Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.
Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.
The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.
Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.
Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.
Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can’t pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.
The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people’s best interest.
Monday
WHAT THE FED HAS DONE
The Federal Reserve in collaboration with the giant banks has created the greatest financial crisis the world has ever seen.
The foolish notion that unlimited amounts of money and credit, created out of thin air, can provide sustained economic growth has delivered this crisis to us.
Instead of economic growth and stable prices it has given us a system of government and finance that now threatens the world financial and political institutions.
Real unemployment is now 20% and there has not been any economic growth since the onset of the crisis in the year 2000, according to non-government statistics.
Pyramiding debt and credit expansion, over the past 38 years, has come to an abrupt end – as predicted by free-market economists.
Pursuing the same policy of excessive spending, debt expansion, and monetary inflation, can only compound the problems and prevent the required correction.
Doubling the money supply didn’t work; quadrupling it won’t work either.
The problem of debt must be addressed.
Expanding debt when it was a principal cause of the crisis is foolhardy.
Excessive government and private debt is a consequence of a loose Federal Reserve monetary policy. Once a debt crisis hits, the solution must be paying it off or liquidating it. We are doing neither.
Net US debt is now 372% of GDP. In the crisis of the 1930s it peaked at 301%.
Household debt services requires 14% of the disposable income – an historic high.
Between 2000 and 2007 credit debt expanded five times as fast as gross domestic product.
With no restraint on spending, and revenues dropping due to the weak economy, raising taxes will be poison to the economy.
Buying up the bad debt of privileged institutions and dumping worthless assets on the American people is morally wrong and economically futile.
Monetizing government debt, as the Fed is currently doing, is destined to do great harm.
In the past 12 months the national debt has risen over $2.7 trillion. Future entitlement obligations are now reaching $100 trillion. US foreign indebtedness is $6 trillion.
Foreign purchases of US securities in May were $7.4 billion, down from a monthly peak of $95 billion in 2006.
The fact that the Fed had to buy $38.5 billion of government securities last week indicates that it will continue its complicity with Congress to monetize the rapidly expanding deficit. This policy is used to pay for the socialization of America and for the maintenance of an unwise American empire overseas, and to make up for the diminished appetite of foreigners for our debt.
Since the attack on the dollar will continue, I would suggest that the problems we have faced so far are nothing compared to what it will be like when the world, not only rejects our debt, but our dollar as well. That’s when we’ll witness political turmoil which will be to no one’s benefit.
The foolish notion that unlimited amounts of money and credit, created out of thin air, can provide sustained economic growth has delivered this crisis to us.
Instead of economic growth and stable prices it has given us a system of government and finance that now threatens the world financial and political institutions.
Real unemployment is now 20% and there has not been any economic growth since the onset of the crisis in the year 2000, according to non-government statistics.
Pyramiding debt and credit expansion, over the past 38 years, has come to an abrupt end – as predicted by free-market economists.
Pursuing the same policy of excessive spending, debt expansion, and monetary inflation, can only compound the problems and prevent the required correction.
Doubling the money supply didn’t work; quadrupling it won’t work either.
The problem of debt must be addressed.
Expanding debt when it was a principal cause of the crisis is foolhardy.
Excessive government and private debt is a consequence of a loose Federal Reserve monetary policy. Once a debt crisis hits, the solution must be paying it off or liquidating it. We are doing neither.
Net US debt is now 372% of GDP. In the crisis of the 1930s it peaked at 301%.
Household debt services requires 14% of the disposable income – an historic high.
Between 2000 and 2007 credit debt expanded five times as fast as gross domestic product.
With no restraint on spending, and revenues dropping due to the weak economy, raising taxes will be poison to the economy.
Buying up the bad debt of privileged institutions and dumping worthless assets on the American people is morally wrong and economically futile.
Monetizing government debt, as the Fed is currently doing, is destined to do great harm.
In the past 12 months the national debt has risen over $2.7 trillion. Future entitlement obligations are now reaching $100 trillion. US foreign indebtedness is $6 trillion.
Foreign purchases of US securities in May were $7.4 billion, down from a monthly peak of $95 billion in 2006.
The fact that the Fed had to buy $38.5 billion of government securities last week indicates that it will continue its complicity with Congress to monetize the rapidly expanding deficit. This policy is used to pay for the socialization of America and for the maintenance of an unwise American empire overseas, and to make up for the diminished appetite of foreigners for our debt.
Since the attack on the dollar will continue, I would suggest that the problems we have faced so far are nothing compared to what it will be like when the world, not only rejects our debt, but our dollar as well. That’s when we’ll witness political turmoil which will be to no one’s benefit.
