I have often spoken about the excessive size of government, and most recently how waste and inefficiency needs to be eliminated from our military budget. Our foreign policy is not only bankrupting us, but actively creating and antagonizing enemies of the United States, and compromising our national security. Spending more and adding more programs and initiatives does not improve things for us; it makes them much much worse. This applies to more than just the military budget.
Recently the Washington Post ran an extensive report by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin on the bloated intelligence community. They found that an estimated 854,000 people hold top-secret security clearances. Just what are all these people up to? By my calculation this is about 11,000 intelligence workers per al Qaeda member in Afghanistan. This also begs the question - if close to 1 million people are authorized to know top secrets, how closely guarded are these secrets?
They also found that since the September 11 attacks, some 17 million square feet of building space has been built or is being built to accommodate the 250 percent expansion of intelligence organizations.
Intelligence work is now done by some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private contracting companies in about 10,000 locations in the United States.
The former Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, has asserted that US intelligence now has the authority to target American citizens for assassination without charge or trial. How many of these resources are being devoted to spying on American citizens for nefarious reasons at home rather than targeting foreign enemies abroad?
It has been pointed out how much information we had about the impending attacks on 9/11, but because of layers upon layers of bureaucratic inefficiencies, our intelligence community was unable to act meaningfully on that information. Obviously we needed drastic change. But it was pretty clear that we did not need more bureaucracy, more confusion, more expenditures and more government.
It is even claimed by some leaders that the intelligence community has grown this way by design; that it is advantageous to have more than one set of eyes looking at the same information. With this logic, is there any number of intelligence employees at which we achieve diminishing returns? Can there ever be too many cooks in the kitchen, in their view?
Are there any problems at all that the government wouldn’t attempt to solve by throwing more money at them? Even now, the government is trying to solve our economic problems related to too much government spending and debt, with more government spending and debt.
The problem with our intelligence community before 9/11 was not an inability to collect information. Therefore, the post-September 11 build-up of the surveillance state does nothing to enhance safety. Instead what Americans have gotten in return for the billions of tax dollars spent on security is a surveillance state that reads our e-mails, wiretaps us without warrants, and strip searches grandmothers at airports. This is yet another instance in which Americans would be safer, richer and freer if our government would simply look to the Constitution and respect the boundaries it has set.
Monday
WHEN THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW
Last week ended with some promising news on finally stopping the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, the administration still seems to believe that shutting down working oil wells is a higher priority than effectively dealing with the broken one. They are again issuing a moratorium on off-shore drilling, while maintaining a de facto ban on new permits even for shallow water drilling, which they previously stated would be unaffected. The courts have twice declared this unconstitutional, over 70 percent of the people see this as unreasonable, yet the administration seems determined to simply end off-shore drilling, at least for those producers that cannot afford to sit idle for an unknown period of time until the ban is lifted.
Whether or not this latest effort will hold up in court is yet to be seen. Sadly, many smaller oil producers in the Gulf see the writing on the wall, and instead of waiting around and risking their livelihoods on the whims of American politicians and judges, they are leaving for friendlier business climates. What is happening to this country when the Republic of Congo is better for business than the United States? One big factor is regime uncertainty.
Regime uncertainty is the opposite of the rule of law. It is the rule of the whims of the people in charge and what mood they are in on any particular day. It is usually associated with third world dictatorships and plays a major role in why some countries remain poor. When a business cannot predict whether a government will issue a permit, confiscate or nationalize their capital investments, tax them into bankruptcy, or arbitrarily stall their operations, they tend to do business elsewhere.
This type of government hostility is not conducive to wealth creation and it is tragic to see it chasing away businesses here when we need the jobs and productivity more than ever.
When the rule of law is respected, it provides business with some measure of predictability so they can plan and operate smoothly. When it is not respected, there are just too many variables, too much risk of loss or waste.
