Sen. Paul Introduces Audit the Fed Bill

[Buckwald]

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has reintroduced the "audit the Fed bill"

Feb 5, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul has introduced the bipartisan Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013. Known widely as "Audit the Fed," the bill calls to eliminate restrictions on Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits of the Federal Reserve and mandating the Fed's credit facilities, securities purchases, and quantitative easing activities would be subject to Congressional oversight.

"The Fed's operations under a cloak of secrecy have gone on too long and the American people have a right to know what the Federal Reserve is doing with our nation's money supply," Sen. Paul said. "Audit the Fed has significant bipartisan support in Congress and across the country and the time to act on this is now."

During the 112^th Congress, Audit the Fed legislation (H.R. 459) passed the House of Representatives handily, 327-98.Sen. Paul's version, S. 209, currently has 19 bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate and companion legislation was introduced earlier this year in the House of Representatives and currently has over 100 co-sponsors.

Below is the link to the legislation:
http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=694

[Reeve]

Oh god, the last thing we need is Congressional Oversight of monetary policy.

[Deadvolcanoes]

I'm all for transparency, but what exactly do people expect to find when we audit the fed? What happens when we find out its just business as usual?

[Buckwald]

Oh god, the last thing we need is Congressional Oversight of monetary policy.

And keeping oversight of monetary policy in "The Fed" is better? Most likely not.

I'm all for transparency, but what exactly do people expect to find when we audit the fed? What happens when we find out its just business as usual?

You mean what happens IF we found out it's business as usual? Should that be the case, then public policy, with regards to spending, taxes and budgeting in general, will be changed. But, it's good to know what EXACTLY we're working with.

[Reeve]

And keeping oversight of monetary policy in "The Fed" is better? Most likely not.

I kinda think so. Having monetary policy subject to the whims of current politics probably isn't so good. You end up with Fed chairmen dragged up in front of Congress for some Kabuki Theater to appease people who are afraid of Quantitative Easing, even when the congressional types themselves know it's a good idea.

It's already in the Fed's best interest to keep the US economy strong and keep the dollar valuable.

[Buckwald]

I kinda think so. Having monetary policy subject to the whims of current politics probably isn't so good. You end up with Fed chairmen dragged up in front of Congress for some Kabuki Theater to appease people who are afraid of Quantitative Easing, even when the congressional types themselves know it's a good idea.

It's already in the Fed's best interest to keep the US economy strong and keep the dollar valuable.

But, the fed already adjusts its policies based on the current political climate. It prints more money for the banks which causes inflation, which is has been doing for quite some time.

And even if congress doesn't take control of monetary policy, which let's be honest it already has control, at least the fed won't be able to just do what it wants, when it wants because it doesn't have the ability to keep its books closed.

[Reeve]

Let's also not forget that the House of Representatives, due to its tiny 2 year terms, is heavily influenced by fundraising/lobbyists. It's a bit of a conflict of interests to have the monetary policy of the country set by people who are so heavily influenced by industry.

[Tinykong]

Would have preferred "abolish the Federal Reserve, and return the gold standard."

Won't be getting it.

[Buckwald]

Let's also not forget that the House of Representatives, due to its tiny 2 year terms, is heavily influenced by fundraising/lobbyists. It's a bit of a conflict of interests to have the monetary policy of the country set by people who are so heavily influenced by industry.

The same people (bankers, interest groups, etc) who fund the house (and the senate) already have ties to the fed and government agencies. There would be no major change, except in the realm of public policy. Those who run it now, will run it then.

[Reeve]

I should clarify. I'm OK with the idea of auditing the Fed's books so that what's going on is in the public record. What I'm NOT OK with is forcing the Fed to go to congress with hat in hand to say, "Mother may I please adjust interest rates?" because I think that will just turn into another political football, like the debt ceiling, or the fiscal cliff.

[Rennadrel]

Money auditing the Federal Reserve would be better spent forcing all the money out of those offshore bank accounts of the rich and back into the tax revenue stream. Imagine what you could do with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue that is tied up in international accounts but should rightfully be taxed by the American government?

[Reeve]

Money auditing the Federal Reserve would be better spent forcing all the money out of those offshore bank accounts of the rich and back into the tax revenue stream. Imagine what you could do with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue that is tied up in international accounts but should rightfully be taxed by the American government?

I have a feeling trying to do that would end in a lot of bad unintended consequences.

[Acquilae]

Money auditing the Federal Reserve would be better spent forcing all the money out of those offshore bank accounts of the rich and back into the tax revenue stream.

But but but that would be punishing success!

[Spectral]

A Congressman pushing a Congressional power grab? No way, you'd never expect that.

[Palonus]

This is the last thing we need. The Fed is already more transparent than they have ever been.
They have been very clear about what they are doing with "credit facilities, securities purchases, and quantitative easing activities".
If you think they are doing one thing while saying another, that would be an entirely different issue.
(It would also be next to impossible as the bond market and banks would know long before congress did!)

The US Fed has done a supremely better job than any other monetary authority in the world during this crisis.
I shudder to think how they would have done if they had to answer to guys like Rand Paul before doing anything.

[Reeve]

This is the last thing we need. The Fed is already more transparent than they have ever been.
They have been very clear about what they are doing with "credit facilities, securities purchases, and quantitative easing activities".
If you think they are doing one thing while saying another, that would be an entirely different issue.
(It would also be next to impossible as the bond market and banks would know long before congress did!)

The US Fed has done a supremely better job than any other monetary authority in the world during this crisis.
I shudder to think how they would have done if they had to answer to guys like Rand Paul before doing anything.

Exactly my thoughts.

[Dallan]

A Congressman pushing a Congressional power grab? No way, you'd never expect that.

Not to mention that Rand Paul is fucking looney.

[kunah]

In theory it makes sense. But not with the current congress. If there was a return to normalcy on the GOP side I would say yes. But they are just too flakey to handle that responsibility atm.

This wont even get a floor vote.

[Vargur]

Sean Paul Introduces Audit the Fed Bill.

But that didn't make any sense, so I read it again.

[Puremallace]

If this passes we go into a recession tomorrow. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about what is going on knows what this will cause. If something like this ever passes with the current congress buy gold and put your head between your ass and kiss this country good bye.