In addition to the strangely filibuster-free passage of the Democratic tax cut plan in the Senate, the House did some legislating yesterday as well, which reminded us just how far we’ve come in a few short years. Before the bailouts, Ron Paul put up his bill to audit the Federal Reserve almost every year. And every year, it was routinely ignored. Paul ran for President in 2008 and created the conditions for the rise of the Tea Party, or at least solidified their take on a particular set of issues. By 2010, he was, with the help of Alan Grayson, getting a massive amount of lawmakers to join him on his Fed audit bill, as an amendment to the Dodd-Frank law. That ultimately passed, albeit in watered-down form. The information gained from the audits added greatly to our understanding of how the Fed used massive amounts of funds in an extraordinary way during the financial crisis. It opened the door just a crack on Fed policymaking.
This week, Paul came back with his Fed audit bill, the original bill that passed the House. It wasn’t attached to anything, it wasn’t part of a Christmas tree where people could vote for or against the bill for other reasons. It got a vote in the House on the suspension calendar, which needed a 2/3 vote. The Democratic leadership, taking their cues from the Fed and in all likelihood the White House, whipped against the bill. And it still passed by a wide margin.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the Texas Republican’s bill to increase the transparency of the Federal Reserve. With bipartisan support, the measure passed 327-98. One Republican, Rep. Bob Turner of New York, joined 97 Democrats in voting against it.
For Paul, the journey to getting his bill approved in the House has been a long, and often lonely one. He first introduced the bill to a skeptical House a decade ago. While his efforts were ignored at the time, the call to “audit the Fed” has gained support from mainstream Republicans and Democrats.
Steny Hoyer, who led opposition to the bill, said it would “jeopardize the Fed’s independence.” Considering how much of a failure Fed policy has been since the financial crisis, I don’t think that’s something we need to cherish. Transparency on the actions from the people who create policy on the economy, which affects every one of us, is not too much to ask. In fact, we had it with the one-time GAO audit from Dodd-Frank, and nothing happened. Nobody died. Fed decisions were not compromised. These are the words of people who would rather conceal the enormous largesse bestowed upon the banks, rather than reveal it.
And by the way, 89 Democrats bucked the leadership and supported the bill. So the best efforts of Steny Hoyer and friends to enshrine secrecy at the Fed weren’t even all that successful.
Republicans may have their own reasons for wanting a Fed audit. They want to change the central bank’s mandate, dropping full employment. They may even want to hamstring decision-making on a political level. But they won’t run the audit, the GAO will. And GAO is pretty scrupulous on these kinds of things, giving the public the information they deserve to understand what our leaders are doing on policies that have monumental effects on our lives. Furthermore, there SHOULD be deliberation about matters of the Fed. I do it on this site virtually every day. Most of the end of the 19th century featured a political debate on “the money question,” between the gold standard and the coinage of silver. That was mostly healthy and gave rise to the Progressive movement. The Fed should not be a black hole where decisions are made in a hermetically sealed environment. Their job is too important, and the risk too great.
Harry Reid will not put the audit the Fed bill to a vote. I doubt President Obama would sign it (though Mitt Romney made some soothing words about it, I kind of doubt he would sign it, either). And Ron Paul is leaving at the end of the year, so I don’t know who ends up taking up this mantle. But the Fed is not a taboo subject on Capitol Hill anymore. That’s on balance a good thing.




32 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
This is what we mean when we say that Nancy Pelosi is worse than a Republican. Her endorsements in local San Francisco races are likewise retrograde. Pelosi exemplifies the contemporary Democrat Party,giving everyone something to hate and offering nothing for anyone to like.
Marcos, I approve of that mesesage.
x3
I’d like to know if it were certain details that had just over half of the Democrats not in favor. Some on that list made me question if that’s the reason. Regardless the bill’s details, I favor auditing the Federal Reserve. And, in this election year, it is a topic like this that should really get people to research just how they are being represented.
Kissell and Kucinich – Yea. That’s probably the only thing on which those two ever voted the same way.
So who is going to get it through the Senate? Ah, yes, more kabuki.
Another case of where the Democrats will never allow public policy to conform with the position of a super majority of public opinion that spans from the Tea Party to the Occupy movement and back.
After the prior audit revelations, there should not be any doubt that the Fed is a prime enabler of banks and crony capitalism, and that it deserves neither the trust nor the credibility which it has commanded previously. It is really remarkable to watch the mainline Democratic Party become its most devoted defender. Ugh, how tiresome to see the Democratic leadership take the side of Wall Street, over and over and over again.
It makes perfect sense. The Constitution grants to the Congress the power to create money. So clearly, the best way to do this is to delegate that authority to a shadowy consortium of private banks so that these banks can make money off of lending the government the money that the government has the monetary sovereignty to create itself. What could go wrong?
Last fall during the Occupation in San Francisco and when I was unemployed, I spent time staffing the welcome table at Bradley Manning Plaza. It was always enjoyable to ask folks who stopped by what their concerns and priorities were. One day, an analyst from the Federal Reserve bank of San Francisco paid is a visit. He expected to find a gang of Ron Paul freaks demanding to “End The Fed” and revert to the gold standard.
He was mistaken, and after 45 minutes of conversation, he said “Well, I’m not sure that I agree with you 100%, but you’ve made a reasoned case for the Congress to reclaim its delegated authority to create the currency.”
You cannot seriously expect the banksters to incriminate themselvse? If the GAO audits the Fed in detail, all the fiduciary malfeasance and outright lawbreaking would be exposed. If the SEC and DoJ gave a fuck, all those ‘Masters of the Universe’ (excuse me while I gag)…..
