it should be clear that “green shoots of recovery” was more propaganda (actually, that term was coined by none other than Bernanke), and if you think the first wave of the money printing explosion was bad, get ready for round two!
PROTECT YOURSELF, starting with the stocking of gold/silver, food, and other life necessities, and secondly by supporting this bill (link below), which already has the support of roughly 245 Congresmen! www.ronpaul.com
For years, he has stated exactly what I have been saying, that the country is being destroyed by loose monetary policy (i.e. printing money) by the Federal Reserve, not to mention equally loose fiscal policy by Congress, which appears motivated by one thing and one thing only; the lobbying funds of WALL STREET (what funds are left, mostly because Congress just GAVE them out to those insolvent institutions courtesy of the taxpayers).
Mr. Paul has introduced a bill to have the Federal Reserve, the most secretive group of slime in the world, audited. By the way, the Fed is NOT a government institution, but a privately-owned bank by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc., charged with monetary policy. The Fed was created during a special Christmas session of Congress back in 1913, where very few members even showed up to vote, and has since debased the currency by more than 95% (and counting) while generating wild profits for the banks that own it.
Actually, the Constitution prohibits such an institution, stating that only the government should print money. But then again, when was the last time the Constitution was heeded? Or better yet, the last time the people showed even the slightest interest in its destruction?
Remember when Bush was allowed to bomb Iraq without a Congressional vote? Yes, that was a blatant disavowal of the Constitution as well, and look how that turned out. How about Obama taking over the auto industry and unilaterally imposing sanction and terms on the union members, bondholders, etc.? Or Paulson arbitrarily deciding that the major banks (which nearly single-handedly destroyed the economy) needed printed taxpayer money to “save” them?
The Constitution was created by a group of men trying to account for all of history’s most destructive government practices, which time and again have been repeated (such as hyperinflation) by greedy, destructive politicians at the expense of the people. In other words, it was a direct attempt to prevent such things from occurring in the newly formed America. But alas, in just over 200 years, we have nearly completely repudiated its aims (mostly in the past decade), and not coincidentally the country is far along the road to ruin.
The U.S. passed its peak of power and prestige, what a surprise, roughly a decade ago, principally due to the movement of its manufacturing base to China. And since that time the government has done what it always does; try to restore the “status quo” by taking moronic, destructive steps, in this case by ignoring the Constitution which was created to prevent just such actions. Plus, in this case the entire world has been aiding and abetting this stupidity because they own so many dollars (and thus don’t want it to crash), which in and of itself was due to the most moronic and history-repudiating decision of all, the complete renouncement of the gold standard (led by the U.S., of course), in 1971.
Anyhow, in the below U-Tube video, Paul for the first time PUBLICLY states that the government manipulates the dollar AND the gold price, something he has been obviously careful about stating. But now he does. I’ll forgive him the fact that the Fed does this in collusion with the Treasury Department, but you get the point. Actually, the entire last five minutes of this video is fascinating.
www.gata.org/node/7573.
And just to show just how lethargic and uncaring Americans are about their cratering country, watch the below U-Tube video of soon-to-be ex-Fed Chairman Bernanke, one of the most idiotic and inept people I have come across in my life, stating how passage of the Paul bill would cause ‘destruction of the dollar, the U.S. economy, and the financial system.’
Think he’s got anything to hide?
And do you yet care? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRSvq0D35dU
After all the evil that has been perpetrated on the U.S. public over the past year by Washington and Wall Street, still not a hint of outrage, disbelief, or care.
But that will change, I am 100% sure.
By now it should be clear that “green shoots of recovery” was more propaganda (actually, that term was coined by none other than Bernanke), and if you think the first wave of the money printing explosion was bad, get ready for round two!
PROTECT YOURSELF, starting with the stocking of gold/silver, food, and other life necessities, and secondly by supporting this bill (link below), which already has the support of roughly 245 Congresmen! www.ronpaul.com
Wednesday
WHAT I THINK....ERIC MARGOLIS
Republican Congressman Ron Paul invited me to speak to his Liberty caucus luncheon in Washington last week on the intensifying wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Eight libertarian and independent-minded Republican congressmen attended in Paul's office on Capitol Hill. Paul sits on the powerful house foreign affairs committee.
Readers will recall that last year I called Paul, "the only candidate who is telling Americans the truth about foreign affairs." Like the cynic Diogenes seeking an honest man, I came to respect and admire Paul's courage, honesty and refusal to accept special interest money.