Of course, disregard of the rule of law creates other problems too. For the larger and better-connected businesses, it creates the opportunity of regulatory capture. If the government becomes too unpredictable, one business survival strategy is to become so involved in government and regulatory bodies that they effectively gain control over the very entities that are supposed to keep them in line. In other words, if you can’t beat the government, become the government. A business that achieves regulatory capture is also able to write and implement laws and regulations that it can deal with, but its competitors cannot. The eventual outcome is that companies use regulation to drive everyone else out of business until a monopoly is achieved, putting consumers at its mercy.
Meanwhile, the people develop a false sense of security, assuming that the many regulatory bodies in place are protecting them. Without respect for the rule of law, however, those bodies and their regulations are more likely protecting and enabling big business at the expense of small business and the consumer.
We see this not only with big oil, but big banking, big defense contractors, you name it. This is why, especially in a crisis, we should uphold the Constitution. It is the ultimate consumer protection from crony corporatism.
Whether or not this latest effort will hold up in court is yet to be seen. Sadly, many smaller oil producers in the Gulf see the writing on the wall, and instead of waiting around and risking their livelihoods on the whims of American politicians and judges, they are leaving for friendlier business climates. What is happening to this country when the Republic of Congo is better for business than the United States? One big factor is regime uncertainty.
Regime uncertainty is the opposite of the rule of law. It is the rule of the whims of the people in charge and what mood they are in on any particular day. It is usually associated with third world dictatorships and plays a major role in why some countries remain poor. When a business cannot predict whether a government will issue a permit, confiscate or nationalize their capital investments, tax them into bankruptcy, or arbitrarily stall their operations, they tend to do business elsewhere.
This type of government hostility is not conducive to wealth creation and it is tragic to see it chasing away businesses here when we need the jobs and productivity more than ever.
When the rule of law is respected, it provides business with some measure of predictability so they can plan and operate smoothly. When it is not respected, there are just too many variables, too much risk of loss or waste.
Of course, disregard of the rule of law creates other problems too. For the larger and better-connected businesses, it creates the opportunity of regulatory capture. If the government becomes too unpredictable, one business survival strategy is to become so involved in government and regulatory bodies that they effectively gain control over the very entities that are supposed to keep them in line. In other words, if you can’t beat the government, become the government. A business that achieves regulatory capture is also able to write and implement laws and regulations that it can deal with, but its competitors cannot. The eventual outcome is that companies use regulation to drive everyone else out of business until a monopoly is achieved, putting consumers at its mercy.
Meanwhile, the people develop a false sense of security, assuming that the many regulatory bodies in place are protecting them. Without respect for the rule of law, however, those bodies and their regulations are more likely protecting and enabling big business at the expense of small business and the consumer.
We see this not only with big oil, but big banking, big defense contractors, you name it. This is why, especially in a crisis, we should uphold the Constitution. It is the ultimate consumer protection from crony corporatism.
Tuesday
FUNDING CORRUPTION AND WASTE IN AFGHANISTAN
Last week, GOP chairman Michael Steele came under fire for daring to say what a lot of Americans already know – that our involvement in Afghanistan is an ill-advised quagmire with no end in sight. After nearly 10 years and approaching $1 trillion spent, the conflict is going nowhere because there is nowhere for it to go. After all, if victory is never really defined, defeat is inevitable.
With our economy at home in serious trouble, this wasteful occupation is something we clearly cannot afford. Each soldier costs us $1 million per year, and yet most in Washington are only considering how many more soldiers to send. Fuel costs an astonishing $400 per gallon for our military in Afghanistan! Yet somehow, many politicians feel it is acceptable to squeeze this money out of our taxpayers, who are truly struggling economically, to fund this non-war. Our economy here is not showing any real signs of improvement. Official unemployment is pushing 10nd getting worse. (Real unemployment is over 20ccording to the free-market economists) The growing debt and inflation used to fund this occupation only dooms us to more economic hardship for a long time to come. And - for what?
