Federal Reserve Audit Bill Overwhelmingly Passes The House

[Oneironaut Zero]

Federal Reserve Audit Bill Overwhelmingly Passes The House Gooood stuff! Long overdue, and a step in the right direction, at least, I'd say.

[Descensus]

Very good, and I'm glad it passed with a veto-proof majority this time around. Unfortunately, that scumbag Harry Reid says it won't be put up for vote in the Senate. And if it does go up for a vote, I don't know if it will pass. If you want to check to see if your state's representatives voted for it (or against it), go here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll513.xml I'm from MA, so we have 10 reps in the House. 6 voted against the bill, including Barney Frank, which makes no sense because before now he was critical of the Fed.

[Supernova]

"We probably won’t bring it up," said the aide, adding that Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), "will probably start insisting on this as an amendment to everything under the sun, so it's possible it comes up for an amendment vote at some point." lulz

[mcwillis]

On Wednesday, Ron Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve was overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The vote was 327 to 98. You would think that a bill with such overwhelming support would easily become law. But it won't, because Barack Obama and the Democrats plan to kill it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already said that the Senate will not even consider the bill. But of course if Barack Obama called Harry Reid and told him that he wants this bill to get through the Senate so that he could sign it then Harry Reid would be singing a much different tune. Sadly, we all know that is not going to happen. Barack Obama's good buddy Ben Bernanke called the Audit the Fed bill a "nightmare scenario" last week, and Obama is certainly not going to do anything to upset Bernanke - especially this close to the election. Obama needs Bernanke to do everything that he possibly can to stimulate the economy so that Obama will look as good as possible in November. The sad truth is that there is absolutely no chance that the Audit the Fed bill will become law and that is a crying shame. So why is an audit of the Federal Reserve so important? Why does Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke consider an audit of the Federal Reserve to be a "nightmare scenario" that must be avoided at all costs? Well, perhaps it is because there has never been a true comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve since it was created back in 1913. The Federal Reserve has more power over the economy than anyone else in the country does, and yet they are virtually unaccountable and the American people have very little idea what has been going on behind closed doors over at the Fed for the past 100 years. A very limited audit of the Fed that was passed a couple of years ago that examined transactions during the last financial crisis discovered that the Federal Reserve had actually loaned out more than 16 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free money to the "too big to fail" banks between 2007 and 2010. Keep in mind that U.S. GDP for the entire year of 2011 was only slightly more than 15 trillion dollars. The Federal Reserve loaned out trillions upon trillions of dollars to their friends and never told the American people about it. Whoa. You would think that Congress would be quite eager to see what else has been going on over at the Federal Reserve. But instead, many Democrats are completely and utterly opposed to auditing the Fed any further. U.S. Representative Barney Frank (a Democrat) seemed to regard the bill as a joke even after it overwhelmingly passed in the House. Frank stated that "nobody here thinks this will ever become law". According to Politico, there is zero chance that the bill will get through the U.S. Senate.... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said the Senate will not consider the bill, effectively killing its chances of becoming law. But we all know that if Obama wanted this bill to become law that it would be a done deal. If Barack Obama came out tomorrow in front of the television cameras and declared his support for this bill it would sail right through the Senate. