Journal zogger's Journal: Audit the Fed Governors 41
One of Rep. Ron Paul's initiatives is H.R.1207, or the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. It has legs! Gaining cosponsors daily, up to 44 right now. This act will have the Comptroller audit the Fed and the board of governors. Thomas library of congress links expire quickly, so just go to here and paste in H.R.1207 in the search box and click on the search by bill number bubble first, then hit search to get the summary and assorted info.
This is public info so I can copy the whole thing here, it is short:
HR 1207 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1207
To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 26, 2009
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. KAGEN, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. JONES, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services
A BILL
To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.
- Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
- This Act may be cited as the `Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.
- (a) In General- Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after `shall audit an agency' and inserting a period.
- (b) Audit- Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
- `(e) Audit and Report of the Federal Reserve System-
- `(1) IN GENERAL- The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.
- `(2) REPORT-
- `(A) REQUIRED- A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.
- `(B) CONTENTS- The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.'.
END
---of course I would rather they just *ban* the Fed altogether, just rescind the act because it is a flawed idea, and go back to only the Treasury having anything to do with the money supply, but this is a start. In particular I think finding out who actually owns and profits from their stake in the Fed would be interesting, in particular if they verify some of the reports over the years that say there is a lot of foreign ownership, as in who links to who. This gets to the heart of the perpetual financial mess and where the start of a lot of the fraud come from.
Here's hoping. (Score:2)
Yeah, it's a start. I seriously doubt it will pass, but it will certainly be telling who does/does not vote for it!
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I have reservations. Right now, I'm remembering that Nightmare on Elm Street movie where the kids are riding around in a van, lost, while one kid is trying to navigate with a roadmap that just keeps unfolding bigger and bigger, before he finally finds the message "You're Fucked!" scrawled on it.
I suspect the audit will be exactly like that. And then the economy dies a grisly death.
Re: (Score:2)
I have my pet theory that that "roadmap unfolding" happened to the Obama team during the transition. They got to see the real books, and see just how much trouble they were really in for.
I'm to the point (Score:2)
Where I'd like to see Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution repealed. The experiment of a Federal Free Trade District has simply become too big to succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I'd like to see Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution repealed. The experiment of a Federal Free Trade District has simply become too big to succeed.
Wait. You want the states to be able to pass Ex Post Facto laws, issue Bills of Attainder, grant Letters of Marque, grant inheritable titles of nobility, maintain a standing army and navy, engage in offensive war, collect duties on imports and exports, and negotiate its own treaties?
Repeal all of that, and you don't even have a United States any more. Might as well scrap the whole constitution while you're at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. You want the states to be able to pass Ex Post Facto laws, issue Bills of Attainder, grant Letters of Marque, grant inheritable titles of nobility, maintain a standing army and navy, engage in offensive war, collect duties on imports and exports, and negotiate its own treaties?
YES! We on the West Coast certainly can't trust Washington anymore to look out for our best interests- the East Coast has been bleeding us dry for years. Heck, half our politicians weren't even born here- carpet bagge
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying we'd be better off as fifty completely independent states? Because, if you are, I don't think you've thought this through.
What makes you think Oregon would remain independent for more than a few years? You'd be swallowed up by the larger and richer states. And you wouldn't even have the limited protections the current federal constitution offers you. If you think the east coast is "bleeding" you dry now, just wait until you're an occupied territory instead of a state.
Look at the Europe ove
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying we'd be better off as fifty completely independent states? Because, if you are, I don't think you've thought this through.
I'm saying we'd be better off choosing our own paths. I have no doubt that in many cases, the current state dividing lines are insufficient- for instance, Cascadia (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, British Columbia and Alaska) are a natural set, based on available natural resources.
What makes you think Oregon would remain independent for more than a
Re: (Score:2)
We're an occupied territory NOW- have been since the 1830s.
You're only an occupied territory in the same way that every state is an occupied territory. But, without the protections provided in the constitution, there is no guarantee you would have any say at all in your government. California could come along and kick your asses any time it wanted, and take whatever resources it desired, without giving you any say in the matter. You currently have a bit more power than that.
Heck, even our current governor is from Missouri.
If the citizens of Oregon wanted a native Oregonian for a governor, they could have elected
I know how he feels (Score:1)
And secession is just your garden variety lesser of two evils option. We have an alleged federal government that is protectionist in nature, but only for the island of Manhattan, the Federal District of Columbia, the City of London (the square mile), the nation of mainland China and the nation of Mexico and the nation of Israel (meaning the fatcat rulers therein and their globalist and disloyal business and crime buddies inside DC and Manhattan). That is who and for this federal government works for now, n
Re: (Score:2)
This is an obvious and clear and present danger, not to be ignored or trivialized. We are also under threat from other outside forces, but right now, this second, this day, this year, our biggest and most overwhelming threats come from high level traitors within our national compact.