Where the money for Afghanistan comes from is one problem – where it goes is another. Recently, it has come to light that much of the aid money we send to Afghanistan is lost due to corruption. Billions of tax dollars from hardworking Americans are ending up lining the pockets of corrupt Afghan officials, and likely even filtering into the Taliban we are ostensibly fighting. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that curiously enough, billions more than the Afghan government collects in revenue is leaving the country in the form of cash on huge pallets and in suitcases and mostly ending up in Dubai, as well-connected Afghan officials buy up luxury homes and enrich their personal off-shore bank accounts. Investigations into corruption and graft have been blocked by the Karzai government, probably because Karzai’s own brother would have to be implicated. It is encouraging that the foreign aid appropriations subcommittee has attempted to block billions in aid as a response to these allegations, but this is likely temporary and may not even succeed.
The point is that sending aid money to Afghanistan is not making poor people over there better off. It is making poor people here worse off. Corruption is endemic to Afghanistan, with graft comprising about one fourth of their economy! Even though it is considered the second most corrupt nation in the world according to Transparency International, we still send the Afghan government billions of dollars in aid and are shocked to find it is not making its way out of the sticky fingers of the officials entrusted with it.
Robbing citizens here to fund corruption over there is not helping average citizens anywhere. We are sacrificing real economic opportunities at home for the opportunity to line corrupt pockets in Afghanistan. Not only that, but American soldiers are being killed and maimed. It is tragic and frustrating how much we have lost and wasted already. It is time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans to sort out. I am glad more Americans are finally willing to face this reality.
With our economy at home in serious trouble, this wasteful occupation is something we clearly cannot afford. Each soldier costs us $1 million per year, and yet most in Washington are only considering how many more soldiers to send. Fuel costs an astonishing $400 per gallon for our military in Afghanistan! Yet somehow, many politicians feel it is acceptable to squeeze this money out of our taxpayers, who are truly struggling economically, to fund this non-war. Our economy here is not showing any real signs of improvement. Official unemployment is pushing 10nd getting worse. (Real unemployment is over 20ccording to the free-market economists) The growing debt and inflation used to fund this occupation only dooms us to more economic hardship for a long time to come. And - for what?
Where the money for Afghanistan comes from is one problem – where it goes is another. Recently, it has come to light that much of the aid money we send to Afghanistan is lost due to corruption. Billions of tax dollars from hardworking Americans are ending up lining the pockets of corrupt Afghan officials, and likely even filtering into the Taliban we are ostensibly fighting. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that curiously enough, billions more than the Afghan government collects in revenue is leaving the country in the form of cash on huge pallets and in suitcases and mostly ending up in Dubai, as well-connected Afghan officials buy up luxury homes and enrich their personal off-shore bank accounts. Investigations into corruption and graft have been blocked by the Karzai government, probably because Karzai’s own brother would have to be implicated. It is encouraging that the foreign aid appropriations subcommittee has attempted to block billions in aid as a response to these allegations, but this is likely temporary and may not even succeed.
The point is that sending aid money to Afghanistan is not making poor people over there better off. It is making poor people here worse off. Corruption is endemic to Afghanistan, with graft comprising about one fourth of their economy! Even though it is considered the second most corrupt nation in the world according to Transparency International, we still send the Afghan government billions of dollars in aid and are shocked to find it is not making its way out of the sticky fingers of the officials entrusted with it.
Robbing citizens here to fund corruption over there is not helping average citizens anywhere. We are sacrificing real economic opportunities at home for the opportunity to line corrupt pockets in Afghanistan. Not only that, but American soldiers are being killed and maimed. It is tragic and frustrating how much we have lost and wasted already. It is time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans to sort out. I am glad more Americans are finally willing to face this reality.
Wednesday
WHAT I THINK.......CHELSEA SCHILLING
Despite more than 120 co-sponsors of a bill to audit the Federal Reserve – nearly all Democrats – flip-flopping and voting against the effort, Rep. Ron Paul is warning that the Fed will not "win the war" for an honest monetary system.