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has made it very clear that it considers a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve to be a really, really bad idea. For example, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner once stated that auditing the Fed is a "line that we don’t want to cross" and that if we did audit the Fed it would be "problematic for the country". So what exactly did he mean by that? That is a very good question. In any event, people should take this as an opportunity to confront Barack Obama about the Audit the Fed bill wherever he goes. Perhaps Obama will prove me wrong. Perhaps Obama will show that he is willing to stand up to the Federal Reserve. In fact, if Obama gets this bill pushed through Congress and signs it into law, I will not criticize him for an entire month. But we all know that will never happen. The Federal Reserve is going to be able to continue to keep their secrets hidden from the American people. The following is what Ron Paul had to say following the vote on Wednesday.... "I think the whole idea that they can deal in trillions of dollars and know that nobody is allowed to ask them a question is a moral hazard." And Ron Paul is right. If the Federal Reserve can zap trillions of dollars into existence out of thin air and loan that money to their friends at the big banks and to central banks in other countries, then it should not be too much to ask them to be accountable to the American people. Over the coming months, the American people will heatedly debate whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would be better for the U.S. economy. But the truth is that the Federal Reserve has far more power over the U.S. economy than the president of the United States does. The Federal Reserve has been called the "fourth branch of government" because of how much power it has. The Federal Reserve sets our interest rates, it determines the level of our money supply, it regulates and secretly bails out our banks, it determines the "target rates" for unemployment and inflation, and every small move the Fed makes causes global financial markets to swing wildly. The Federal Reserve does all of this without ever having to be accountable to the American people. In fact, whenever a bill is introduced that would shed some light on their activities they whine and cry about how important their "independence" is. In a previous article, I described how preposterous this all is.... For a moment, imagine that there is a privately-owned organization in the United States that can create U.S. dollars out of thin air whenever it wants and can loan that money to whoever it wants to. Imagine that this organization is able to act with the full power of the U.S. government behind it, but that nobody in the organization is ever elected by the American people, and that for all practical purposes the organization is not accountable to the president or to Congress. Imagine that the organization is able to make trillions of dollars of secret loans to banks, to foreign governments and even to their close friends without ever having to face a comprehensive audit. Does that sound preposterous? Well, such an organization actually exists. The American people need to stand up and demand an audit of the Federal Reserve. We deserve to know what is going on over there. Sadly, the mainstream media makes it sound as if hell has a better chance of freezing over than this bill does of becoming law. The following is from a USA Today article that was posted on Wednesday.... The bill stands no chance of becoming law because the Democratic-controlled Senate will not take it up. The vote, however, served as a symbolic swan song for Paul, who is not seeking re-election. It is also an indicator of how Paul's economic views have gone more mainstream, particularly within the Republican Party, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis that shook Americans' confidence in Wall Street and the federal government. Well, let us hope that this kind of a bill keeps getting introduced in Congress. Perhaps someday we actually will get a real audit of the Federal Reserve. When that happens, the following is a list of questions that I would like to see asked by those auditing the Fed.... If the Federal Reserve is supposed to prevent shocks to our economy, then why have there been 10 different economic recessions since 1950 and why are we about to enter another one? Was the Federal Reserve involved in the manipulation of Libor? What role did the Federal Reserve playing in creating the housing bubble that resulted in an unprecedented housing crash? Why has the value of the U.S. dollar fallen by 83 percent since 1970? Why is the Federal Reserve paying U.S. banks not to lend money? Why did Barack Obama nominate Ben Bernanke for a second term as head of the Federal Reserve when Bernanke has a track record of failure that makes the Chicago Cubs look like a roaring success? Why is the U.S. national debt more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913? Why were the Federal Reserve and the personal income tax both pushed through Congress in the same year in 1913? Why does the Federal Reserve argue that it is "not an agency" of the federal government in court? Why do all 187 nations that belong to the IMF have a central bank? theeconomiccollapseblog.com