I agree. The threat to our freedom posed by the federal government far surpasses the severity of threats from abroad. I don't mean to trivialize that fact.
But, I don't believe that we would be better off, were we to give up the few remaining constitutional protections still respected by the federal government. The system we have in place today--though horribly broken--still affords us some say in how our federal government operates. But, if we give that up, we leave ourselves open to pure, undisguised tyran
Re: (Score:2)
You're only an occupied territory in the same way that every state is an occupied territory.
Really? Did the US Government Military spread Malaria and Smallpox [wikipedia.org] to get rid of 90% of the population of every other state?
But, without the protections provided in the constitution, there is no guarantee you would have any say at all in your government.
We had a perfectly good working government for 10,000 years before white man showed up, the Chinookan Nation [wikipedia.org].
Califo
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Did the US Government Military spread Malaria and Smallpox to get rid of 90% of the population of every other state?
You do realize that every state had a sizable native american population before european settlers arrived, right? They were decimated by disease, starvation, forced relocation, and outright slaughter. Oregon isn't unique in this regard.
We had a perfectly good working government for 10,000 years before white man showed up, the Chinookan Nation.
That was well before you were surrounded with rich, well-armed, and more populous neighbors. None of that will change just because you leave the Union.
At least they're not paying usury and taxes to people living 3000 miles away.
No, they were paying usury and taxes to the local baron or duke, who kept the people in grinding poverty for centuries. They
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that every state had a sizable native american population before european settlers arrived, right? They were decimated by disease, starvation, forced relocation, and outright slaughter. Oregon isn't unique in this regard.
Yes. Ohio comes close as well to having non-native diseases imported on purpose.
That was well before you were surrounded with rich, well-armed, and more populous neighbors.
And given the natural resources in Cascadia include, thanks to the Un
Cascadian defense & riches (Score:1)
Just to add to what you say. There are quite a few military bases in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, not the least of which is a frigging nuclear submarine base: Strategic Weapons Facility, Bangor, Washington [globalsecurity.org].
Cascadia is extremely rich in natural resources -- we export most of them since there's more than enough to go around. And guess where a sizeable amount of California's drinking water and electricity come from? Hint: it ain't all from California. It has more water-gifted neighbors. (Y'know, the neighbors
Re: (Score:2)
And given the natural resources in Cascadia include, thanks to the United States, a weapons-grade plutonium depot, what's to stop us from being rich and well armed as well?
Nothing. I don't mean to imply that Cascadia wouldn't be a rich or well-armed nation. It would be. But, assuming that the other states band together in similar types of regional confederations, you won't have an overwhelming military force, as the US does now.
True, but neither will we suddenly become utterly defenseless.
Yes, but your defensive position will be considerably weaker than it is presently. There are advantages and disadvantages to being a military superpower in a unipolar world. One of the advantages is possessing a conventional military which is unrivaled
Re: (Score:2)
Even our native ancestors weren't exactly "helpless and poor", it took a large amount of the 19th century equivalent of biological warfare to get them to capitulate- and at least one tribe, the Modocs, is the only one on record of actually WINNING a war against the US Army (they were able to get a very lucrative treaty in the end in comparison to most tribes, after 10 years of fighting and a kill ratio of 40:1. Helped, of course, that they had a terrain in which the technological advantage of the wheel was
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. I don't mean to imply that Cascadia wouldn't be a rich or well-armed nation. It would be. But, assuming that the other states band together in similar types of regional confederations, you won't have an overwhelming military force, as the US does now.
If you're following Augustine of Hippo's advice on war, you don't need an overwhelming military force, just one that you can defend your borders and repel invaders with. Only an empire needs an overwhelming military force, and only then beca
Re: (Score:2)
If you're following Augustine of Hippo's advice on war, you don't need an overwhelming military force, just one that you can defend your borders and repel invaders with.
Even when I'm simply defending my borders and repelling invaders, I want overwhelming military force.
Well, actually, I have grave doubts as to the conventional military power of the United States when one old man in a cave with kidney disease can defeat it.
Well, that's not a conventional war. And you're right, we're not that great at winning that type of conflict. The last conventional war we fought was the Persian Gulf War. Before that you have to go back to WWII (or maybe Korea). We're pretty good at conventional warfare; asymmetrical warfare, not so much.