Paul had no need to wear an American flag on his lapel to prove his real patriotism and dedication to the U.S. constitution. Speaking of today's U.S. Congress, Paul observes: "Special interests have replaced the concern the founders had for the general welfare."
In fact, Paul has been a model of the legislators envisaged by America's founding fathers: Men of high moral standards and intellect dedicated to the nation's well being. He reminds me in many ways of the fiercely upright senators of the early Roman Republic, the model for the United States Congress.
Paul, a physician, used to deliver babies on Mondays and Saturdays while serving in office.
Paul became a hero to many Americans last year when he ran for president against the political establishment. The 11-term Texas congressman became the most respected and admired American politician around the world after Barack Obama.
The 74-year-old doctor from Texas electrified young Americans with his grassroots campaign, providing voters a real alternative to the Republican and Democratic establishment, which often appears to be one party with two factions. Paul's clear, cool voice challenged all the propaganda about Afghanistan and Iraq. He also is waging a lonely battle against the dangerous economic nostrums now coming from the Obama White House and congressional Democrats.
FOREIGN WARS
Paul and fellow libertarian Republicans advocate individual rights, strict constitutionalism, limited government, free enterprise and an end to American global domination, nation building and foreign wars.
Paul opposes U.S. involvement in other nation's internal affairs. As anti-Iranian hysteria gripped the nation last month, Paul was the only house member who voted against a bill condemning Iran for its recent election. That's courage.
"There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs," writes Paul. He dismisses neocon claims that "we have to either fight them over there or over here" as a "false choice. "America has no business policing the world. U.S. foreign policy is undermining national security," says Paul.
Only Congress, he insists, has the right to declare war, not the president. Congress cravenly abandoned this right during the build up to the Iraq War that was fuelled by shameless lies and the crassest jingoism.
Paul's amiable manner and lack of the bloated self-importance that so typifies Washington bigwigs conceals a very keen intellect and depth of knowledge. He also has one of the capital's sharpest foreign affairs staff chiefs, Daniel McAdams.
POTENT REMEDY
As I talked with Paul, it occurred to me that he and his fellow libertarians are the potent remedy that the dreadfully sick Republican Party so desperately needs. Paul's Liberty caucus hopefully will form the core around which a vigorous, new party grows that addresses America's real needs.
President George W. Bush and the neocons pretty much destroyed the Republican Party, as this column predicted back in 2003. What's left of the Grand Old Party, of which I have been a lifelong and, recently, most unhappy member, has become a rump dominated by religious fundamentalists, regional interests, war-lusting neoconservatives and bumbling, rural Romeos. Mountebanks and demagogues are vying to become the party's voice.
Paul and his fellow libertarians offer Republicans and Americans a badly needed alternative to the dumbed-down Republicans and the wildly spending Democrats, whose expanded Afghanistan war and increasingly neosocialist policies are leading the nation into dangerous waters.
Eight libertarian and independent-minded Republican congressmen attended in Paul's office on Capitol Hill. Paul sits on the powerful house foreign affairs committee.
Readers will recall that last year I called Paul, "the only candidate who is telling Americans the truth about foreign affairs." Like the cynic Diogenes seeking an honest man, I came to respect and admire Paul's courage, honesty and refusal to accept special interest money.
Paul had no need to wear an American flag on his lapel to prove his real patriotism and dedication to the U.S. constitution. Speaking of today's U.S. Congress, Paul observes: "Special interests have replaced the concern the founders had for the general welfare."
In fact, Paul has been a model of the legislators envisaged by America's founding fathers: Men of high moral standards and intellect dedicated to the nation's well being. He reminds me in many ways of the fiercely upright senators of the early Roman Republic, the model for the United States Congress.
Paul, a physician, used to deliver babies on Mondays and Saturdays while serving in office.
Paul became a hero to many Americans last year when he ran for president against the political establishment. The 11-term Texas congressman became the most respected and admired American politician around the world after Barack Obama.
The 74-year-old doctor from Texas electrified young Americans with his grassroots campaign, providing voters a real alternative to the Republican and Democratic establishment, which often appears to be one party with two factions. Paul's clear, cool voice challenged all the propaganda about Afghanistan and Iraq. He also is waging a lonely battle against the dangerous economic nostrums now coming from the Obama White House and congressional Democrats.
FOREIGN WARS
Paul and fellow libertarian Republicans advocate individual rights, strict constitutionalism, limited government, free enterprise and an end to American global domination, nation building and foreign wars.
