• 

House passes HR1207 – Ron Paul voted against it

Ron Paul’s HR1207 is one step closer to becoming law. The bill was attached to a horrible financial “reform” bill which calls for the creation of yet another government agency to regulate private industry. So of course Ron Paul voted against it on principle, despite the fact that it contains the “Audit the Fed” bill he’s worked so hard for.

Source: Liberty Maven

Ron Paul votes against his own amendment

Congressman Ron Paul (R Texas) is the last true statesman. Want proof, the Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate fought more than twenty years to finally create an amendment to fully audit the Federal Reserve, which is the main cause of the present financial crisis.

The Audit the Fed bill was accepted as an amendment to a larger bill, the Wall Street Regulatory Overhaul. Even though the congressman’s bill was attached he could not in good faith vote for the larger legislation. Imagine a country full of men like that. Imagine just having 100 representatives like that.

The legislation will now go to the Senate for a vote. Ron Paul said “I have no clout in Congress, it was the people (grass roots) who made this happen.” A good guess would be that the Senate will try to take this amendment out. Reportedly, Senator’s are a little closer to those at the Fed than Congressman. It will be up to the people once again to make sure this amendment sticks if the larger bill is passed.

Voters should take notes from Dr. Paul on this issue. When your representatives have back bones like him liberty will flourish. People must become more involved and not fall for the left/right nonsense. There obviously is still room for honesty and integrity in Washington but it will be up to you to make it happen.

As you can see auditing the Federal Reserve is not an easy task. Some say they are more powerful than the President since they control the money supply. It’s reported that John F. Kennedy tried to abolish this powerful organization before being assassinated. Auditing it has been hard enough.

Source: Examiner.com

House Passes Wall Street Reform Bill With Zero GOP Votes

In a close vote, the House of Representatives Friday afternoon passed a financial reform bill intended to re-regulate Wall Street and increase protections for Main Street.

The bill, passed in a 223-202 vote, calls for the creation of a new federal agency dedicated to protecting consumers that would police consumer credit products like mortgages and credit cards. It also establishes new rules for the trading of derivatives and increases the transparency of the credit-rating process — two previously under-regulated parts of the economy that played a large role in last year’s economic collapse.

Not a single Republican voted for the bill. Twenty-seven Democrats broke with the rest of their party to vote against it.

The measure includes language, introduced in committee by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), that would authorize an expansive audit of the Federal Reserve, a landmark achievement for critics of the central bank’s secretive operations.

The bill also requires systemically important banks to pay into a fund that would be used to break them up and sell them off if they go bankrupt. Republicans bitterly and inaccurately referred to it as a “bailout fund,” telegraphing a critique that will undoubtedly re-emerge during the 2010 midterm elections.

“Today is an important milestone in reversing the decades-long stranglehold Wall Street and big banks have had over our economy. But it is just the first step,” said Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger. “Despite the millions Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce spent fighting the demands of the American people and the dozens of visits by big bank CEOs to strong-arm members of Congress, our leaders found the political will and courage to pass the most historic financial reform legislation in nearly 80 years.”

The fight to fundamentally reform financial regulations began soon after President Barack Obama took office. Public zeal, though, was tempered on Capitol Hill by bankers and other Wall Street titans, who united to fight against the kind of reform advocated by consumers, union groups, and academics.

The bill disappointed some consumer groups, who pledged to work to make it stronger as it moves to the Senate.

“The bill does very little to address industry structure,” the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said in a statement. “The biggest banks are now bigger than they were before the crisis.”

Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending, hailed the bill’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, but worried it goes too far in allowing federal regulators to preempt their state compatriots.

“The bill would provide consumers with significant protections from the industry practices that dismantled our economy and those of countries around the world,” he said. “We commend the House for this vote to protect families and small business from unfair, unsafe financial practices. However, we remain concerned that the bill allows the same federal banking regulators whose inaction led to the current crisis to continue to ignore state law. That must be fixed as the legislation moves forward.”

Despite the advocacy by financial luminaries like former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the bill does nothing to break up big banks or address the mixing of commercial and investment banking by giant firms like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America, praised the part of the bill dealing with credit rating agencies — with a caveat, though.

“If you accept the whole business model as a given, the rest of it is strong,” she said, referring to the fact that the agencies are paid by bond issuers to rate their products, creating an inherent conflict of interest.

Specifically, the bill subjects the credit rating agencies to increased liability, allowing for aggrieved investors to sue. Also, thanks to Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a provision was added mandating that the agencies owe a duty of care to investors, rather than just to the bond issuers that pay them, she said.

The bill takes a stab at regulating derivatives, but key reforms were either ignored or voted down. An amendment by Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) calling for increased transparency in trading, which was backed by a coalition of pro-reform advocates, was voted down 330-98.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank offered another amendment regarding derivatives that would have beefed up the powers of federal regulators, who have long lacked critical authority to initiate meaningful regulation. That, too, died.

A third amendment would have banned those derivatives that are, in essence, used by big financial firms to place bets upon bets upon bets, like the kind pioneered by AIG that helped crash the financial system last year. It also was voted down.

