Democrats are scared of Trump.

Open Letter to Senator Rand Paul
August 23, 2015

"We read with interest your August 21 Bloomberg View that calls for “a thoughtful congressional discussion of the pros and cons of a more thorough audit” of the Federal Reserve. While we share your desire for effective congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve, we strongly disagree on the best way to do it.

"In our democracy, Congress must hold the Fed accountable for achieving its economic and financial stability mandate. Congress has wisely delegated circumscribed authority over monetary policy and the lender of last resort function to the Federal Reserve. Doing so is consistent with long experience showing that central bank operational independence helps secure price stability and that the lender of last resort bank can prevent and mitigate financial crises. But for this to be sustainable, Congress must retain sufficient oversight to guarantee that the Fed uses it powers in a manner consistent with its legal mandate. To take but one of many examples, no one wants the central bank to bail out insolvent banks.

"On this much, we agree.

"However, you go on to suggest that the current level of Fed transparency is insufficient to achieve the required level of accountability. While we would have agreed with this view in 1990, we strongly disagree today. It would be difficult to overstate the Fed’s shift toward transparency over the past two decades. Before 1994, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) routinely altered monetary policy without informing the public! Today, we have a clearly stated policy framework, FOMC meeting statements, press conferences, minutes, quarterly publication of participants’ economic and interest rate projections, officials’ speeches, testimony, staff reports, and the list goes on. The information flow is so voluminous that we doubt there is any single person who can digest it all in a timely way.

"Even the most sensitive information regarding specific Fed bank counterparties is now fully disclosed. For example, anyone who wishes to see the details of each Fed loan (including size, interest rate, maturity, collateral, etc.) can find it here with a lag of about two years."

More >>
 
Its the republicans who are scared of Trump


GOP leaders from two states reportedly plot strategy to slow down Trump

Republican leaders in two states reportedly are plotting to make presidential candidate Donald Trump’s quest for the GOP nomination a lot harder.

Party leaders in Virginia and North Carolina told Politico.com that they are considering a push to require candidates entering their respective Republican primaries to pledge their support for the eventual nominee and not run a third-party candidacy — a pledge Trump, the current frontrunner, would not make when asked to during the Fox News debate earlier this month in Cleveland.

“Anybody who wants to seek the Republican nomination should have to commit to supporting the ultimate Republican nominee,” Virginia’s former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told Politico. “I don’t see anything wrong with that.”

Republican party officials in North Carolina announced a similar proposal, and told Politico they already are in talks with lawyers to draft language for a provision that asks each candidate to support the GOP nominee.

“Everything is on the table,” an official told Politico.

Party leaders in North Carolina and Virginia say they hope their ballot proposals will help convince the billionaire businessman to fully commit to the Republican Party.

The primary requirements must be submitted to the Republican National Committee by Oct. 1, Politico reports.

“Ballot access usually is regarded as a party function,” former RNC Chief Counsel Tom Josefiak told the website. “It definitely would be left up to the state party to decide how it’s going to operate.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lot-strategy-to-slow-down-trump/?intcmp=hpbt3
 
Open Letter to Senator Rand Paul
August 23, 2015

"We read with interest your August 21 Bloomberg View that calls for “a thoughtful congressional discussion of the pros and cons of a more thorough audit” of the Federal Reserve. While we share your desire for effective congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve, we strongly disagree on the best way to do it.

"In our democracy, Congress must hold the Fed accountable for achieving its economic and financial stability mandate. Congress has wisely delegated circumscribed authority over monetary policy and the lender of last resort function to the Federal Reserve. Doing so is consistent with long experience showing that central bank operational independence helps secure price stability and that the lender of last resort bank can prevent and mitigate financial crises. But for this to be sustainable, Congress must retain sufficient oversight to guarantee that the Fed uses it powers in a manner consistent with its legal mandate. To take but one of many examples, no one wants the central bank to bail out insolvent banks.

"On this much, we agree.

"However, you go on to suggest that the current level of Fed transparency is insufficient to achieve the required level of accountability. While we would have agreed with this view in 1990, we strongly disagree today. It would be difficult to overstate the Fed’s shift toward transparency over the past two decades. Before 1994, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) routinely altered monetary policy without informing the public! Today, we have a clearly stated policy framework, FOMC meeting statements, press conferences, minutes, quarterly publication of participants’ economic and interest rate projections, officials’ speeches, testimony, staff reports, and the list goes on. The information flow is so voluminous that we doubt there is any single person who can digest it all in a timely way.

"Even the most sensitive information regarding specific Fed bank counterparties is now fully disclosed. For example, anyone who wishes to see the details of each Fed loan (including size, interest rate, maturity, collateral, etc.) can find it here with a lag of about two years."

More >>

So two bankers - one who served the BIS and the Federal Reserve as director, and the other an adviser to the US Treasury, and who served as Citibank's Chief Economist of the TBTF bank leading up to the financial crisis - these two bought and paid mooks - don't think the Fed should be further audited. I see.

 
So two bankers - one who served the BIS and the Federal Reserve as director, and the other an adviser to the US Treasury, and who served as Citibank's Chief Economist of the TBTF bank leading up to the financial crisis - these two bought and paid mooks - don't think the Fed should be further audited. I see.



Hey, it works fine for them just as it is.

I find it very odd that we are told that sunlight is the best policy for every aspect of our government, except for national security and anything connected to the Clintons, but when we get to the Fed, it's like whooaa, are you trying to wreck the country? How dare you suggest that unelected bankers who get appointed by other bankers have to justify or even reveal what they do, notwithstanding that it has a tremendous impact on the economy.

I wouldn't want Harry Reid making monetary policy, no. But then I don't want him making any policy. Considering the mess Bernanke made, I doubt congress could do much worse.

Anyway, auditing the Fed is a far cry from abrogating its monetary policy role. It's just more scare talk like we hear every time someone proposes reining in an agency or program.
 
Anyway, auditing the Fed is a far cry from abrogating its monetary policy role. It's just more scare talk like we hear every time someone proposes reining in an agency or program.
The "scare talk", your talk, is that they're hiding something.
 
Why would you support the Fed Transparency Act? You're on record stating over and over that the Fed is already transparent. The Fed is already audited. Why support a full audit, right? Weren't those your positions before?

As for politicizing monetary policy, that ship sailed a long time ago.
The transparency act which I would have supported had the Watt amendment passed, was introduced six years ago.
Since then, I have vehemently opposed all of Paul's proposed legislation along those same lines without the protection for independence of Fed Monetary policy. Thankfully there is no chance any of this crazy legislation will become law and no chance that Rand Paul will become President. .

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._to_audit_the_fed_if_he_succeeds_it_will.html
 
Back
Top