Paul opposes U.S. involvement in other nation's internal affairs. As anti-Iranian hysteria gripped the nation last month, Paul was the only house member who voted against a bill condemning Iran for its recent election. That's courage.
"There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs," writes Paul. He dismisses neocon claims that "we have to either fight them over there or over here" as a "false choice. "America has no business policing the world. U.S. foreign policy is undermining national security," says Paul.
Only Congress, he insists, has the right to declare war, not the president. Congress cravenly abandoned this right during the build up to the Iraq War that was fuelled by shameless lies and the crassest jingoism.
Paul's amiable manner and lack of the bloated self-importance that so typifies Washington bigwigs conceals a very keen intellect and depth of knowledge. He also has one of the capital's sharpest foreign affairs staff chiefs, Daniel McAdams.
POTENT REMEDY
As I talked with Paul, it occurred to me that he and his fellow libertarians are the potent remedy that the dreadfully sick Republican Party so desperately needs. Paul's Liberty caucus hopefully will form the core around which a vigorous, new party grows that addresses America's real needs.
President George W. Bush and the neocons pretty much destroyed the Republican Party, as this column predicted back in 2003. What's left of the Grand Old Party, of which I have been a lifelong and, recently, most unhappy member, has become a rump dominated by religious fundamentalists, regional interests, war-lusting neoconservatives and bumbling, rural Romeos. Mountebanks and demagogues are vying to become the party's voice.
Paul and his fellow libertarians offer Republicans and Americans a badly needed alternative to the dumbed-down Republicans and the wildly spending Democrats, whose expanded Afghanistan war and increasingly neosocialist policies are leading the nation into dangerous waters.
Tuesday
CELEBRATING THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ON THE FOURTH
Every year on the Fourth of July we remember our founding fathers and the precious inheritance of freedom that they secured for us. Every year it seems we get further and further away from that birthright, but we still have much to celebrate.
This country was founded on principles of freedom from overbearing rulers, onerous taxation, and the right to live our lives as we see fit. Our independence was won after decades, and even centuries of abuses that unscrupulous, corrupted leaders and big governments visited upon their subjects. The Founders knew there was a better way, and they forged it here on this soil.
In the new United States of America, the rights of the individual were enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Today, government encroaches on those rights through countless provisions in numerous laws. However, how much worse off might we be had the Founders not enumerated these rights in the highest law of the land? While it is true that many aspects of those rights have been redefined and watered down, and will likely continue to be eroded, we can celebrate the wisdom of the Founders and that at our very core we, as Americans, still hold these rights dear.
The American tradition of individual liberty and self-reliance still runs deep, in spite of the increasing nanny state tendencies that government has been gradually shoving down our throats. It is sad to see government seeking to completely replace the voluntary protections through families and charities that we have relied on throughout our history. Especially disturbing is the rhetoric of community and interdependence being employed by the administration to institute government as the great middle man for all healthcare and charity for which all citizens must dutifully sacrifice. This trend is not improving quality of life for Americans, but instead is greatly enriching the government bureaucracies that take a generous cut of all transactions in the welfare state. There still remains much resistance to cradle to grave government dependence and control. This spirit of fierce independence is a tribute to our founders and is cause to celebrate.
The majority of our Founders believed in sound money, in part because they knew it kept government in check. Governments that are unable to expand the money supply and manipulate credit at will are unable to fund frivolous wars of conquest. Instead of adventurism abroad, seeking monsters to destroy, governments restrained by sound money are restricted to truly defensive wars that the people are willing to fight and to fund. Today, in spite of all the economic turmoil that fiat currency and military interventionism has caused, there is cause to celebrate. The demand to audit the Federal Reserve is quite encouraging. The truth about the fed will put us one step closer to sound money, and peace.
Public outcry against the bank bailouts and the government power grab known as cap-and-trade proves that the spirit of liberty still lives. Part of our celebration of Independence Day should include a renewed determination to keep fighting the good fight for freedom. As long as government continually seeks to take liberties away, patriots need to keep fighting this ongoing war for sustained independence.
This country was founded on principles of freedom from overbearing rulers, onerous taxation, and the right to live our lives as we see fit. Our independence was won after decades, and even centuries of abuses that unscrupulous, corrupted leaders and big governments visited upon their subjects. The Founders knew there was a better way, and they forged it here on this soil.