“Basically, the financial houses and the big banks are working [these amendments] real hard,” Stupak said. “Wall Street’s been working hard. We’ve been tripping over them all week. They’ve won this round.”

Public Citizen offered this explanation:

It’s no mystery why this legislation is not stronger. Wall Street spent $5 billion in political investments in the decade before the financial crisis to obtain deregulation and non-enforcement of existing rules.

Despite Wall Street having crashed the economy, nothing has changed on Capitol Hill. Wall Street continues to invest heavily in politics and wield enormous influence. More than 900 former federal employees, including 70 former members of Congress, are working as lobbyists for the financial services sector this year. Wall Street has spent more than $40 million on campaign contributions since November 2008.

“It was the single most important they needed to get right if they wanted to protect the system from future crises, and I don’t think they got it right,” Roper said.

The bill also addressed investor protection, increasing it in some areas but weakening it in others. Shareholders will now be able to hold non-binding votes on executive compensation — a big win for investor groups. But the bill also includes a provision that changes current law by exempting about half of all publicly-traded companies from having to get audits of their internal controls. Fraud will be harder to catch, investor groups argue.

The House also voted to kill what many experts, consumer advocates and economists believe to be the best — and perhaps the only — way to stem the rising tide of foreclosures: a provision that would have allowed judges to cut the principal for struggling homeowners in bankruptcy.

Belying their expressions of outrage towards banks and sympathy for struggling homeowners, enough Democrats joined Republicans to kill the amendment offered by Democrats John Conyers of Michigan and Jim Marshall of Georgia, by a 241-188 vote.

Bankruptcy courts may reduce several forms of debt for distressed borrowers, but not the mortgage on a primary residence. Judges can, however, alter loan terms on vacation homes and cars, for example.

In March, the House passed a bill that was “substantively identical” to today’s amendment, according to a summary of the amendment provided by the chamber’s Rules Committee. The Senate, however, voted it down, leading Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a longtime advocate for homeowners, to conclude that banks “frankly own the place.”

“The financial industry has so much invested in political influence, in lobbying, in campaign contributions, into having a local network through the local banks and the credit unions,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.). “It’s just very hard to go up against that based upon a strong public policy objective.”

Backers of the measure thought it had a reasonable chance of passage, since, after all, it had already passed, and the foreclosure crisis has only gotten worse. About one in seven homeowners with a mortgage are either delinquent or in foreclosure. The passage of time, however, gave banks a chance to work the halls.

“We got a vote for it earlier this year, but it took a huge effort. There was none of that effort this time. I think that leadership has been working other issues in the bill, but not that one. And there’s enormous opposition to it,” said Miller.

One in four homeowners with a mortgage are “underwater,” meaning they owe more on the home than it’s worth. The administration’s $75 billion foreclosure-prevention effort does virtually nothing to help those homeowners, consumer advocates and economists argue.

Furthermore, since the program’s launch in March, less than 32,000 troubled homeowners have received permanent relief through the government’s mortgage modification plan. It’s supposed to help three to four million homeowners avoid foreclosure.

“You would think that would be a strong argument for doing something about it,” Miller said. “And with the continued foreclosure rate and the effect that’s having on home values and the effect they’re having on each other, being such a downward force on our economy. But there’s just a united front of opposition by the financial industry. If some members are playing it by thinking, well, I’ll give them this vote but then I’ll vote for the CFPA, I guess I can see that calculation.”

Marshall pinned some of the blame on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who had been cool to the idea last spring.

“The leadership here in the House is a big friend to this bill. The White House, well, the Treasury Secretary made some comments earlier this year that I thought were unfortunate. Other than Geithner’s comments, I haven’t really heard anything else from the White House. Obviously it’s not on their priority list, among the many things they don’t have much of an opinion about. Though Geithner did say something, and I wish I could recall, he said something earlier this year that was chilling. Not that he said it was a bad idea, but it certainly wasn’t an endorsement,” said Marshall.

Candidate Obama supported the idea of allowing judges to modify mortgages in bankruptcy en route to the White House. He even expressed public support in February when outlining his plan to stem foreclosures. But it wasn’t in his detailed plan released the next month. Since then, the White House has largely been silent.

President Obama cheered the House action Friday. “This legislation brings us another important step closer to necessary, comprehensive financial reform that will create clear rules of the road, consistent and systematic enforcement of those rules, and a stronger, more stable financial system with better protections for consumers and investors,” he said in a statement.

But the loopholes in the bill and the reforms that were voted down revealed something else to Roper — an apparent deep-seated hostility to government regulation.

Time and time again, Roper noticed various reform proposals killed on the specious claim that they would kill jobs. Looking beyond today’s vote, there are deep, structural roadblocks to fundamental reform, she said.

“Even as they’re trying to cure the regulatory failures that led to the current crisis, they’re setting us up for future crises,” she said. “It’s a philosophy and attitude to regulation that suggests that as soon as the spotlight is off they will be back to attacking regulation as too costly.”