Would be in Federal Prison within a couple years.
What that old money political hack from Daddies old money in Baltimore who set her up for public office? Shocked. Shocked I tell ya.
That’s why I am always puzzled by the rabid republican attacks on her. She’s mostly an ally of the Old Money Power Interests. I can’t think of anything significant where she has ‘stepped out of line’.
Our financial system is exploitative, fascistic, oligarchical, and primitive, any successful chipping away is good news however small.
Good work. Was he then enthused about Occupy?
Absolutely.
It seems like Weill did as much by confessing that lobbying for Gramm/Leach/Bliley was a mistake, that merging Travelers and Citi was a mistake, and urging that all of that be rolled back. We should sue him now that he’s admitted that he took steps which cost tens of millions their livelihoods.
He was not hostile to Occupy, but he “knew” that Occupy’s analysis was simple minded, especially as pertains to the Fed. I changed his mind on that.
Hoyer’s comments were ridiculous. The logical inference is that we should not stop outsourcing Congress’ responsibilities. Right now we have a “monetary policy institution.” Presumably, Steny would like to create a “fiscal policy institution” to avoid any involvement by elected officials. But then, he did that with the Super Committee last year. How embarrassing.
Pelosi’s local endorsements are straight tea-party economics, trickle down, supply side, tax cuts, etc, but she and they are “liberal” because she and all of the local pols she endorses supports same sex marriage. That’s how politics rolls in a one party town where the Dems spent more energies demolishing the local Greens than they do in contesting the ruling elites that are turning this City into a theme park for trustafarian hipsters and socially awkward web front end developers.
Does anyone happen to know…
Are there any Presidentially-appointed committees — other than the FOMC — that are not required to have public meetings?
I just can’t fathom that such meetings would be tolerated by Congress.
Hoyer and Pelosi are the poster-children for the “scuttle the Democratic Party” wing of the Democratic Party. The fact that they’ve been elected to the leadership again and again is pretty much all you need to know about the stinking remains of the Democratic Party.
Cindy Sheehan was the only serious opponent Pelosi ever faced. Sure, the GOP runs a cadaver against her, now and then, I guess to keep their donors happy. They get what they want with Pelosi in office, why mess with success?
IIRC, her main competition to lead her caucus was W$ Wonderboy, Harold Ford (TN – Corporatist).
Why would any fiscally responsible official not INSIST on an audit? Congress is supposed to do the spending, not the bank. Constitution. Who’s hiding something? I want to know. I get to know. And, Mr. Romney….about those tax returns.
Cindy Sheehan is the kind of person to whom any sane and reasonable person would never hand over the keys to the government. I’ve got friends who supported Sheehan materially during that campaign and all they ever got was kicked in the teeth and left to clean up the elephant dung after the circus left town.
That’s probably true…and beside the point.
A whore by any other name…
I kind of considered it a tiny little stream of water coming out of a dam of stonewalled corruption. Kind of like one of the capos getting caught with a little heroine and taking down the leaders of the syndicate.
If nothing else it seems like he was preparing himself for a mea culpa and some pearl clutching when this trillion dollar rope they have been given to hang themselves finally starts cutting off the air. He can say I told ya so when he was one of the prime drivers of the Gramm-Leachley act.
Actually, it appears they passed that law after Weill had already broken the law so his law breaking would then be legal. I wonder when drugs are finally decriminalized they are going to expunge the records of all the drug convicts? I’m not holding MY breath!
The act that repealed Glass-Steagall was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act.
(Sorry,couldn’t help myself).
You’re one of the few who’s aware of Pelosi’s background as the daughter of corruption in Baltimore, Tommy D’Alessandro. Is that your place of origin?
ha ha ha.. really? At least you threw the partisans a bone. a really dry bone.
Ron paul’s extreme wing were the Sons of Lberty, not the Tea Party. They burned a couple of effigies of bankers, hung one from from a freeway overpass IIRC.
The Tea Party’s beginning dates back to February 19, 2009, when Rick Santelli ranted on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange as a CNBC on floor editor. In the rant Santelli responded against the idea of helping ordinary American citizens to stay in their homes. Mr. Santelli in his rant doesn’t call them ordinary American citizens, however, he refers to them as “losers.” This was a Dick Armey funded outfit, Fox was the media arm, and Glen Beck played pied piper.
These Tea Partiers burned effigies of Obama.
You’re Right on the money.
There’s no functional difference between them and revelers who shout government is the problem.
The Administration whipped against it.. incredible.
IIRC, he called for a 4th of July Tea Party… but then others moved it up to April 15… for fairly obvious reasons.
Regardless, I was one of the many donors who collectively gave Ron Paul $6,000,000 on December 16, 2007… the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
I love Ron Paul and prefer to think of him as leading the charge against Corporatism, rather than the charge against the Democratic party. But Santelli is also a big admirer of Ron Paul… and I find it hard to believe that during his on air call for another tea party… he didn’t have Ron Paul’s war on crony capitalism in mind.
It’s morphed along the way, but I’m convinced that Santelli’s comments were not devoid of Ron Paul thoughts.
And SKF… make sure you check this out… Holder’s law firm, Covington, represented Corzine’s financial firm, MF Global. So there are multiple reasons why “JC” gets to walk. Yay!
I’m glad the right has gotten a hold of that, it might go somewhere since their leaders don’t view it as a sign of strength to ignore their voters.
Santelli’s arguments were pure classism. He didn’t show up to protest the TARP, only cram downs for homeowners.
I can’t see Ron Paul supporting Dick Armey’s ignorance inducing tours, but I do like Ron Paul.