In the new United States of America, the rights of the individual were enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Today, government encroaches on those rights through countless provisions in numerous laws. However, how much worse off might we be had the Founders not enumerated these rights in the highest law of the land? While it is true that many aspects of those rights have been redefined and watered down, and will likely continue to be eroded, we can celebrate the wisdom of the Founders and that at our very core we, as Americans, still hold these rights dear.
The American tradition of individual liberty and self-reliance still runs deep, in spite of the increasing nanny state tendencies that government has been gradually shoving down our throats. It is sad to see government seeking to completely replace the voluntary protections through families and charities that we have relied on throughout our history. Especially disturbing is the rhetoric of community and interdependence being employed by the administration to institute government as the great middle man for all healthcare and charity for which all citizens must dutifully sacrifice. This trend is not improving quality of life for Americans, but instead is greatly enriching the government bureaucracies that take a generous cut of all transactions in the welfare state. There still remains much resistance to cradle to grave government dependence and control. This spirit of fierce independence is a tribute to our founders and is cause to celebrate.
The majority of our Founders believed in sound money, in part because they knew it kept government in check. Governments that are unable to expand the money supply and manipulate credit at will are unable to fund frivolous wars of conquest. Instead of adventurism abroad, seeking monsters to destroy, governments restrained by sound money are restricted to truly defensive wars that the people are willing to fight and to fund. Today, in spite of all the economic turmoil that fiat currency and military interventionism has caused, there is cause to celebrate. The demand to audit the Federal Reserve is quite encouraging. The truth about the fed will put us one step closer to sound money, and peace.
Public outcry against the bank bailouts and the government power grab known as cap-and-trade proves that the spirit of liberty still lives. Part of our celebration of Independence Day should include a renewed determination to keep fighting the good fight for freedom. As long as government continually seeks to take liberties away, patriots need to keep fighting this ongoing war for sustained independence.
Thursday
WHAT I THINK....JUDSON BERGER
All of a sudden, Congress is paying close attention to Ron Paul.
The feisty congressman from Texas, whose insurgent "Ron Paul Revolution" presidential campaign rankled Republican leaders last year, now has the GOP House leadership on his side -- backing a measure that generated paltry support when he first introduced it 26 years ago.
Paul, as of Tuesday, has won 245 co-sponsors to a bill that would require a full-fledged audit of the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010.
Paul attracted just 18 co-sponsors when he authored a similar bill, which died, in 1983. While the impact Fed policies have on inflation is once again a concern, fears about loose monetary policy and excessive federal spending appear even more widespread in 2009.
"In the past, I never got much support, but I think it's the financial crisis obviously that's drawing so much attention to it, and people want to know more about the Federal Reserve," Paul told FOXNews.com.
With the Federal Reserve holding interest rates at rock-bottom levels, pumping trillions into the economy and now poised to have new powers to oversee the financial system under President Obama's proposed regulatory overhaul, Paul said lawmakers want transparency.
"If they give them a lot more power and there's no more transparency, that'll be a disaster," he said.
The bill would call for the comptroller general in the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed and report those findings to Congress. The GAO's ability to conduct such audits now is severely restricted.
A slew of top Republicans are backing the bill, as are many Democrats.
"Ron Paul has the right idea on this," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who supports similar legislation in the Senate. "I'm just hoping we can get a clear audit. ... We need to know what they're up to."
House Republican Leader John Boehner, who signed on as a co-sponsor this month, wrote in a recent blog post that the "lack of transparency and accountability" regarding federal dollars committed by the Fed and Treasury Department raise "serious concerns" and make an audit critical.
"The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would remove all of these restrictions, and allow GAO to get real answers from the Federal Reserve to protect American taxpayers," Boehner wrote.
Unfortunately for Paul, the bill appears to be idling in the House Financial Services Committee, which is chaired by Barney Frank, D-Mass. The bill has been sitting there, gathering co-sponsors, since Paul introduced it in late February.
"You've kind of got to rely on the Democratic leadership (to move the bill along)," a Boehner aide said. "I haven't heard a lot of support from Chairman Frank."
Calls to Frank's office were not returned.
Paul acknowledged that his bill hasn't advanced but said Frank has "promised" him he will deal with his bill and is willing to give it a hearing. Paul said it's easily got the "momentum" to pass the full House.
A representative with the Federal Reserve could not be reached for comment.
Obama, though, voiced confidence in Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last Tuesday and defended the Fed's overall ability to regulate effectively as well as his proposal to give the body more power.
"If you look at what we've proposed, we are not so much expanding the Fed's power as we are focusing what the Fed needs to do to prevent the kinds of crises that are happening again," Obama said. "We want that power to be available so that taxpayers aren't on the hook."