The vote, she said, reveals “that the attitude, the underlying problem, has not changed, and will come back to haunt us in the future.”

“It’s hard to be all that enthusiastic when you know that nothing has changed,” she said.

Source: Huffington Post

• 

• 

I’ll admit I’m prejudiced. I think Ron Paul, the maverick Republican/Libertarian congressman from Texas, is the best friend we taxpayers have had in Washington for, oh, the past hundred years or so.  So when Ron agreed to grant me an interview on his efforts to abolish the Federal Reserve, I jumped at the chance.

If you’ve never heard Rep. Paul speak before, you might be surprised at his delivery. He is no fiery orator. He delivers his remarks in a calm, almost professorial manner. But if his manner is mild, his content most assuredly is not. What he has to say is far more radical, even revolutionary, than anything the average American is used to hearing today. Ron Paul would actually enforce the U.S. Constitution!

Since he (rightly) regards the overwhelming majority of things Big Government does today as unconstitutional, that means he has never met a spending bill he likes. Or intervention in a foreign land without a congressional declaration of war. There is a good reason that, among both friends and foes in Washington, Ron Paul is known as “Dr. No.”  (In his private life, Dr. Paul is an obstetrician who has delivered thousands of babies.)

After years of toiling in obscurity, in the past couple of years Ron Paul’s message of limited government and unlimited freedom really caught fire. When he decided to run for President in the Republican primaries last year, even he was startled by the size and enthusiasm of the crowds he attracted. “Yes, I admit I was pleasantly surprised by the response to my message,” he told me. “I think something has been rumbling in the country for a long time, and I happened along just when people were waiting to hear this message.”

And then he made an extremely important point: “I think we’re a lot further along in the freedom movement than some of us have realized.  We’re seeing a major shift in the attitude of many people. I think this is happening for two reasons: First, a lot of people have been exposed to free-market economics and the principles of freedom. Second, they are being confronted with dramatic evidence that the current system isn’t working. So whether you’re on the receiving end of government giveaways, or you’re one of the ones whose wealth is being taken, both sides are starting to realize, Hey, there’s something wrong!”

Ron’s message has found especially fertile ground among young people. When I introduced him at a conference in Las Vegas a year ago, I was astounded by the numbers, the energy, and the enthusiasm of most of his supporters, many of whom were high school students. The average age of the crowd was probably around 25, which certainly gave new inspiration to all of us oldsters who were there.

And by the way, I want to offer a few words of praise and encouragement to my fellow seniors who’ve been preaching the message of freedom for many, many years. I know we’ve all-too-often despaired that our message was falling on deaf ears. Not true, my friends! Young people have been listening, they’ve been reading, and they’ve been asking some tough questions. And believe me, they are no longer satisfied with the reassuring platitudes they get from today’s politicians.

As Ron put it when we spoke, “Young people in particular grasp our message. They feel as though they’re going to be — if they’re not already — victimized. Whether it’s foreign policy or an attack on their personal liberties and personal choices, they’re very concerned. They’re worried about jobs and how they’re going to pay their bills. About Social Security indebtedness and all of those things.”

“The most exciting part for me has been seeing their interest in monetary policy. They’re actually asking shouting out their support for abolishing the Federal Reserve! That’s been amazing to me.”

Ron told me the story of how his “End the Fed” campaign began. “This followed a debate in Detroit during the primaries.  We were talking about the economy and I was claiming we were already in the middle of a recession. Well, my Republican opponents didn’t want to hear that.”

“Afterwards, I went to a rally at the University of Michigan. This was early in the campaign and I didn’t expect very much, to be frank. But there were 4,000 or 5,000 young people there. During my speech, they started to chant: ‘End the Fed!  End the Fed!’  Some of them even began pulling Federal Reserve notes [you know them as dollar bills] from their pockets and lighting them on fire.

“I could never forget the image of that happening. So of course it became part of my campaign. When it came to picking a title for my book, that was an easy choice to make.”

(Quick commercial plug: Ron’s book, End the Fed, climbed to the top of the New York Times’ best-seller list and stayed there for many weeks. It’s dropped a bit recently, which is good news for you if you don’t already own a copy. Because it means you can find them at Barnes & Noble or Amazon.com for a substantial discount off the $21.99 cover price.  Get ‘em while you can. And think about what a great present one would make for all of the students on your list.)

To be honest, I don’t think it’s necessary to read every word of every chapter of Ron’s book. Unless you’re simply amused by mumble-jumble and government jargon, you can pretty much skip chapters six and seven (“Conversations with Greenspan” and “Conversations with Bernanke”).

But please pay careful attention to chapter ten, “Why End the Fed?”  Here’s how it begins:

“The Federal Reserve should be abolished because it is immoral, unconstitutional, impractical, promotes bad economics and undermines liberty. Its destructive nature makes it a tool of tyrannical government.”

So of course I had to ask him, “Other than that, Ron, what’s wrong with it?”

“Bad government destroys liberty” was his succinct reply. “And the Federal Reserve leads to bad government and bad monetary policy. Not only did they cause the present economic crisis, they’re perpetuating the problem.”

