Dear supporters of Audit The Fed,
Why do Ron Paul supporters advocate one Govt agency auditing another?
The history of this approach has yielded little good, as far as I can tell.
For example, the GAO audits the IRS yet the IRS is as draconian as ever.
Intuitively, supporting the creation of an additional Govt agency seems like
a poor idea.
I'm open to altering my opinion, should you offer another perspective.
Warm regards, Michael
You raise a good point, and I'm afraid I don't have a very strong answer for you, except to point to what Ron Paul says below:
"H.R. 1207 will open up the Fed's funding facilities, such as the Primary
Dealer Credit Facility, Term Securities Lending Facility, and Term
Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility to Congressional oversight.
Additionally, audits could include discount window operations, open market
operations, and agreements with foreign central banks, such as the ongoing
dollar swap operations with European central banks.
By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit
to be completed by the end of 2010, the H.R. 1207 would achieve much-needed
transparency of the Federal Reserve."
If the Fed is not currently transparent to Congress and H.R. 1207 would make it so, that seems pretty significant to me, given the Fed's role in manipulating the money supply and how much that threatens to impact all our lives these days, since I feel like I can trust Ron Paul to tell the public what he learns, even if I don't trust the government audit process itself. Also, I'm not aware that the bill would create an additional government agency, although I have not read the legislation. Did you read somewhere that it would do that?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I assumed an additional Govt agency would be involved. Apparently not.
Rather it's an expansion of the GAO, an already existing impotent agency.
To the extent 1207 would be passed without amendments and add-ons (highly
unlikely), and would be implemented as intended by Ron Paul (also highly
unlikely), I agree it's a net plus.
However as Harry Browne pointed out, this never is the case with
Congressional bills. For example, the Medicare act in 1965 and the civil
rights acts in the 60's have been bloated and distorted beyond recognition.
I would be interested in counter-examples, should you know of any.
I prefer Ron Paul's message which, in part, galvanized his campaign:
"Abolish the Fed!"
Warm regards, Michael
It's called checks and balances. The only thing that keeps the monster from completely devouring us immediatly is auditing. The GAO has done a good job of calling out the massive fraud in Iraq. Outside auditorscan also be contracted. Knowing they are being watched may slow down the thievery a little, and shedding a little light on the matter may discourage the foreign creditors from continuing supporting the fraud, enabling us to resotore some reputation if the ultimate default isn't as large as it otherwise would be.
another case of purity vs. pragmatism
Let's forego an audit by what has been in the past a dependable accounting
organization, because we insist on the abolition of the Fed?
The same Congress that slavishly submitted to Paulsen and Bernancke probably aren't going to pursue an aggressive audit. The Federal Reserve Board should be proscribed by Congress as a criminal enterprise and treated accordingly. We can afterwards go back to the system we had prior to its creation.
On the plus side, Ron's initiating 1207 has stimulated interest and support from other House members.
< http://washingtonindependent.com/41786/ron-pauls-economic-theories-winning-gop-converts >
How do you respond to Harry Browne's criticism of all legislation, as
applied to 1207:
"You don't control the government. No government
program will operate as you imagine it should. The
politicians and bureaucrats will transform your
wonderful idea to suit themselves - into something
quite different from what you envision. So all the talk
about the wonderful things this program or law is
supposed to do is just talk. It's just a game of
`pretend,' and has no relevance to how politicians
and bureaucrats will use the force of government to
get what they really want."
Moreover, doesn't Eric have a valid concern anent the spinelessness of Congress:
The same Congress that slavishly submitted to Paulsen and Bernancke probably
aren't going to pursue an aggressive audit. The Federal Reserve Board should
be proscribed by Congress as a criminal enterprise and treated accordingly.
We can afterwards go back to the system we had prior to its creation.
Warm regards, Michael