Paul, R-Texas, has led the charge to audit the Federal Reserve, the private organization that sets interest rates and money policy affecting everyone in the United States.
For decades those decisions have been made behind closed doors, and Paul has been trying to open the door and allow some light to fall on the procedures. He sponsored the audit the Fed bill previously supported by 320 members of the House. However, the audit provision failed by a vote of 229-198.
"Even though they may have won this battle, they're not going to win the war," Paul said in a video posted today on the Daily Paul. "What they're doing is going to be devastating to us because this piece of legislation actually gave more power to the Federal Reserve – not less, more power to the regulators, more effort to keep themselves in secret. … For those individuals that believe in monetary reform and transparency, we will keep the heat on the Fed until we get an honest monetary system."
Learn about saving America's economy, and your own, in "Killing Wealth Freeing Wealth."
As WND reported, when efforts to force an audit came before the Senate, Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist but politically unaffiliated senator from Vermont, put forward new language that Paul warned would strip the teeth from the House version.
"At the very last minute on the floor of the Senate, supposed compromise language was agreed to and substituted in the Sanders Amendment to the Financial Reform Bill," Paul wrote on his blog. "This language was acceptable to the administration, committee leadership and to the Fed. The trouble is, while it is better than no audit at all, it guts the spirit of a truly meaningful audit of the most crucial transactions of the Fed. In fact, rather than still calling the Sanders Amendment an audit, maybe it should instead be called more of a disclosure at this point.
"The new language of the Sanders Amendment requires a one-time disclosure from the Fed of 13(3) facilities, foreign currency swaps and mortgage-backed securities," Paul explained. "Basically, their sins of the past would be revealed and Americans would know more about who got bailed out by the Fed and under what terms. This would be good, but it's not nearly enough."
In May, the White House said it was working with Sanders. They later came to a compromise, agreeing that the audit wouldn't influence the Fed's monetary policies. In negotiations with Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and officials from the Fed, Sanders successfully "watered down" the audit and restricted it to a one-time peek at lending activity from Dec. 1, 2007 until the present. The Senate passed the weaker amendment on May 11 by a vote of 96-0. The amendment had the support of the Obama administration.
The blog Cunning Realist noted, "Chuck Schumer, grinning, put his arm around Sanders on the Senate floor after Sanders announced 'changes' to his amendment."
To counter the Sanders Amendment, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., put forward another amendment restoring some of the original language of the more thorough audit.
The Senate, however, voted down the Vitter Amendment 37-62, while passing the Sanders Amendment.
The Wall Street Journal confirmed the maneuvering because of "pressure" from the Obama administration would allow the Federal Reserve "to sidestep legislation that would have exposed its interest-rate decision-making to congressional auditors."
"So when the bill comes back to the House, guess what? We don't have the audit bill provision in there," Paul explained. "So I was able to offer an amendment which was the 'recommit amendment' to send it back to committee and put back in the true audit."
The motion to recommit would have sent the bill back to committee to add in the Fed audit.
"An interesting thing happened here because we do have 320 co-sponsors of 1207 and it passed the committee rather easily and it was not challenged on the House floor in the first go-around," Paul said. "Here we were on the House floor with a chance to put it back in, and … individuals who were co-sponsors of the legislation voted against it."
He added, "This is the way this system works too often. People do flip-flop, and they do change. But it also reflects the fact that the Federal Reserve is a very powerful institution. They were able to influence these votes."
In an interview with the "The Alex Jones Show," Paul said, "It tells you about the hypocrisy of this whole place and how it works and how powerful the Fed is."
Almost all of the "flip-flopping" co-sponsors were Democrats. Three Republicans were counted as "not voting": Utah's Rep. Rob Bishop, Tennessee's Rep. Zach Wamp and Alaska's Rep. Don Young.
"Does that mean it's over and done with?" Paul asked. "Well, pretty much so, even though there's a slight possibility another type of legislation that deals with banking regulations may come up before the end of the year and we may get a chance to offer as a recommital motion if the leadership on the Republican side permits it. But, as for now, it looks like we will not have a full audit."