Rep. Paul has introduced legislation to audit the Federal Reserve every year for the past dozen or so years.  And every year it gets bottled up in committee and never sees the light of day.

But this year is different.

When we spoke, Ron already had 301 co-sponsors for the legislation. That is every Republican member of the House of Representatives and a bunch of Democrats, too.  So it’s a shoe-in to pass, right?

Wrong. Although Ron has gained some surprising support for the measure, including Massachusetts’ very liberal (but very powerful) congressman, Barney Frank, the powers-that-be are dead-set against the measure. He expects House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to do everything possible to prevent a floor vote.

But at least the measure has been voted out of committee. In an email to me after that action, Ron wrote, “I was pleased last week when we won a vote in the Financial Services Committee to include language from the Audit the Fed bill HR1207 in the upcoming financial regulatory reform bill. As it stands now, if H.R. 3996 passes, because of this action, the Federal Reserve’s entire balance sheet will be opened up to a GAO audit. We will at last have a chance to find out what happened to the trillions of dollars the Fed has been giving out.”

Does either of us expect an easy victory in Congress this year? Of course not! And even if his measure did pass, despite everything Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts did to stop it, the chances that it will be approved in the Senate and signed by the President are just about zero.

And even when the bill does get signed into law, expect the manipulators of our money system to do everything in their power to protect their trillion-dollar benefactor.

No, folks, this will not be a quick or an easy fight. Ron Paul expects the battle for honest money and limited government to last the rest of his life and beyond. So, frankly, do I.

But rejoice that the battle has been joined! The enemy has been identified! And the weapons we need to win — truth in the hands of an informed public – are all we need, and all we have.

Let me end this article as Ron Paul concludes his book. Here are the last three paragraphs of End the Fed:

We have a natural, God-given right to our lives, our liberties, and the fruits of our labor.

Protecting those rights is the only role that government ought to have in a free society.  To restrain the government from doing more requires a morally determined people willing to assume self-responsibility, rejecting dependence on government force to mold the economy, society, or individual behavior.

If the freedom movement continues to grow as it has these past two years, I would say there’s plenty of room for optimism.  Freedom and central banking are incompatible.  It is freedom we seek, and when that precious goal is achieved, the chant ‘End the Fed’ will become a reality.

Amen to that. When that happens, all of us at The New American will be thrilled to say we told you so.  And yes, we did our part.

W.W. “Chip” Wood was a contributor to American Opinion and one of the founding editors of The Review of the News, two publications that merged to form The New American. He was also the National Director of Ad Hoc Committees for the John Birch Society for many years. In that capacity, he often spoke to patriotic groups across the United States.

• 

• 

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282591

• 

• 

Last Thursday, the House Finance Committee, by a vote of 43-26, voted to approve an amendment to finally audit the Federal Reserve.

The Paul/Grayson amendment, HR 1207, is attempting to audit the Fed, which would mean a public disclosure of all its most recent economic activity, especially what it has done with TARP funds.

Ryan Grim at The Huffington Post sums up the importance of this vote very well.

The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed’s opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal.

It may seem like a small battle that has been won, but what this vote can possible represent is the slow, but necessary, exposure of the Federal Reserve, which is one of the, if not the most, corrupt government institutions in the US.

Created in 1913, the Federal Reserve is a quasi-private bank with virtually no oversight that has the ability to control the flow of credit (through the manipulation of interest rates). By lowering interest rates, the Fed’s policies create an economy drunk on credit, and many businessess or ventures that would have never been started suddenly start popping up all over the place. When this artificial bubble pops, as it did in 2008 (and in 1929), the painful bust ensues.

This expansion of the monetary supply is essentially inflation, which is a hidden tax, directly harming the poor and middle-class the hardest. In almost 100 years, the Fed-induced inflation has caused our money to lose almost 95% of its value.

The Fed is also a tool of the schemers and central planners that always tend to gravitate towards DC. Without a central bank that can literally create money out of thin air, wars would have to be funded through direct taxation, which might cause many more Americans to grab pitchforks when handed the bill for empire. Welfare, too, becomes much easier to fund when there is no limit to the goodies that can be spread around.

The existence of a centralized bank whose strings are pulled by the government is absolutely incompatible with a free society. Karl Marx once wrote that there are two crucial things to destroying a market based economy: the levying of an income tax and the centralization of credit into state hands. As a firm defender of free markets and the sovereignty of every individual, the very existence of the Fed is an institutionalized evil that I oppose unconditionally.

So it’s no surprise then that all of the influential Beltway types are opposing this amendment. From the war-mongering “conservatives” at the Heritage Foundation to former Wall Street crooks Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, the DC establishment is shaking.

The Paul-Grayson bill, with over 300 trans-ideological co-sponsors in the House, will hopefully be the first of the Federal Reserve’s many corrupt bricks to fall.

_

This article originally appeared in SF’s (d)N0t blog.