[Xei]

Somebody please explain what's going on here to an economic retard.

[Descensus]

Somebody please explain what's going on here to an economic retard. Ron Paul (libertarian-conservative congressman from Texas) has been working on getting support for an audit of the Federal Reserve (the central bank here in the U.S.) due to its effect on monetary policy. He had some success in 2008 and 2009. Last year he introduced a bill calling for an audit of the Fed, and it has gotten a lot more support and traction compared to his efforts in 2009. A few days ago, it passed in the House of Representatives. The Bill's description is this: "To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes." Basically what an audit would do is open up the Fed's books and see how they are determining monetary policy, thus giving Congress a little more insight on what exactly they're doing and how they determine what to do whenever the economy so much as sneezes. The reason why Paul and many others want to do this is because they think the Fed is either actually damaging the economy, or because the Congress and the general public has no idea how exactly they determine how to respond to shifts in the economy, and obviously they would like to know. It has literally been a case of "we'll just let the Fed do its thing and not really check up on them." And hopefully this bill, if it passes (or is even voted on) in the Senate, will change that.

[cmind]

I don't see how an audit of the Fed leads to a dissolution of the Fed (which is what all libertarians want).

[Descensus]

I don't see how an audit of the Fed leads to a dissolution of the Fed (which is what all libertarians want). It might, or it might not. Paul and his supporters won't get anywhere calling for the abolition of the Fed based on economic theory alone. His economics aren't in the mainstream, plus nobody really understands the Fed. Others think that it is actually saving the economy. I imagine Paul and his supporters think a little transparency will be a step in the right direction.

[cmind]

It might, or it might not. Paul and his supporters won't get anywhere calling for the abolition of the Fed based on economic theory alone. His economics aren't in the mainstream, plus nobody really understands the Fed. Others think that it is actually saving the economy. I imagine Paul and his supporters think a little transparency will be a step in the right direction. I see. However, my instincts tell me that a show of "transparency" may actually increase ideological support for the Fed and the government. Let's face it, asking the government to audit itself at a time in history when the Constitution is a treated like soiled toilet paper won't lead to anything substantial.

[Hercuflea]

I think the idea is that when the American people see all of the clandestine transactions that the Fed most likely has been making for years with no oversight, they will WANT it abolished.

[cmind]

I think the idea is that when the American people see all of the clandestine transactions that the Fed most likely has been making for years with no oversight, they will WANT it abolished. And replaced with what? There's already a meme going around that the Fed is not "part of the government" and that it's a "private bank". So suppose they audit the Fed and it turns out that they did all sorts of bad stuff. This will only make the idiot masses clamour for an even more centralized banking system, perhaps under direct presidential control. Am I seriously the only libertarian that sees this outcome?

[Warheit]

(1) They won't bring it to a vote in the Senate. (2) An audit of the Fed does nothing to get rid of it. (3) Congratulations to Ron Paul on getting a pseudo-victory in the legislature. (4) Libertarians talk about getting rid of the Fed, yet advocate economic policies that are reminiscent of the Middle Ages. No thanks.

[Descensus]

(4) Libertarians talk about getting rid of the Fed, yet advocate economic policies that are reminiscent of the Middle Ages. No thanks. Mind explaining this a little bit more?

[Warheit]

Mind explaining this a little bit more? Lets just say that it is hard for me to advocate a philosophy that longs for private hands being the sole forces and stakeholders making the calls on things such as: transportation, road and highway system, education and health care. If you can't genuinely see any problem arising from that, this conversation is going to fail to launch.

[Descensus]

Lets just say that it is hard for me to advocate a philosophy that longs for private hands being the sole forces and stakeholders making the calls on things such as: transportation, road and highway system, education and health care. If you can't genuinely see any problem arising from that, this conversation is going to fail to launch. I didn't expect it to go anywhere in the first place. I just wanted to know why you thought they're reminiscent of the middle ages.

[Xei]

Lets just say that it is hard for me to advocate a philosophy that longs for private hands being the sole forces and stakeholders making the calls on things such as: transportation, road and highway system, education and health care. If you can't genuinely see any problem arising from that, this conversation is going to fail to launch. Lots of libertarians really do long for it for selfish reasons, but many of them also simply feel forced into the conclusion by a rejection of violent coercion, and sincerely hope that humans are capable of creating a society based upon altruism and charitable giving. It may be naive but it's certainly not evil.

[cmind]

Lots of libertarians really do long for it for selfish reasons, but many of them also simply feel forced into the conclusion by a rejection of violent coercion, and sincerely hope that humans are capable of creating a society based upon altruism and charitable giving. It may be naive but it's certainly not evil. I don't know who you've been talking to, but libertarianism most certainly does not hinge on roads being built by charities. How someone of your intelligence could believe such a thing is beyond comprehension.

[Olysseus]

I wouldn't usually endorse anything from FOX news but occasionally they get something right. (and no, I am not guaranteeing that even this video is error free - take it with a grain of salt.) Clip on the FED - Reality Check: Do We Really Need To Audit The Federal Reserve?: Reality Check: Do We Really Need To Audit The Federal Reserve? - YouTube also available here: Reality Check: Private Federal Reserve Exposed on Fox News : I think a very good question has been raised here about what would come out of an audit, although I would advocate for truth at all costs. Anyone who wants to keep people in the dark to advance their agenda doesn't seem credible to me. Another question is how accurate can we expect the audit to be? The Fed is an unusual entity, it is publicly chartered but its stock is held by the member banks, who have quite a bit of leverage over who gets appointed. It is true that the president and congress have the power to appoint officials, but I would say that any president who appointed someone the private banks didn't like would be ruined shortly. Thus there is a very serious allegation that Fed officials are operating with a conflict of interest and using publicly granted powers to benefit private concerns.