How the heck am I supposed to have right of revenge against him for usury if I can't get anywhere close to him?
First of all, there is no "right of revenge". Secondly, maybe you should have thought of that before you
Re: (Score:2)
Even when I'm simply defending my borders and repelling invaders, I want overwhelming military force.
I'd settle for merely impassible military force- the Modocs had the right idea retreating into the Lava Beds.
Well, that's not a conventional war. And you're right, we're not that great at winning that type of conflict. The last conventional war we fought was the Persian Gulf War. Before that you have to go back to WWII (or maybe Korea). We're pretty good at conventional warfare; asym
regional governments (Score:1)
I think it would be possible to have independent states and regional governments and still get along, perhaps under a more strict and looser confderation rather than a union as we have it now. Trade would still be profitable, exactly as we have it, and that would be a large inducement to maintain the peace. We-so far, changing rapidly-enjoy a critical difference over Europe in this regard, we have a common and in use language.
The political and cultural divisions in the US are not so much state to state, or
Re: (Score:2)
Without revenge there is no reason not to commit fraud.
That's why we made fraud a crime. So you don't have to pursue cross-country vendettas.
I originally got my mortgage from a bank with headquarters right here in Oregon. It was taken over by JP Morgan Chase.
Well, maybe you should have practiced what you preach, and not gotten a loan from a bank who would sell your loan (or the bank itself) to another bank owned by a bunch of anonymous shareholders.
Which is why you ring your borders with no fly and no enter zones- where even a jackrabbit crossing the zone will be spotted and killed for entering the zone.
Except that's not an effective military strategy with today's technology. Since WWII, attackers have the advantage against defenders. With the advent of high-altitude long-range bombers, effectively armored tanks, precision guided m
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we made fraud a crime.
Except, of course, the legalized variants of it. And, of course, do it right and it's a crime you can repeat for years without getting caught. And to top it off, when you do get caught, all you get is your retirement paid for in a cushy low-security prison. No pain for a lot of gain.
So you don't have to pursue cross-country vendettas.
Wouldn't have to pursue cross country anything if the principle of subsidarity was built into the system-
Re: (Score:2)
I consider the bank foreclosures to be a military action.
Well, see, that's your problem right there. Just because you consider something to be a military action, doesn't necessarily make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Isn't a crime in the eyes of the person who was wronged? If not, then what the hell is your definition of justice?
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Isn't a crime in the eyes of the person who was wronged? If not, then what the hell is your definition of justice?
I never said it wasn't a crime, or that there wasn't a need for justice. But you called it a "military action". And those tend to involve--you know--one or more militaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes- like the armed Sheriff who comes to serve you the eviction notice to kick you out of the house. Military power, serving the purpose of the rich against the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Military power, serving the purpose of the rich against the poor.
No, it's civilian law enforcement, serving the purpose of the rich against the poor.
Just because law enforcement and the military share some--but not all--attributes (like the "right" to use physical force to achieve their objectives), it does not make them equivalent. In the US, there is a huge body of law and tradition which separate the two.
You're making a valid argument. But, when you misuse terms for dramatic effect, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Re: (Score:1)
>The US, seen as a federation of states, is a very effective system at keeping inter-state disagreements in the political realm, and not falling into the military's domain.
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's civilian law enforcement, serving the purpose of the rich against the poor.
In an occupied territory, there is no difference between the occupying military and the "civilian law enforcement", because the real population isn't allowed to have a civilian law enforcement of it's own. A real civilian law enforcement would answer to the PEOPLE- not the rich elite and not some illicit federal government 3000 miles away.
Just because law enforcement and the military share some--but
Re: (Score:2)
In an occupied territory, there is no difference between the occupying military and the "civilian law enforcement", because the real population isn't allowed to have a civilian law enforcement of it's own. A real civilian law enforcement would answer to the PEOPLE- not the rich elite and not some illicit federal government 3000 miles away.
I don't know where you get your sheriffs in Oregon, but the rest of the country elects them locally. They do answer to the people, every few years on election day. So, I'm pretty sure you do have "a civilian law enforcement" of your own.
The fact that you keep going on about an "occupying military" leads me to believe you have never lived in, or spoken to anyone who has ever lived in, a militarily occupied country. You would realize exactly how foolish you sound.
And as soon as they started kicking people out of their houses, they destroyed that tradition and that body of law.
Sheriffs kicking people out of foreclosed hous
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you get your sheriffs in Oregon, but the rest of the country elects them locally.
Well, we seem to import them. It seems there are no Oregonians with the "skills" necessary that the rich want.
They do answer to the people, every few years on election day.