Continue reading on Examiner.com The passing of Ron Paul’s HR 1207 means we are one step closer to abolishing the Federal Reserve – San Francisco Sunset District Libertarian | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/sunset-district-libertarian-in-san-francisco/the-passing-of-ron-paul-s-hr-1207-means-we-are-one-step-closer-to-abolishing-the-federal-reserve

• 

• 

On November 19, the House Financial Services Committee advanced a bill that calls for the General Accounting Office to conduct a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010.

A 43-26 committee vote rejected a substitute proposal offered by North Carolina Democrat Mel Watt. Its provisions would have sanctioned retention of the long-standing ban against congressional scrutiny of the Fed’s monetary policies.

Despite opposition from committee chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the measure written by Texas Republican Ron Paul survived its first test. Success came because of 313 House cosponsors and a huge outpouring of citizen backing. Yet Frank claimed that the proposed audit would “be seen as weakening the independence of monetary policy with consequent negative implications.”

Frank’s opinion has regularly been buttressed by Fed chairman Ben Bernanke who urgently favors retention of the Fed’s independence. Practically all opponents of the Paul measure pointed to the need for the Fed to continue operating without oversight. Former Fed research specialist Michael Feroli, now an economist with JPMorgan Chase, urged the Fed to “do whatever it takes to stop this from going forward and eroding confidence in the Fed’s independence.”

But it is precisely a loss of confidence in the Fed that has generated unprecedented support for opening up the central bank’s books and supplying the American people with heretofore hidden information. The Fed certainly had a role in bringing on the current economic downturn. Chairman Bernanke’s refusal to answer questions about the Fed’s role has added more muscle to the growing demand for scrutinizing the Fed’s books. If the Fed has nothing to hide, detractors ask, why do its leaders and supporters fear scrutiny?

Should the measure gain full House and Senate approval and a presidential signature (surely steep hills to climb!), the Fed will have to bare details about its emergency lending programs, bailouts of financial institutions, dealings with like institutions in foreign capitals, and the process it employs in setting interest rates. Chairman Frank has sought to calm the fears of Fed supporters by indicating that the Paul measure will be “revisited” when the full House considers the bill. Piggybacking the measure onto another bill, such as the proposed Financial Stability Improvement Act, might be one tactic to undo it. Without doubt, roadblocks will be erected to gut the bill, and the big guns seeking to preserve the Fed’s vaunted “independence” will surely be trotted out as the measure proceeds through the legislative process.

Few supporters of our nation’s central bank care to note that the creation of the Federal Reserve parallels a call in Marx’s Communist Manifesto for “centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” The Fed was actually pushed toward creation in 1913 by President Wilson’s powerful and manipulative guru, Edward Mandell House, who earlier had written of his desire for “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”

But note that Marx sought a central bank “in the hands of the state.” Those who created the Fed in 1913 went a huge step further and made it a private institution free of congressional scrutiny. Fed creators actually out-Marxed Marx by shielding it from examination. The result? Under its management, U.S. currency has lost 95 percent of its value, a trend that continues. The American people are being cleverly divested of their wealth. And power over what happens in our nation sits more with the Fed than it does with Congress. The American people need to know what the Fed has done and continues to do.

Congressman Paul has also introduced a measure to abolish the Federal Reserve outright. His recently published bestseller End the Fed provides reasons why management of the nation’s economy should be terminated, fiat currency should be discarded, and commodity money reestablished. His efforts over many years, long considered extreme or even absurd by the establishment, have attracted enormous popular support as evidenced by the audit measure’s 313 cosponsors.

What will happen as the audit bill moves through the congressional process is unknown. But the awakening of a large number of Americans to the secrecy and power of the Fed should already be considered a stunning victory for Constitution-minded Americans.

• 

• 

House Financial Services Committee approved Ron Paul “Audit the Fed” * House Attacks Fed * Call for Geithner to Quit *

Critical Vote on Audit the Fed!

Congressman Paul will offer an amendment in Committee restoring an audit of the Fed’s entire $2 trillion balance sheet, but we have received word that some of the Democrat members may be waffling on their support for his amendment.

For example, Watt’s amendment prevents the GAO from auditing or reviewing decisions to authorize, modify, extend, or terminate loans or liquidity facilities.

Fed balance sheet can be audited, panel says

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – A key congressional committee approved legislation on Thursday that would allow for government audits of Federal Reserve monetary policy as well as how much the central bank has lent and will lend to specific banks in response to the financial crisis, despite major opposition from the central bank. The measure, introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has the support of 309 members of Congress.

House Attacks Fed, Treasury

Panel Votes for Tighter Political Rein on Central Bank; Some Call for Geithner to Quit

WASHINGTON — Political frustration over the rescue of Wall Street and high unemployment erupted in Congress Thursday, with one committee threatening to impose tighter scrutiny on the Federal Reserve and another excoriating Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

The House Financial Services Committee voted, 43-26, to approve a measure sponsored by Texas Republican Ron Paul, vociferously opposed by the Fed, that would direct the congressional Government Accountability Office to expand its audits of the Fed to include decisions about interest rates and lending to individual banks. The Fed says the provision threatens its ability to make monetary policy without political interference.