However, Paul said there is an advantage to the unsuccessful effort.
"Believe me, a lot of benefit has come from this," he said. "The Federal Reserve will not get off completely because more people in this country than ever before know that the Federal Reserve is very, very important. They know they were responsible for the problems that we have, and they know that they work in secrecy. The American people want to know about it."
The following U.S. representatives co-sponsored H.R.1207 but later flip-flopped, voting against the motion to recommit the full Fed audit to the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009:
Switched to 'Nay' after co-sponsoring H.R.1207
Adler, John (D-N.J.)
Altmire, Jason (D-Pa.)
Arcuri, Michael (D-N.Y.)
Baird, Brian (D-Wash.)
Baldwin, Tammy (D-Wis.)
Barrow, John (D-Ga.)
Berkley, Shelley (D-Nev.)
Berry, Marion (D-Ark.)
Bishop, Sanford (D-Ga.)
Bishop, Timothy (D-N.Y.)
Boccieri, John (D-Ohio)
Boren, Dan (D-Okla.)
Boswell, Leonard L. (D-Iowa)
Boyd, Allen (D-Fla.)
Braley, Bruce (D-Iowa)
Bright, Bobby (D-Ala.)
Brown, Corrine (D-Fla.)
Chandler, Ben (D-Ky.)
Chu, Judy (D-Calif.)
Clay, William Lacy (D-Mo.)
Cohen, Steve (D-Tenn.)
Conyers, John (D-Mich.)
Courtney, Joe (D-Conn.)
Cuellar, Henry (D-Texas)
Dahlkemper, Kathleen (D-Pa.)
Davis, Danny (D-Ill.)
Davis, Lincoln (D-Tenn.)
DeFazio, Peter (D-Ore.)
Delahunt, Bill (D-Mass.)
Doggett, Lloyd (D-Texas)
Doyle, Michael (D-Pa.)
Driehaus, Steve (D-Ohio)
Edwards, Donna (D-Md.)
Farr, Sam (D-Calif.)
Filner, Bob (D-Calif.)
Fudge, Marcia (D-Ohio)
Gordon, Bart (D-Tn.)
Grijalva, Raul (D-Ariz.)
Halvorson, Deborah (D-Ill.)
Hare, Phil (D-Ill.)
Harman, Jane (D-Calif.)
Heinrich, Martin (D-N.M.)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-S.D.)
Higgins, Brian (D-N.Y.)
Hill, Baron (D-Ind.)
Hinchey, Maurice (D-N.Y.)
Hinojosa, Ruben (D-Texas)
Hirono, Mazie (D-Hawaii)
Holden, Tim (D-Pa.)
Inslee, Jay (D-Wash.)
Jackson, Jessie (D-Ill.)
Johnson, Henry (D-Ga.)
Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-Texas)
Kagen, Steve (D-Wis.)
Kaptur, Marcy (D-Ohio)
Kildee, Dale (D-Mich.)
Kilpatrick, Carolyn (D-Mich.)
Kissell, Larry (D-N.C.)
Kosmas, Suzanne (D-Fla.)
Kucinich, Dennis (D-Ohio)
Langevin, James (D-R.I.)
Lewis, John (D-Ga.)
Loebsack, David (D-Iowa)
Lofgren, Zoe (D-Calif.)
Luján, Ben Ray (D-N.M.)
Maffei, Daniel (D-N.Y.)
McDermott, Jim (D-Wash.)
McGovern, James (D-Mass.)
Melancon, Charlie (D-La.)
Michaud, Michael (D-Maine)
Miller, Brad (D-N.C.)
Murphy, Christopher (D-Conn.)
Murphy, Scott (D-N.Y.)
Murphy, Patrick (D-Pa.)
Nadler, Jerrold (D-N.Y.)
Oberstar, James (DFL-Minn.)
Ortiz, Solomon (D-Texas)
Pascrell, Bill (D-N.J.)