Elections in my neck of the woods are full of people nominated by the rich, paid with campaigns funded by the rich. Forget "answer to the people" in that scenario- the people's candidates can't get on the
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we seem to import them.
That seems like a problem with Oregon's voters, not the rich elite. Maybe, instead of railing against the evils of the rest of the country, you should spend your time working to educate the voters.
Elections in my neck of the woods are full of people nominated by the rich, paid with campaigns funded by the rich. Forget "answer to the people" in that scenario- the people's candidates can't get on the ballot.
Have you ever tried to get on the ballot? Because I'll bet you can; get a few signatures, and mail in some forms. Bingo, you'll be on every ballot in your district.
If the people of Oregon were as oppressed as you seem to think, they could certainly elect officeholders who represented their views. The fact that the
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to get on the ballot? Because I'll bet you can; get a few signatures, and mail in some forms. Bingo, you'll be on every ballot in your district.
I've tried- in Oregon you actually need "party sponsorship". And the parties are only interested in foreign-born candidates- 'gonies aren't good enough.
If the people of Oregon wanted the kind of society you desire, they could surely implement it, even under the current federal government.
Not as long as the Supre
Re: (Score:2)
I've tried- in Oregon you actually need "party sponsorship". And the parties are only interested in foreign-born candidates- 'gonies aren't good enough.
No, you don't, as far as I can tell. There's a PDF guide [state.or.us] specifically for unaffiliated candidates. You just need to fill out some forms and get a certain number of signatures (1% of the total voters in the last presidential election in the district in which you're running, or 18,368 for state-wide office). And you're on the ballot.
Not as long as the Supreme Court says that usury laws MUST, according to Article I Section 10, be limited to the lowest common denominator- and the people of South Dakota do like their bank headquarters [...] And if we did- if we did ban the sale of foreign produced imports, the feds would be in closing down our stores in a second- thanks to the Supreme Court again.
You're missing my point: You don't need any new laws. The people of Oregon simply have to stop participating in parts of the economy they find objectionable. There would be no im
Re: (Score:2)
You are advocating for a local-based economy, where your economic fate would be tied closely to that of your neighbors. Yet, you consistently show that you believe them to be gullible, greedy, and shortsighted fools. I don't get it. If they are so stupid as to be tricked into all sorts of foolish behavior, how will they resist the same in the future?
And that's why we need laws that limit the economy, right there. Human beings in general are gullible, greedy, shortsighted fools- whether in Oregon o
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why we need laws that limit the economy, right there. Human beings in general are gullible, greedy, shortsighted fools- whether in Oregon or elsewhere- and to have a LOCAL economy, it has to also be a PROTECTIONIST economy.
The US used to have a fairly protectionist and locally based economic system, and the people were "duped" into electing politicians who enacted the current free-trade system. Those same people will make up your newly protectionist Oregon. I ask again: How does creating a local and protectionist economy prevent them from making the same mistakes again?
The point is to bring it up for renegotiation, or leave.
So, where you moving to?
Re: (Score:2)
The US used to have a fairly protectionist and locally based economic system, and the people were "duped" into electing politicians who enacted the current free-trade system.
Yes, that's true.
Those same people will make up your newly protectionist Oregon. I ask again: How does creating a local and protectionist economy prevent them from making the same mistakes again?
By tweaking the protectionism so that the mistakes are not possible. The same way you debug any computer sys
Re: (Score:2)
By tweaking the protectionism so that the mistakes are not possible. The same way you debug any computer system.
How exactly do you propose to do this? I'm going to assume you haven't purged every Oregonian who doesn't share your beliefs 100%.
There will still be people who are more than willing to trade the protectionism and localization your ideal society would have, for the industrial efficiencies and increased output a centralized capitalistic society would offer. What makes you think that these people won't make up a significant fraction of the population in your new society? And, given your commitment to localism
Maybe (Score:1)
Maybe something is going on
?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a5.8MffHdmGU&refer=home [bloomberg.com]
"The Treasury chief will present his proposed framework at a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington today. Under the new so-called rules of the road, the government would get powers to seize and wind down any financial company big enough to destabilize the banking system. "
Be so sad if the US Treasury actually seized ownership of the Federal Reserve System.
I still smell a rat... (Score:1)
...in all of this and it keeps going back to sacks of manly gold company. They appear to have WAY more power and influence over government than is healthy or even proper. The revolving door syndrome. They get this huge power without ever having to go through any messy "elected to office" deal. Them and some others. This situation stinks and goes back to the creation of the Fed and beyond in the timeline into yirrup and the origins of big banks and one scheming and illuminated family in particular that funde