Treasury chief Geithner faced a House Republican who told him, ‘The public has lost all confidence in your ability to do the job.’ He shot back: ‘What I can’t take responsibility is for the legacy of crises you’ve bequeathed this country.’

The vote was the latest blow to the central bank, which has been become a lightning rod for politicians responding to popular anger that Wall Street was bailed out while the public was not. The Fed faces a stinging backlash from legislators from both parties who argue that has too much power and too little oversight. On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee began debating legislation that would largely remove the Fed from bank supervision over the objections of both the Fed and the Obama administration.

The Paul-Grayson Amendment
by Ron Paul and Alan Grayson

“It is encouraging to see the issue of Federal Reserve transparency receiving so much attention during this current markup. Today we plan to offer an amendment to the Financial Stability Improvement Act that expands on the many extant proposals to enhance Federal Reserve transparency. Our amendment is based on HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which has broad bipartisan and grassroots support. The bill is cosponsored by 309 Members of Congress, including all Financial Services Committee Republicans and 13 Financial Services Committee Democrats.

The amendment removes restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve, as HR 1207 does, but makes a few changes to take into account some of the concerns that the Fed has made known in public testimony.

Unlike proposals that target the Fed’s 13(3) facilities, the Paul/Grayson amendment opens up the entire $2 trillion Federal Reserve balance sheet to a GAO audit.

Mr. bernanke, do THEY have OUR gold? or did THEY sell it to Europeans for $35/oz within years of being CONFISCATED from the American people at $25/oz after THEY bankrupted us in 1933?

Learn more about the corrupt “Federal Reserve System”:
http://americanbuilt.us/videos/federal-reserve-system.shtml

• 

• 

(EMAILWIRE.COM, September 28, 2009 ) Washington D.C., September 28, 2009 – Congressman Ron Paul will be making a return appearance on The Daily Show Tuesday, September 29 to talk about his latest book, End The Fed, which challenges the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve. The Congressman’s latest release recently entered the New York Times’ bestseller list at number six, mirroring the success of his previous book, The Revolution: A Manifesto.

End The Fed, has served as a rallying point for supporters of Paul’s bill, H.R. 1207 The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, meant to shed light on the practices of the nation’s central bank. Last week, the House Financial Services Committee held hearings on bringing more transparency to the Fed, this development came after increased support and a super-majority sponsorship of the bill in Congress.

The success of Congressman Paul’s book and the ‘Audit The Fed’ movement has given him a greater platform to spread his message of sound money and economic stability to the public, which seems to be growing ever more receptive since the economic crisis of last year.

The episode will air at 11:00 pm EST, and again Wednesday at 7:00 pm EST.

• 

• 

Paul, Bachmann to speak at student town hall at UofM

Republican U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul will share the stage at a student town hall this month.

The event, hosted by Young Americans for Liberty, will be held Sept. 25 at Northrop Auditorium on the campus of the University of Minnesota.

Organizers said Bachmann and Paul will discuss “monetary reform, limited government and free market economics” and that their appearance is designed to counter “President Obama’s health care proposal, bailout mania and the rapid rise of government control and spending.”

Bachmann, who is in her second term representing Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District, has attained a national profile as a conservative spokeswoman as a result of her regular appearances on cable television.

Paul, of Texas, attained a similar profile last year during his run for the Republican presidential nomination. Although he failed to attract a substantial number of votes, he attained surprising success in fundraising and grass-roots organizing.

The event is sponsored by the Minnesota Campaign for Liberty, Republican Party of Minnesota, Minneapolis City Republican Committee, College Republicans and Students for a Conservative Voice.

BOB VON STERNBERG

Video coverage of Congressman Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann speaking to students at University of Minnesota

Dr. Ron Paul’s Speech 10/25/2009 in Minneapolis

Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann Answer Student’s Questions

At the U, Paul and Bachmann question Washington’s corruption

In a Friday speech, the two rallied for new monetary policies and smaller government.

Addressing issues of economic responsibility and big government, Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. spoke at a student town hall meeting in Northrop Auditorium Friday night to an audience of more than 600 people.

Bachmann and Paul highlighted the war on drugs, income tax and the government’s interference with the free market as policies that need to be changed in the United States.

The date of the speech coincided with the introduction of a bill Paul sponsored in the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services.

The bill, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act , calls for an audit of the U.S. Federal Reserve to be completed by the end of 2010.

With wide-spread support including 271 co-sponsors, the bill calls for an end to the secrecy surrounding the acts of the Federal Reserve.

“Today, Ron Paul achieved a 26-year dream,” Bachmann said.

Both Bachmann and Paul blamed the Federal Reserve for the collapse of the dollar, citing its ability to print money without accountability.

“You can’t just print dollars,” Paul said.

Conservative groups, including Young Americans for Liberty and the College Republicans sponsored the event.

Minnesota College Republicans Chairman Abdul Magba-Kamara said Minnesota’s 5th and 6th Congressional districts have a strong Ron Paul following.