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced a bill similar to Paul's in the Senate in March, which so far has attracted just three co-sponsors -- DeMint and Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
But DeMint told FOX News last week that the measure would have a good chance of passing the Senate if supporters can push Paul's to a vote, which he said would be successful, in the House.
"I think if we can get that much attention on this bill, I don't believe senators could vote against it, if people knew what they were voting for because everyone is suspicious of the Federal Reserve," DeMint said.
Paul's underlying goal is to abolish the Federal Reserve, which he finds contemptible.
"I blame almost everything on the Fed because they create the bubbles, they create the credit," Paul said.
But the move to require an audit, which Paul described as "neutral," puts him a bit more in the congressional mainstream.
That's a change of pace. The long-time congressman's GOP primary bid was decidedly outside the mainstream. His campaign drew enthusiastic support last year, and though it wasn't enough to pose an electoral threat to the top candidates, he even staged his own September counter-convention in Minneapolis -- down the road from the official Republican National Convention in St. Paul. His "Rally for the Republic" drew more than 10,000 supporters and was complete with a rock band and a slew of faux-delegates wielding signs for their states.
Paul frequently plays the role of party and congressional outsider. Most recently, he was the lone "no" vote on last Friday's resolution to condemn the Iranian government's crackdown on protesters.
He cited constitutional concerns in that vote, as he has in his criticism of the Fed and a slew of other issues.
"The whole process is unconstitutional. There is no legal authority to operate such a monetary system," Paul said in February, in a statement calling for Washington to "end the Fed." He introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act the following day.
The feisty congressman from Texas, whose insurgent "Ron Paul Revolution" presidential campaign rankled Republican leaders last year, now has the GOP House leadership on his side -- backing a measure that generated paltry support when he first introduced it 26 years ago.
Paul, as of Tuesday, has won 245 co-sponsors to a bill that would require a full-fledged audit of the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010.
Paul attracted just 18 co-sponsors when he authored a similar bill, which died, in 1983. While the impact Fed policies have on inflation is once again a concern, fears about loose monetary policy and excessive federal spending appear even more widespread in 2009.
"In the past, I never got much support, but I think it's the financial crisis obviously that's drawing so much attention to it, and people want to know more about the Federal Reserve," Paul told FOXNews.com.
With the Federal Reserve holding interest rates at rock-bottom levels, pumping trillions into the economy and now poised to have new powers to oversee the financial system under President Obama's proposed regulatory overhaul, Paul said lawmakers want transparency.
"If they give them a lot more power and there's no more transparency, that'll be a disaster," he said.
The bill would call for the comptroller general in the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed and report those findings to Congress. The GAO's ability to conduct such audits now is severely restricted.
A slew of top Republicans are backing the bill, as are many Democrats.
"Ron Paul has the right idea on this," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who supports similar legislation in the Senate. "I'm just hoping we can get a clear audit. ... We need to know what they're up to."
House Republican Leader John Boehner, who signed on as a co-sponsor this month, wrote in a recent blog post that the "lack of transparency and accountability" regarding federal dollars committed by the Fed and Treasury Department raise "serious concerns" and make an audit critical.
"The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would remove all of these restrictions, and allow GAO to get real answers from the Federal Reserve to protect American taxpayers," Boehner wrote.
Unfortunately for Paul, the bill appears to be idling in the House Financial Services Committee, which is chaired by Barney Frank, D-Mass. The bill has been sitting there, gathering co-sponsors, since Paul introduced it in late February.
"You've kind of got to rely on the Democratic leadership (to move the bill along)," a Boehner aide said. "I haven't heard a lot of support from Chairman Frank."
Calls to Frank's office were not returned.
Paul acknowledged that his bill hasn't advanced but said Frank has "promised" him he will deal with his bill and is willing to give it a hearing. Paul said it's easily got the "momentum" to pass the full House.
A representative with the Federal Reserve could not be reached for comment.
Obama, though, voiced confidence in Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last Tuesday and defended the Fed's overall ability to regulate effectively as well as his proposal to give the body more power.
"If you look at what we've proposed, we are not so much expanding the Fed's power as we are focusing what the Fed needs to do to prevent the kinds of crises that are happening again," Obama said. "We want that power to be available so that taxpayers aren't on the hook."
