Ron Paul: The Fed’s Attack Dog is At It Again

[William Tell]

The Fed’s Attack Dog is At It Again

Written by Ron Paul

Friday February 13, 2015




Richard Fisher, the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank president, is once again going after everyone who supports an audit of the Federal Reserve System. In particular he has been hitting at Sen. Rand Paul for having introduced Senate Bill 264, which calls for a full audit of the Fed. Fisher has no new arguments against the audit. He repeats the same old clichés that have come from the Federal Reserve for the past several decades. I certainly have heard them all several times recited by Federal Reserve Board chairmen as they testified before the House Financial Services Committee.

The argument that the Fed is already audited is purposely misleading. Yes there is a minor financial audit of day-to-day expenditures of the Fed, but there has never been a full audit of the policies and the privileges passed out to the special interests. That is what remains secret – especially all foreign transactions.

Once again the Fed, through Richard Fisher’s recent tirades against the transparency of the Fed which 80% of the American people support, places all the blame on Congressional shortcomings. Though this is part of the problem, it is the expected consequence of the Federal Reserve becoming politicized and accommodating the politicians by monetizing the debt run-up for the purpose of pursuing illegal wars and excessive runaway domestic welfare spending. All the Fed needs to do to correct deficit spending is to quit buying government debt and quit accommodating the political special interests. Yes interest rates would rise, which would curtail Congressional spending and the Federal Reserve’s printing presses.

When members of the Federal Reserve Board argue against transparency of the Fed, they are arguing for secrecy for policies for which they would be embarrassed if they became public record.

Fisher, of course, like all Fed officials, confuses the issue by deliberately misinterpreting the audit the Fed legislation, claiming it would give Congress the authority to manipulate interest rates and credit as a central economic planner. The audit the Fed bills do nothing of the sort. The free market and the Constitution give no authority for either the Fed or the Congress to operate as a central economic planner.

Fisher concludes his statement attacking those of us who argue for transparency of the Fed by saying: “Audit the Fed is nothing more than an attempt to override purely economic judgments and bend monetary policy to the will of politicians. It is misguided. I pray we don’t go there. I can think of nothing that would do more damage to our nation’s prosperity.”

I would like to modify his last sentence to reflect what he’s actually thinking: “I can think of nothing that would do more damage to Wall Street’s prosperity, for which we central bankers are obligated to protect.”

---

Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...s-at-it-again/

[Brian4Liberty]

Gangsters don't like audits.

[Warlord]

Nice... the Fed is out of control

[osan]

" I can think of nothing that would do more damage to our nation’s prosperity.”

WHAT prosperity? Oh, you mean the prosperity that inflected several decades ago and has been diminishing ever since?

One thing that should be included in this audit, were it ever to happen, is the requirement that all the Fed bosses be gathered in one place to "answer questions" during the process. They would be kept under armed guard "for their safety, as well as that of the public's" until such time as the results are known, made 100% public, and show nothing for which they could be held criminally accountable, at which time they would be released. Otherwise, they would be taken to Guantanamo to await a military tribunal as enemy combatants. I would give them the courtesy of a drumhead trial, but no lawyers allowed. They may speak in their own defense. They may lie if it pleases them, or tell the truth, but upon conviction they would all occupy solitary cells for the rest of their lives. Zero human contact whatsoever. No voices. No vision. No touch. No scent but their own. Food specifically engineered to have absolutely no flavor whatsoever. I would welcome them to Hell with a quiet smile, lock them in, and toss the key into the bay. If they needed to be moved, I would drug or gas them into unconsciousness so they would perceive nothing of it. And I would let the entire world witness the daily reality of these demons until they took their last rattling gasps.

I have before written on the weakness of the Constitution but have been remiss in listing specifics. Time to make amends. A major flaw in our Bill of Rights may be found in the structure of the Eight Amendment, which states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I will not go into a fuller analysis here, but shall focus on the "cruel and unusual punishments" aspect. While I agree with this proscription for the civilian, I vehemently disagree with it as applied to any holder of a public office or other public position, whether elected, appointed, or a simple hire. Anyone taking upon his shoulders the mantle of the public trust should be excepted from this prohibition for the duration of his life regarding those actions he took while under his oath of duty to the public. All such people should be required to swear such an oath prior to assuming their positions. They should have no protection whatsoever against valid investigations for that which they did while under tenure. No statute of limitations should apply, either. You say you want to be a public servant? You say you will discharge your duties with honor and honesty? We are glad to hear it, but expect you to surrender your protections in order to fully secure our confidence in your word as a servant of your fellows.

Fairness only demands that anyone bringing such a servant to jeopardy bear similar hazards if they are deemed to be prosecuting their investigations for any unsavory reasons - payback, conflicting interest, and so forth.

In short, I would make violation of the public trust so great a hazard that none but the most deeply criminal would dare it.

We don't need agencies such as the DEA, DHS, and so forth. What we need is a Depeartment of Governmental Restraint and Accountability - GRA- that employs every single one of us, without pay, for a lifetime. No compulsion to discharge your duties, but only purely voluntary action. Where governmentally committed crime is concerned, there would be no Constitutional protections of the individuals accused of committing those crimes. IMO, this is what is needed to keep our fellows' behaviors civil and respectful of the rest.