Chris Huxtable , president of Young Americans for Liberty — known as Students for Ron Paul during his 2008 presidential campaign — emphasized the importance of presenting opposing views on a campus like the University of Minnesota, which he views as liberal.

“It’s good to have rallies and events like this because they give people energy and something to look forward to,” he said. “If times seem dark, there is a hope for freedom and Ron Paul is the movement.”

Paul said the federal government does not have the right to tax a person’s income or dictate the way in which people live their private lives. He said it is the citizens’ duty to protect themselves from big government.

“The good patriot sticks with the people and questions the government,” Paul said.

He addressed the government’s use of fear to push its own agenda, pointing at the PATRIOT Act , the recent bailout and the wars in the Middle East.

Bachmann said today’s economic issues will be handed to the next generation to fix.

Following the speeches, which were met with both positive and negative outbursts from the crowd, there was a question and answer period. Most questions centered on the current health care reform debate.

Bachmann and Paul stated succinctly their belief that health care is not a right.

Karen Zaklika , 61, of St. Paul said she attended the event to show support for a public health care option. She said she would have liked to hear more of their stances.

Zach Holmquist , a sophomore English major, said the speakers did not need to talk more about the subject because that statement summed it up.

When Bachmann posed a question to the audience about whether they wanted health care under a system like those in the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union , those in the audience who, like Zaklika, support universal health care shouted, “Yes!”

Bachmann mentioned the Soviet Union’s health care system several times Friday in present tense — the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s.

Despite naysayers, the event raised excitement in furthering a belief in individual freedom. Organizers said this will help gain more support for Ron Paul.

“It’s important that we understand that we have not gained a lot in Washington yet,” Paul said. “We have a long way to go, but we’re making progress.”

BY ANISSA STOCKS & TARYN WOBBEMA

• 

• 

Ron Paul has been trying to get a hearing since 1964 and finally had1 this morning at 9:AM. almost all govt corruption was based on the fed since 1913.

we are attempting to abolish the federal reserve (per JFK policy) because they’re the reason why our “FIAT” paper dollars are only worth 3 cents. THEY recently gave $500,000,000,000 to foreign banks – that’s their profits from ripping off the American dollar. THEY gave New Zealand the equivalent of $3000 PER PERSON – imagine if that money was never stolen from Americans in the first place = no imaginary financial crisis.

The House Committee on Financial Services held its first major hearing on H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, today. H.R. 1207, originally introduced by Ron Paul (R-Texas), now has 295 cosponsors in the House and a great deal of public support. (The bill’s Senate equivalent, S.604, called the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, has 28 cosponsors.)

Speaking on behalf of the Federal Reserve was Scott G. Alvarez, General Counsel, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Speaking for H.R. 1207 was Thomas E. Woods, Jr., author and economist for the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Both made available some prepared testimony.

In his statement Alvarez argued that the Fed already receives an independent audit by an “independent public accounting firm that is selected and retained by the Board’s Inspector General annually [and] audits the financial statements for the Federal Reserve System, including the Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve makes these audited financial statements available to the public and submits them to Congress with detailed annual reports of our activities.”

He added that “all of our supervisory and regulatory functions are subject to audit by the GAO to the same extent as the supervisory and regulatory functions of the other federal banking agencies.”

Alvarez conceded that “two highly sensitive areas” have been excluded by Congress from GAO review: “one is monetary policy deliberations, decisions, and actions … and the other is Federal Reserve transactions for or with foreign central banks, foreign governments, and public international financing organizations.” These, he said, are “to ensure that the Federal Reserve could ‘independently conduct the Nation’s monetary policy’.… Thus, the Congress has sought to maintain an independent monetary policy not because it benefits the Federal Reserve, but because of the important public benefit it provides.”

He then contended that H.R. 1207 would remove these exceptions and lead to “a substantial erosion of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy independence.” This would “undermine public and investor confidence in monetary policy,” which would in turn “increase inflation fears and market interest rates and, ultimately, damage economic stability and job creation.”

Thomas Woods’ remarks set out to refute these and other common arguments against H.R. 1207. Woods argued that the Fed’s independence is a myth. “The bill is not designed to empower politicians to increase the money supply, choose interest-rate targets, or adopt any of the Fed’s central planning apparatus, all of which is better left to the free market than to the Fed or Congress.” Moreover, “ with its chairman up for reappointment by the president every four years…. Fed chairmen have been known to ingratiate themselves into the president’s favor close to election time by means of loose monetary policy and the false (and temporary) prosperity it brings about.”

Woods intimated that the Fed is “independent” in ways that ought to alarm a free people who base their economic lives on an assumption that their money is sound: “The Fed may reward favored friends and constituencies with trillions of dollars in various kinds of assistance, while keeping the public completely in the dark. If that is the independence we are talking about, no self-respecting American would hesitate for a moment to challenge it.”

He argued further that monetary policy is already politicized and favors the well-connected: “Most Americans, not unreasonably, seem convinced of another thesis: that Goldman Sachs, for instance, might be just a little bit more politically well connected than the rest of us.”