Pastor, Ed (D-Ariz.)
Payne, Donald (D-N.J.)
Perlmutter, Ed (D-Colo.)
Peterson, Collin (D-Minn.)
Pingree, Chellie (D-Maine)
Polis, Jared (D-Colo.)
Quigley, Mike (D-Ill.)
Reyes, Silvestre (D-Texas)
Richardson, Laura (D-Calif.)
Rodriguez, Ciro (D-Texas)
Rothman, Steven (D-N.J.)
Ruppersberger, C.A. Dutch (D-Md.)
Ryan, Tim (D-Ohio)
Salazar, John T. (D-Colo.)
Sarbanes, John (D-Md.)
Schakowsky, Janice (D-Ill.)
Schauer, Mark (D-Mich.)
Schiff, Adam (D-Calif.)
Schrader, Kurt (D-Ore.)
Scott, David (D-Ga.)
Shea-Porter, Carol (D-N.H.)
Sherman, Brad (D-Calif.)
Shuler, Heath (D-N.C.)
Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (D-N.Y.)
Smith, Adam (D-Wash.)
Snyder, Vic (D-Ark.)
Speier, Jackie (D-Calif.)
Spratt, John (D-S.C.)
Stark, Fortney Pete (D-Calif.)
Sutton, Betty (D-Ohio)
Thompson, Bennie (D-Miss.)
Tierney, John (D-Mass.)
Tonko, Paul (D-N.Y.)
Visclosky, Peter (D-Ind.)
Walz, Timothy (DFL-Minn.)
Weiner, Anthony (D-N.Y.)
Welch, Peter (D-Vt.)
Wu, David (D-Ore.)
Yarmuth, John (D-Ky.)
Not voting
Bishop, Rob (R-Utah)
Taylor, Gene (D-Miss.)
Wamp, Zach (R-Tenn.)
Woolsey, Lynn (D-Calif)
Young, Don (R-Alaska)
Paul, R-Texas, has led the charge to audit the Federal Reserve, the private organization that sets interest rates and money policy affecting everyone in the United States.
For decades those decisions have been made behind closed doors, and Paul has been trying to open the door and allow some light to fall on the procedures. He sponsored the audit the Fed bill previously supported by 320 members of the House. However, the audit provision failed by a vote of 229-198.
"Even though they may have won this battle, they're not going to win the war," Paul said in a video posted today on the Daily Paul. "What they're doing is going to be devastating to us because this piece of legislation actually gave more power to the Federal Reserve – not less, more power to the regulators, more effort to keep themselves in secret. … For those individuals that believe in monetary reform and transparency, we will keep the heat on the Fed until we get an honest monetary system."
Learn about saving America's economy, and your own, in "Killing Wealth Freeing Wealth."
As WND reported, when efforts to force an audit came before the Senate, Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist but politically unaffiliated senator from Vermont, put forward new language that Paul warned would strip the teeth from the House version.
"At the very last minute on the floor of the Senate, supposed compromise language was agreed to and substituted in the Sanders Amendment to the Financial Reform Bill," Paul wrote on his blog. "This language was acceptable to the administration, committee leadership and to the Fed. The trouble is, while it is better than no audit at all, it guts the spirit of a truly meaningful audit of the most crucial transactions of the Fed. In fact, rather than still calling the Sanders Amendment an audit, maybe it should instead be called more of a disclosure at this point.
"The new language of the Sanders Amendment requires a one-time disclosure from the Fed of 13(3) facilities, foreign currency swaps and mortgage-backed securities," Paul explained. "Basically, their sins of the past would be revealed and Americans would know more about who got bailed out by the Fed and under what terms. This would be good, but it's not nearly enough."
In May, the White House said it was working with Sanders. They later came to a compromise, agreeing that the audit wouldn't influence the Fed's monetary policies. In negotiations with Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and officials from the Fed, Sanders successfully "watered down" the audit and restricted it to a one-time peek at lending activity from Dec. 1, 2007 until the present. The Senate passed the weaker amendment on May 11 by a vote of 96-0. The amendment had the support of the Obama administration.