[DrunkenArse]

I don't know who you've been talking to, but libertarianism most certainly does not hinge on roads being built by charities. How someone of your intelligence could believe such a thing is beyond comprehension. I see no reason why money should be taken from me to pay for roads in neighborhoods that are occupied by poor people that refuse to get a job. I have no problem paying for roads that I use and roads that are used to deliver me goods (e.g. highways) but I refuse to pay for other roads. Doing so would be an infringement on my freedom.

[Xei]

I don't know who you've been talking to, but libertarianism most certainly does not hinge on roads being built by charities. How someone of your intelligence could believe such a thing is beyond comprehension. If you accept that some state functions are necessary (police to enforce the non-aggression principle for instance), and you believe that taxation is immoral, isn't it a priori that charity is necessary?

[cmind]

I see no reason why money should be taken from me to pay for roads in neighborhoods that are occupied by poor people that refuse to get a job. I have no problem paying for roads that I use and roads that are used to deliver me goods (e.g. highways) but I refuse to pay for other roads. Doing so would be an infringement on my freedom. Poor people do get shittier roads. This is a fact of life and it's true today as well. Otherwise, I agree? If you accept that some state functions are necessary (police to enforce the non-aggression principle for instance), and you believe that taxation is immoral, isn't it a priori that charity is necessary? I don't accept any state functions as necessary. Oops.

[Olysseus]

It seems the debate about charity could be resolved if we replaced the word charity with enlightened self-interest. Crmind is right, libertarians do not expect charity to replace government functions, but most do believe that private, enlightened self-interest could build infrastructure and pass the costs on to the users. (Is that right? Correct me if I'm wrong.) I think Xei's point was that most libertarians, whether right or wrong, are well- intentioned and seriously believe in improving living conditions. The word charity simply seems like a poor word choice. I understood Xei's larger point as: libertarians believe humans operate in good will without coercion and even someone who disagrees with that belief need not see it as sinister. There are some libertarians who emphasize that human beings are basically good and think that is why regulation is not necessary. There is another streak of libertarians who emphasize that humans are basically corrupt, but for this reason they wish to limit the power any public entity can hold. Some libertarians are more likely than others to think altruism has a role, but it is not the major player. FYI: I used to be an active libertarian years ago, but got disillusioned with it. I hope this sheds some light.

[Xei]

I don't accept any state functions as necessary. Oops. Why are you acting like my original comment was an attempt to disprove your personal views? It wasn't. There is no argument here and never was, please stop being so immature.

[cmind]

It seems the debate about charity could be resolved if we replaced the word charity with enlightened self-interest. Crmind is right, libertarians do not expect charity to replace government functions, but most do believe that private, enlightened self-interest could build infrastructure and pass the costs on to the users. (Is that right? Correct me if I'm wrong.) Still a very strange way of putting it. For example, today we have a free private market on food (ignoring farm subsidies for the moment). Food is just as 'essential' as roads or healthcare or anything else anyone will bring up. Without food, we all die. So how does food get produced? Farmers grow it and people pay them for it. Roads would be similar, except in certain cases it would be a neighbourhood coop paying the road builders.

[juroara]

Still a very strange way of putting it. For example, today we have a free private market on food (ignoring farm subsidies for the moment). Food is just as 'essential' as roads or healthcare or anything else anyone will bring up. Without food, we all die. So how does food get produced? Farmers grow it and people pay them for it. Roads would be similar, except in certain cases it would be a neighbourhood coop paying the road builders. But...we do have starving people in america. That system in itself isn't perfect. Not to mention we have modern slaves picking and packing our food and no one could afford the food if we actually paid them a living wage which is the moral right thing to do.