Thursday
THE MYTH OF FED INDEPENDENCE
At a time when we find ourselves once again receiving a report on the Federal Reserve's conduct of monetary policy, it is more important than ever that we in the Congress push for more effective oversight and transparency of the Federal Reserve System. It would be unconscionable for this body, especially after the financial crisis of the last two years, not to take forceful and deliberate action to bring more transparency to the Fed.
A common misconception is that the Fed is completely independent of political pressure, and that any attempt to oversee or audit the Fed would jeopardize that independence. While the Fed has far too much authority to make agreements with foreign governments and central banks, or create temporary liquidity facilities, the governors and, more importantly, the chairman, are appointed by the President. The chairman is the dominant figure within the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, the public face of the Fed, and he must be reappointed by the President every four years, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Thus, his job security as chairman is dependent on keeping the President and the Senate pleased. Every time the chairman acts, it is with the knowledge that within four years he will be forced to justify his actions to the President and the Senate.
Meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee, the committee responsible for conducting monetary policy and setting interest rates, are held in secret. Minutes are released after three weeks, and transcripts after five years. The ostensible reasons for this secrecy are that too much openness will either hamper the freedom of FOMC participants to discuss issues freely, or that markets will be unnerved. However, this is not really a condemnation of transparency, but rather a sign that far too much power has been given to one tiny organization.
We here in the Congress hold our committee hearings publicly, broadcast on C-SPAN and over the Internet. We are the most powerful branch of the government and our decisions have no less effect on the lives of everyday Americans than the decisions of the Fed. More importantly, our discussions have a direct impact on our ability to win re-election. Every word we speak can be used against us in our campaigns for re-election. It would be far easier for us to hold hearings in secret and release minutes and transcripts well after the fact. Yet we understand that the American people deserve to know not only what comes out of Congress, but also what goes on in the legislative process.
In the same way, it is vital that the American people understand what is going on inside the Fed. Attempts at enhanced transparency and auditing of the Fed's auctions are not intended to dictate monetary policy to the Fed or second-guess the Fed's actions. To my knowledge not a single legislative proposal put forward thus far has this as its intended goal. We as Congressmen have the ultimate responsibility for keeping the Fed in check, but how can we fulfill that duty if we do not know what the Fed is doing? Greater transparency is the first step, and only then can we begin to perform effective oversight. Given the Fed's abysmal stewardship of the dollar and repeated fumbling of financial crises, we owe this to the American people.
A common misconception is that the Fed is completely independent of political pressure, and that any attempt to oversee or audit the Fed would jeopardize that independence. While the Fed has far too much authority to make agreements with foreign governments and central banks, or create temporary liquidity facilities, the governors and, more importantly, the chairman, are appointed by the President. The chairman is the dominant figure within the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, the public face of the Fed, and he must be reappointed by the President every four years, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Thus, his job security as chairman is dependent on keeping the President and the Senate pleased. Every time the chairman acts, it is with the knowledge that within four years he will be forced to justify his actions to the President and the Senate.
Meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee, the committee responsible for conducting monetary policy and setting interest rates, are held in secret. Minutes are released after three weeks, and transcripts after five years. The ostensible reasons for this secrecy are that too much openness will either hamper the freedom of FOMC participants to discuss issues freely, or that markets will be unnerved. However, this is not really a condemnation of transparency, but rather a sign that far too much power has been given to one tiny organization.
We here in the Congress hold our committee hearings publicly, broadcast on C-SPAN and over the Internet. We are the most powerful branch of the government and our decisions have no less effect on the lives of everyday Americans than the decisions of the Fed. More importantly, our discussions have a direct impact on our ability to win re-election. Every word we speak can be used against us in our campaigns for re-election. It would be far easier for us to hold hearings in secret and release minutes and transcripts well after the fact. Yet we understand that the American people deserve to know not only what comes out of Congress, but also what goes on in the legislative process.
In the same way, it is vital that the American people understand what is going on inside the Fed. Attempts at enhanced transparency and auditing of the Fed's auctions are not intended to dictate monetary policy to the Fed or second-guess the Fed's actions. To my knowledge not a single legislative proposal put forward thus far has this as its intended goal. We as Congressmen have the ultimate responsibility for keeping the Fed in check, but how can we fulfill that duty if we do not know what the Fed is doing? Greater transparency is the first step, and only then can we begin to perform effective oversight. Given the Fed's abysmal stewardship of the dollar and repeated fumbling of financial crises, we owe this to the American people.