The blog Cunning Realist noted, "Chuck Schumer, grinning, put his arm around Sanders on the Senate floor after Sanders announced 'changes' to his amendment."
To counter the Sanders Amendment, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., put forward another amendment restoring some of the original language of the more thorough audit.
The Senate, however, voted down the Vitter Amendment 37-62, while passing the Sanders Amendment.
The Wall Street Journal confirmed the maneuvering because of "pressure" from the Obama administration would allow the Federal Reserve "to sidestep legislation that would have exposed its interest-rate decision-making to congressional auditors."
"So when the bill comes back to the House, guess what? We don't have the audit bill provision in there," Paul explained. "So I was able to offer an amendment which was the 'recommit amendment' to send it back to committee and put back in the true audit."
The motion to recommit would have sent the bill back to committee to add in the Fed audit.
"An interesting thing happened here because we do have 320 co-sponsors of 1207 and it passed the committee rather easily and it was not challenged on the House floor in the first go-around," Paul said. "Here we were on the House floor with a chance to put it back in, and … individuals who were co-sponsors of the legislation voted against it."
He added, "This is the way this system works too often. People do flip-flop, and they do change. But it also reflects the fact that the Federal Reserve is a very powerful institution. They were able to influence these votes."
In an interview with the "The Alex Jones Show," Paul said, "It tells you about the hypocrisy of this whole place and how it works and how powerful the Fed is."
Almost all of the "flip-flopping" co-sponsors were Democrats. Three Republicans were counted as "not voting": Utah's Rep. Rob Bishop, Tennessee's Rep. Zach Wamp and Alaska's Rep. Don Young.
"Does that mean it's over and done with?" Paul asked. "Well, pretty much so, even though there's a slight possibility another type of legislation that deals with banking regulations may come up before the end of the year and we may get a chance to offer as a recommital motion if the leadership on the Republican side permits it. But, as for now, it looks like we will not have a full audit."
However, Paul said there is an advantage to the unsuccessful effort.
"Believe me, a lot of benefit has come from this," he said. "The Federal Reserve will not get off completely because more people in this country than ever before know that the Federal Reserve is very, very important. They know they were responsible for the problems that we have, and they know that they work in secrecy. The American people want to know about it."
The following U.S. representatives co-sponsored H.R.1207 but later flip-flopped, voting against the motion to recommit the full Fed audit to the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009:
Switched to 'Nay' after co-sponsoring H.R.1207
Adler, John (D-N.J.)
Altmire, Jason (D-Pa.)
Arcuri, Michael (D-N.Y.)
Baird, Brian (D-Wash.)
Baldwin, Tammy (D-Wis.)
Barrow, John (D-Ga.)
Berkley, Shelley (D-Nev.)
Berry, Marion (D-Ark.)
Bishop, Sanford (D-Ga.)
Bishop, Timothy (D-N.Y.)
Boccieri, John (D-Ohio)
Boren, Dan (D-Okla.)
Boswell, Leonard L. (D-Iowa)
Boyd, Allen (D-Fla.)
Braley, Bruce (D-Iowa)
Bright, Bobby (D-Ala.)
Brown, Corrine (D-Fla.)
Chandler, Ben (D-Ky.)
Chu, Judy (D-Calif.)
Clay, William Lacy (D-Mo.)
Cohen, Steve (D-Tenn.)
Conyers, John (D-Mich.)
Courtney, Joe (D-Conn.)
Cuellar, Henry (D-Texas)
Dahlkemper, Kathleen (D-Pa.)
Davis, Danny (D-Ill.)
Davis, Lincoln (D-Tenn.)
DeFazio, Peter (D-Ore.)
Delahunt, Bill (D-Mass.)
Doggett, Lloyd (D-Texas)
Doyle, Michael (D-Pa.)
