Unlikely teammates Grayson and Paul get bill to audit Fed passed.

[timtom]

"In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.

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."

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/ron-paul-alan-grayson-audit-fed-bill.html

Both, of course, have been called "wingnuts" by those who choose to obstruct the onward march of justice.

The focus should certainly be on the bill, and not the sponsors (except in a laudatory way, according to your inclinations).

[sendero]

1. This is an...

... excellent first step! Fantastic news!

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. Or not...

as the case may be. From Mark Thoma:

Would we welcome a critical GAO audit of monetary policy, which members of Congress could use to browbeat, perhaps even to intimidate, members of the Fed's rate-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committee? ... Would we like Congress to override the Fed's decisions and set monetary policy -- which is its constitutional right? I think and hope not.

An independent monetary policy ... is one of the great and enduring achievements of the Progressive Era. ... Passage of the Paul bill would be a step away from independent monetary policy and a step toward ending the Fed as we know it. That is a step we should not take.

[sendero]

4. You know...

... the Fed's rate setting policy is a large part of this economic debacle. Moron Alan Greenspan, in his libertarian zeal to "let the markets work" flooded the economy with the dollars that were used to create the real estate bubble.

Reigning in the Fed is a very good thing and the naysayers are fools. The "independent monetary policy" is used to benefit the rich, not the country.

[C_Lawyer09]

6. Incorrect

Greenspan policy was in opposition to free market (Libertarian) policy. Greenspan was extremely regulatory, and embraced Keynesian policy as much as he did the Austrian school. In his earlier years he had been a devotee of Friedman, Rothbard, and to a lesser extent Hayek, but that came through less and less in his espoused econ. policy.

[izquierdista]

11. Until he wasn't

Greenspan stands up like tall grass in the wind. As you admit, his positions changed over time, and if you look closer, you will see they correlate exactly with the interests of those in power.

[C_Lawyer09]

14. Totally agree

[followthemoney]

21. You are incorrect, ambulance chaser. n/t

[sendero]

26. You are wrong..

...and even he has admitted this.

[C_Lawyer09]

5. Our current monetary policy and the FED sucks

Maybe there is a reason Arlo Guthrie endorses "End the Fed" by Ron Paul. Stop the opaque and inflationary practices of the fed. I take my hat off to Grayson and Paul, it's been a long time coming. Why would you allow the Fed to operate carte blanche?

[IrateCitizen]

8. That's all fine -- except we don't have an independent monetary policy

The idea that the Fed is somehow "independent" is an illusion. They are a bankers' cartel, and their policy over the past 30 years has shown them to promote the interests of banking and finance over all others.

[ThomCat]

13. The problem with that quote is that our monetary policy is hardly independent.

Unless you mean that it is independent of any pesky regulations that might protect the vast number of US citizens. But truly independent? It isn't independent of Goldman Sachs leadership's decisions. Goldman Sachs owns the fed and controls the leadership there. What Goldman Sachs wants, they get.

That is true for all of the highest level of wall street. The Fed is owned by them and controlled by them, so it isn't the least bit independent in any real way. It is 100% within the control of wall street firms and executives.

I would much rather have our nations monetary policy in the control of our nation, and our nation's reps than wall street's reps. At least we have some minimal influence over our politicians, and they have to make some minimal claim to serving the public good.

[C_Lawyer09]

16. Hats off to you

I don't think I've read a truer statement than your last sentence, it reminds me of something quietly fatalistic yet prescient that Vonnegut might have written. The headbanging stick figure just serves to validate your statement of the sad status quo!

[followthemoney]

20. Independent does not mean without politics.

The so called independent monetary policy most certainly has a political bent to it. We are just not allowed to know what it is.

Independence, in this case, only means not accountable to the public. That is ok for a dictatorship but not a democracy.

The people are not children who need independent wise adults to look out for their best interests. The people need to supervise the unruly children who are ruining the finances of Americans and then bailing themselves out at our expense.

[Davis_X_Machina]

22. If we don't know what it is...

...why are we advocating taking steps to bend it in a particular direction?

[followthemoney]

23. Bend it toward justice

“We shall overcome because the arc of a moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

[Political Heretic]

24. Umm... I'm all for that.

[iamjoy]

2. They Won't Mention This

Will the media mention this and praise Congressman Grayson or will they focus on his most inflammatory remarks on other issues?

A leftist freshman Congressman works with a very right wing Congressman - together they take on and win one against the establishment.

That's political courage. That's the kind of political courage that should get attention.

No, I haven't studied the merits of the bill. Maybe it's misguided

Can we focus on the positives? We have a display of political courage and bipartisanship. Congressman from what seem to be opposite sides of the aisle are working together to try to do something for the people - not the corporations.

[lostnfound]

7. I could care less about bipartisanship frankly but I do care about transparency

And if this has the effect of increasing transparency on the money system, I think it's fantastic. Consequences be damned.

[marketcrazy1]

10. I support this effort

but i just do not see any "audit the FED" bill passing that has REAL teeth. we may get some kind of watered down feel good version ( if that ) wich will do little to expose FED manipulation of U.S. and world markets and even if we do get a REAL bill out of this an audit would take years and the results of such an audit would for the most part be classified.............

[C_Lawyer09]

18. To say nothing of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund

It's strange to me that we've watched tragedies unfold directly attributable to these organizations (Structured Adjustment Program, Darfur genocide) that was supposed to be monitored by the IMF. See, this is whats messed up, the sheer magnitude of news that flies under the radar. See, I was much more fiscally liberal until I majored in International Relations. Investment, light to medium industry, and repatriation are the only engines that can pull less developed countries from third world status to second world.

[many a good man]

9. Populist left and populist right need to work together more

There are several issues we can come together on in defiance of the corporate masters who control both political parties. Obeisance to party leadership in the name of party unity has not benefited the working man very much in recent decades.

Moderates fleeing the Republican party will naturally push Democrats even farther to the right. We can't let the right take up and carry the mantle of populism because it would erase many hard fought gains in other areas.

[Pab Sungenis]

12. Change the word "authorizes"

to "requires" and you're getting somewhere.

Sadly, the Blue Dogs will kill this in the Senate.

[C_Lawyer09]

17. Do you think it will garner support

of a few (true) small govt. Republicans? It doesn't seem like there are many true fiscal conservatives left, as there doesn't seem to be a consistent set of core values against big spending across the board. You know, lower taxes, cut earmarks, plus, PLUS... Limit the imperial overstretch, as Chalmers Johnson describes it. Do you think there is a happy medium between Lockes social contract, and the invisible hand of Adam Smith?

[kentuck]

15. It will never happen...

It is all fantasy money. Tear down the fantasy and you destroy our economy.

[Taitertots]

19. Democratic blind support for the Fed is proof they are bought

by corporate interests.

This bill will never make it to Obama, at least not any version that would be worth doing.

Lets take something not directly part of the government, call it the FEDERAL reserve. They will be controlled by the banks and we will call that INDEPENDENT policy. While in a catastrophic economic meltdown, we are reassured that we need them to PREVENT CRISIS.

[Political Heretic]

25. So very true. We don't have "independent" monetary policy - we have corporate owned, controlled,

monetary policy, and its HIGH TIME that the American people got to take a look at what the Fed is doing with its money in the name of "independent" thinking.