Wednesday
WHAT I THINK....JUSTIN MILLER
The political world can't stop speculating on the next presidential race, but as it continues to daydream about 2012 it should include room for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R). Two surveys this month of Republican voters sought to size up the potential GOP field but did not include Paul. This is a mistake because Dr. No's philosophy is closer to the Republican mainstream than it was last year when he ran for president.
When the primaries began, Paul's warnings against inflationary money printing, an unaccountable Federal Reserve and an ever-expanding federal government seemed overheated to most Republicans. That was before the Fed printed $1 trillion this spring; the Treasury bought major shares in banks and automakers that are lynchpins in their respective economic sectors, and Democrats announced big plans for health care.
Now you hear conservatives worried about the Fed and inflation, and railing against the government's quasi-control of private businesses.
Republicans in Congress have been voting more like Paul since the primaries ended, namely on economic policy. First, half of the House GOP and Paul voted against the final version of the bailout authorization last October. Then, every single representative voted with Paul against the stimulus bill this year. (However, Paul and the GOP are still at odds on staying in Iraq and Afghanistan much longer.)
Furthermore, more than 150 House Republicans are now co-sponsoring Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
Paul's primary election results were not great, but they weren't inconsequential either: he won 10 percent of the votes in Iowa and 8 percent in New Hampshire.
If the economy isn't growing well in three years and the government has maintained its expanded economic role, it should only reason to stand that Paul would do better among Republicans than he did in the primaries, at least based on how Republican politicians are voting and conservative leaders are speaking. (For what it's worth, Paul won third place in the Conservative Action Political Committee's 2009 straw poll of activists' choices for president.)
Paul is just as plausible a candidate to run for the Republican nomination as are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or Mike Huckabee who were tested in polls this month. Like them, Paul's run for the White House (twice) before and has said he isn't opposed to doing it again, albeit he said it's "unlikely." What's more likely, based on the circumstantial evidence, is that the Republican voters would receive Paul better than they did last year. Feature him in polls from now on and we can test this hypothesis.
When the primaries began, Paul's warnings against inflationary money printing, an unaccountable Federal Reserve and an ever-expanding federal government seemed overheated to most Republicans. That was before the Fed printed $1 trillion this spring; the Treasury bought major shares in banks and automakers that are lynchpins in their respective economic sectors, and Democrats announced big plans for health care.
Now you hear conservatives worried about the Fed and inflation, and railing against the government's quasi-control of private businesses.
Republicans in Congress have been voting more like Paul since the primaries ended, namely on economic policy. First, half of the House GOP and Paul voted against the final version of the bailout authorization last October. Then, every single representative voted with Paul against the stimulus bill this year. (However, Paul and the GOP are still at odds on staying in Iraq and Afghanistan much longer.)
Furthermore, more than 150 House Republicans are now co-sponsoring Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
Paul's primary election results were not great, but they weren't inconsequential either: he won 10 percent of the votes in Iowa and 8 percent in New Hampshire.
If the economy isn't growing well in three years and the government has maintained its expanded economic role, it should only reason to stand that Paul would do better among Republicans than he did in the primaries, at least based on how Republican politicians are voting and conservative leaders are speaking. (For what it's worth, Paul won third place in the Conservative Action Political Committee's 2009 straw poll of activists' choices for president.)
Paul is just as plausible a candidate to run for the Republican nomination as are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or Mike Huckabee who were tested in polls this month. Like them, Paul's run for the White House (twice) before and has said he isn't opposed to doing it again, albeit he said it's "unlikely." What's more likely, based on the circumstantial evidence, is that the Republican voters would receive Paul better than they did last year. Feature him in polls from now on and we can test this hypothesis.
Tuesday
HEALTHCARE IS A GOOD, NOT A RIGHT
Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.
First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.
Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.
Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.
As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.
The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.
Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.
First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.
Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.
Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.
As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.
The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.
Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.
Friday
WHAT I THINK....MARY ANN AKERS
For anyone who doubted it, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the libertarian phenom of the 2008 presidential campaign, is a lover, not a fighter.
And he's spreading love far and wide across the Internet, albeit unwittingly.
Paul is the inspiration behind a new online dating site called Ron Paul Singles. "We put the LOVE in Revolution," the Web site proclaims.
It works just like any other online dating service. Plug in "man seeking woman," "woman seeking man," "woman seeking woman," "man seeking man" or even "couple seeking (fill in the blank)" and you're instantly shown the potential opportunities out there in the land of Ron Paul Love.
We asked Rep. Paul a few questions about the site via e-mail, including whether he ever imagined that he'd spur an entire online dating community built around... well, himself.