Driehaus, Steve (D-Ohio)
Edwards, Donna (D-Md.)
Farr, Sam (D-Calif.)
Filner, Bob (D-Calif.)
Fudge, Marcia (D-Ohio)
Gordon, Bart (D-Tn.)
Grijalva, Raul (D-Ariz.)
Halvorson, Deborah (D-Ill.)
Hare, Phil (D-Ill.)
Harman, Jane (D-Calif.)
Heinrich, Martin (D-N.M.)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-S.D.)
Higgins, Brian (D-N.Y.)
Hill, Baron (D-Ind.)
Hinchey, Maurice (D-N.Y.)
Hinojosa, Ruben (D-Texas)
Hirono, Mazie (D-Hawaii)
Holden, Tim (D-Pa.)
Inslee, Jay (D-Wash.)
Jackson, Jessie (D-Ill.)
Johnson, Henry (D-Ga.)
Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-Texas)
Kagen, Steve (D-Wis.)
Kaptur, Marcy (D-Ohio)
Kildee, Dale (D-Mich.)
Kilpatrick, Carolyn (D-Mich.)
Kissell, Larry (D-N.C.)
Kosmas, Suzanne (D-Fla.)
Kucinich, Dennis (D-Ohio)
Langevin, James (D-R.I.)
Lewis, John (D-Ga.)
Loebsack, David (D-Iowa)
Lofgren, Zoe (D-Calif.)
Luján, Ben Ray (D-N.M.)
Maffei, Daniel (D-N.Y.)
McDermott, Jim (D-Wash.)
McGovern, James (D-Mass.)
Melancon, Charlie (D-La.)
Michaud, Michael (D-Maine)
Miller, Brad (D-N.C.)
Murphy, Christopher (D-Conn.)
Murphy, Scott (D-N.Y.)
Murphy, Patrick (D-Pa.)
Nadler, Jerrold (D-N.Y.)
Oberstar, James (DFL-Minn.)
Ortiz, Solomon (D-Texas)
Pascrell, Bill (D-N.J.)
Pastor, Ed (D-Ariz.)
Payne, Donald (D-N.J.)
Perlmutter, Ed (D-Colo.)
Peterson, Collin (D-Minn.)
Pingree, Chellie (D-Maine)
Polis, Jared (D-Colo.)
Quigley, Mike (D-Ill.)
Reyes, Silvestre (D-Texas)
Richardson, Laura (D-Calif.)
Rodriguez, Ciro (D-Texas)
Rothman, Steven (D-N.J.)
Ruppersberger, C.A. Dutch (D-Md.)
Ryan, Tim (D-Ohio)
Salazar, John T. (D-Colo.)
Sarbanes, John (D-Md.)
Schakowsky, Janice (D-Ill.)
Schauer, Mark (D-Mich.)
Schiff, Adam (D-Calif.)
Schrader, Kurt (D-Ore.)
Scott, David (D-Ga.)
Shea-Porter, Carol (D-N.H.)
Sherman, Brad (D-Calif.)
Shuler, Heath (D-N.C.)
Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (D-N.Y.)
Smith, Adam (D-Wash.)
Snyder, Vic (D-Ark.)
Speier, Jackie (D-Calif.)
Spratt, John (D-S.C.)
Stark, Fortney Pete (D-Calif.)
Sutton, Betty (D-Ohio)
Thompson, Bennie (D-Miss.)
Tierney, John (D-Mass.)
Tonko, Paul (D-N.Y.)
Visclosky, Peter (D-Ind.)
Walz, Timothy (DFL-Minn.)
Weiner, Anthony (D-N.Y.)
Welch, Peter (D-Vt.)
Wu, David (D-Ore.)
Yarmuth, John (D-Ky.)
Not voting
Bishop, Rob (R-Utah)
Taylor, Gene (D-Miss.)
Wamp, Zach (R-Tenn.)
Woolsey, Lynn (D-Calif)
Young, Don (R-Alaska)
Saturday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