Finally, if the Fed is already adequately audited, then “why is the Fed in panic mode over this bill? It is the broad areas these audits exclude that the American public is increasingly interested in investigating, and these are the gaps that H.R. 1207 seeks to fill.”

Woods asked “if our monetary system were really as strong, robust, and beyond criticism as its cheerleaders claim, why does it need to rely so heavily on public ignorance? How can it be a sound banking system that depends on keeping the public in the dark about the condition of its financial institutions?”

In closing, he turned on its head a remark that is often made by those of an authoritarian stripe who believe we should trust our political and financial overlords in all things, including when we believe our rights and privacy are being violated: “The Fed should take to heart the words of consolation the American people are given whenever a new government surveillance program is uncovered: if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”

From an economic standpoint, the Federal Reserve does plenty that can be considered wrong to the point of irrational: creating hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air, and thus devaluing our currency. Our dollars have lost between 97 and 98 percent of their value since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 — following the now well-documented, but at the time highly secretive, meeting of powerful banking elites that designed the legislation to create the Fed at their enclave on Jekyll Island, Georgia.

Some might wonder why criticisms of the Fed are limited to just a few mostly solitary economics voices, such as Ron Paul, who are considered not “real” economists by the majority of those in that profession. A recent Huffington Post inquiry revealed the answer to this: for all practical purposes, the Fed owns the economics profession in the United States. You do not get to be an economics professor at a major university if you do not publish in one of the major journals of the field such as the Journal of Monetary Economics. These journals’ editorial boards have a significant fraction of members on the Fed payroll! This ensures that critics of the Federal Reserve will not be published, not receive tenure at major universities, and therefore not be in a position to educate the next generation of economists.

Such revelations help us understand why almost no one in the economics profession anticipated the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression — which was predicted by Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and others of the “contrarian” orbit who have subsisted outside of the economics “mainstream.”

Part of taking back our country from the elites necessarily includes taking back the economics profession. Subjecting the Federal Reserve to a full audit is a step toward what would really be desirable, which is to do what Andrew Jackson did to the Second Bank of the United States: close it down, as an institution both unnecessary and destructive of the economic lives of a free people.

Source JBS.org: Hearings Held on Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” Bill

Look Who’s Testifying During Ron Paul’s HR1207 Hearing Tomorrow

Ron Paul is bringing a friend to Washington DC tomorrow to testify during the hearing on Paul’s HR.1207. Thomas Woods, author of “Meltdown“, is on the list of witnesses. The only other currently listed witness is Federal Reserve General Counsel Scott Alvarez. What an interesting combination this is going to be.

Alvarez is quoted in the Wall Street Journal today (from his prepared remarks):

Fed General Counsel Scott Alvarez, in testimony prepared for a Friday hearing, said legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives giving the Government Accountability Office greater leeway to examine the central bank could have a detrimental effect.

“These concerns likely would increase inflation fears and market interest rates and, ultimately, damage economic stability and job creation,” Alvarez said in the prepared remarks for the House Financial Services Committee hearing.

If I were on the Financial Services Committee I’d suggest to Alvarez that the Fed itself is the cause of economic instability and a full GAO audit will neither help nor hinder its “ability” to continue being the primary cause of economic instability. I’m sure Ron Paul and Tom Woods won’t hesitate to make this point.

It’s rare occasion when I can say this, but… this Financial Services Committee hearing is going to be fun.

Click here to learn more about the Federal Reserve

• 

• 

In his new book — “ End the Fed” — released today, Rep. Paul walks through his critique of the central bank and lays out a strategy (briefly) for eliminating it. We sat down with the congressman to hear his views on a money system backed by gold, the Fed’s challenge of withdrawing its stimulus and his legislation to audit the central bank. Excerpts of the interview:

What would a world without the Fed look like?

You’d go back to the day that if you wanted to borrow money to build a house, somebody would’ve had to save some money. You wouldn’t have zero savings and all the credit in the world. That’s just a total distortion of capitalism. Capital comes from savings. The part you don’t use for everyday living which you have left over, you reinvest and you save or you loan it out. We were living with something absolutely bizarre that had nothing to do with capitalism. We had no savings whatsoever yet there was all the credit in the world.

How would an audit lead to ending the Fed?

It’s a stepping stone. I think what’s going to lead to the next step is the destruction of the dollar, just like economic events moved further ahead than my legislative process. I wasn’t getting anywhere. But the economic events demanded that we look into it. So even if this bill passes and we have more information and we’re talking about monetary policy reform, I don’t think that’s the way this system is going to be ended. I think it’ll be ended when it’s a total failure and then it’ll have to be replaced by something. It could be replaced with a more authoritarian government, a more socialistic government.

Do you think the Fed will be abolished during your career?

I always thought the day would come… This economy is going to get worse and this dollar is going to get a lot worse. It’ll take care of itself. My real goal is educating people to the nature of money so that when this system fails, that they’ll know what to do and not just say ‘Well, we need a better manager.’

Economic insight and analysis from The Wall Street Journal

•