"Well, I never thought I'd speak to crowds of 5,000 college kids chanting 'End the Fed' and burning Federal Reserve notes, so I guess nothing surprises me that much anymore," Paul wrote back.
The neophyte yenta said he didn't know who was responsible for creating the Web site but "I suppose it's all about Freedom bringing people together -- spiritually, politically, and now, romantically." And he encouraged any of his single friends who "want to meet a great lover of liberty" to sign up for the Ron Paul Singles dating services and give him some feedback on their experiences.
Roll Call newspaper reported on the Ron Paul love site in its print edition today, dubbing the congressman, who is an obstetrician and gynecologist, "Doctor of Love."
Paul's office declined to speak to Roll Call about the dating site, but he told the Sleuth he kind of likes the new nickname. "It's got a nice ring to it -- I'll bet my wife will like it better than 'Dr. No.' And, I've always been sympathetic to the slogan 'make love, not war.'"
The Web site gurus say they're still waiting for their first real success story. But one customer has had a promising experience thus far, writing: "What initially started out as something to relieve a little boredom and to have some fun turned into one of the most beautiful experiences... I met the most amazing man on your site, it's still fairly new but I knew from the moment I saw his eyes, (the most beautiful eyes I've ever seen) that he would take me to a place I've longed to be and bring back my smile forgotten."
Rep. Paul is even responsible for making love happen offline.
Just last weekend in Las Vegas, at a regional conference of the grassroots lobby group Campaign for Liberty, of which Paul serves as honorary chairman, two young activists who went to hear Paul speak met and fell in love. And then some.
According to Jesse Benton, the senior vice president of Campaign for Liberty, the lovebirds, Brooke Kelley and Chris Kopack, met at 2 p.m. on Friday and went to a Vegas chapel at 4 a.m. on Saturday and tied the knot. "We wish the happy couple all the best," Benton said.
If he runs for president again in 2012, seems Ron Paul has a ready-made campaign slogan: Got Love?
And he's spreading love far and wide across the Internet, albeit unwittingly.
Paul is the inspiration behind a new online dating site called Ron Paul Singles. "We put the LOVE in Revolution," the Web site proclaims.
It works just like any other online dating service. Plug in "man seeking woman," "woman seeking man," "woman seeking woman," "man seeking man" or even "couple seeking (fill in the blank)" and you're instantly shown the potential opportunities out there in the land of Ron Paul Love.
We asked Rep. Paul a few questions about the site via e-mail, including whether he ever imagined that he'd spur an entire online dating community built around... well, himself.
"Well, I never thought I'd speak to crowds of 5,000 college kids chanting 'End the Fed' and burning Federal Reserve notes, so I guess nothing surprises me that much anymore," Paul wrote back.
The neophyte yenta said he didn't know who was responsible for creating the Web site but "I suppose it's all about Freedom bringing people together -- spiritually, politically, and now, romantically." And he encouraged any of his single friends who "want to meet a great lover of liberty" to sign up for the Ron Paul Singles dating services and give him some feedback on their experiences.
Roll Call newspaper reported on the Ron Paul love site in its print edition today, dubbing the congressman, who is an obstetrician and gynecologist, "Doctor of Love."
Paul's office declined to speak to Roll Call about the dating site, but he told the Sleuth he kind of likes the new nickname. "It's got a nice ring to it -- I'll bet my wife will like it better than 'Dr. No.' And, I've always been sympathetic to the slogan 'make love, not war.'"
The Web site gurus say they're still waiting for their first real success story. But one customer has had a promising experience thus far, writing: "What initially started out as something to relieve a little boredom and to have some fun turned into one of the most beautiful experiences... I met the most amazing man on your site, it's still fairly new but I knew from the moment I saw his eyes, (the most beautiful eyes I've ever seen) that he would take me to a place I've longed to be and bring back my smile forgotten."
Rep. Paul is even responsible for making love happen offline.
Just last weekend in Las Vegas, at a regional conference of the grassroots lobby group Campaign for Liberty, of which Paul serves as honorary chairman, two young activists who went to hear Paul speak met and fell in love. And then some.
According to Jesse Benton, the senior vice president of Campaign for Liberty, the lovebirds, Brooke Kelley and Chris Kopack, met at 2 p.m. on Friday and went to a Vegas chapel at 4 a.m. on Saturday and tied the knot. "We wish the happy couple all the best," Benton said.
If he runs for president again in 2012, seems Ron Paul has a ready-made campaign slogan: Got Love?
Tuesday
WHAT I THINK....CHELSEA SCHILLING
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. …
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. …
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