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced a bill similar to Paul's in the Senate in March, which so far has attracted just three co-sponsors -- DeMint and Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
But DeMint told FOX News last week that the measure would have a good chance of passing the Senate if supporters can push Paul's to a vote, which he said would be successful, in the House.
"I think if we can get that much attention on this bill, I don't believe senators could vote against it, if people knew what they were voting for because everyone is suspicious of the Federal Reserve," DeMint said.
Paul's underlying goal is to abolish the Federal Reserve, which he finds contemptible.
"I blame almost everything on the Fed because they create the bubbles, they create the credit," Paul said.
But the move to require an audit, which Paul described as "neutral," puts him a bit more in the congressional mainstream.
That's a change of pace. The long-time congressman's GOP primary bid was decidedly outside the mainstream. His campaign drew enthusiastic support last year, and though it wasn't enough to pose an electoral threat to the top candidates, he even staged his own September counter-convention in Minneapolis -- down the road from the official Republican National Convention in St. Paul. His "Rally for the Republic" drew more than 10,000 supporters and was complete with a rock band and a slew of faux-delegates wielding signs for their states.
Paul frequently plays the role of party and congressional outsider. Most recently, he was the lone "no" vote on last Friday's resolution to condemn the Iranian government's crackdown on protesters.
He cited constitutional concerns in that vote, as he has in his criticism of the Fed and a slew of other issues.
"The whole process is unconstitutional. There is no legal authority to operate such a monetary system," Paul said in February, in a statement calling for Washington to "end the Fed." He introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act the following day.
OVER HERE VS. OVER THERE
There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.
Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."
Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.
Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.
But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.
Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.
Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:
1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people. We should never allow the WTO, NAFTA, the U.N. or the Law of the Sea Treaty to transfer power from America to an international body.
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.
Unfortunately, our foreign policy is undermining our security. We have more than 700 military installations in 135 countries around the globe. We have 50,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea. Worse, we have our brave men and women bogged down occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in the midst of ethnic strife and civil war.
We spend more than $1 trillion per year on our foreign policy, and our military is stretched thin. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. We must bring our troops home from around the world, cut overseas spending and strengthen our national defense.
3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.
4. We do not engage in nation-building. Conservatives know government is a poor tool to solve problems. It then makes no sense that we would think that our government could build civil societies and solve the tremendously complex problems of a developing country. Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like. Ronald Reagan wanted America to be a "shining city on the hill." We should make that our goal.
5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble. For example, in 1953, our CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since. So much of our intervention makes no sense. We backed Saddam Hussein for much of the 1980s, and then twice went to war against him. In the 1990s, we bribed North Korea not to pursue atomic weapons with nuclear technology, and Kim Jong-il used that assistance to build several nuclear bombs.
Intervention simply does not serve our long-term interests.
The world is a dangerous place and we should be concerned, but intervention and militarism cannot solve our problems. The answers to our foreign policy problems lie in defending our soil, scaling back our global military footprint and trading with all willing partners. We have strayed far from this philosophy, but we can get back on track by looking to our Constitution, our traditions and the example of our Founding Fathers.
Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."
Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.
Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.
But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.
Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.
Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:
1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people. We should never allow the WTO, NAFTA, the U.N. or the Law of the Sea Treaty to transfer power from America to an international body.
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.
Unfortunately, our foreign policy is undermining our security. We have more than 700 military installations in 135 countries around the globe. We have 50,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea. Worse, we have our brave men and women bogged down occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in the midst of ethnic strife and civil war.
We spend more than $1 trillion per year on our foreign policy, and our military is stretched thin. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. We must bring our troops home from around the world, cut overseas spending and strengthen our national defense.
3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.
4. We do not engage in nation-building. Conservatives know government is a poor tool to solve problems. It then makes no sense that we would think that our government could build civil societies and solve the tremendously complex problems of a developing country. Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like. Ronald Reagan wanted America to be a "shining city on the hill." We should make that our goal.
5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble. For example, in 1953, our CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since. So much of our intervention makes no sense. We backed Saddam Hussein for much of the 1980s, and then twice went to war against him. In the 1990s, we bribed North Korea not to pursue atomic weapons with nuclear technology, and Kim Jong-il used that assistance to build several nuclear bombs.
Intervention simply does not serve our long-term interests.
The world is a dangerous place and we should be concerned, but intervention and militarism cannot solve our problems. The answers to our foreign policy problems lie in defending our soil, scaling back our global military footprint and trading with all willing partners. We have strayed far from this philosophy, but we can get back on track by looking to our Constitution, our traditions and the example of our Founding Fathers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
