Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

More Congressional Misdirection and Ineptitude



November 20, 2009 – Comments (5)

I have been studying the Ron Paul bill regarding the Fed (Federal Reserve Transparency Act) and a few things strike me not only about the bill, but also about the people pushing it. 

First off, the bill is a mediocre at best piece of legislation and at worst a foot on the throat of the capital engine in the nation.  While I would agree with a Comptroller General audit of the Fed about 3/4 of the way through a Fed Chairman's term for the purpose of transparency, this bill seems to be pushing much more towards Congressional oversight of monetary policy.

Here's my question: Does it make sense for Congress to have much more say on monetary policy? 

Here's my answer: Hell no!  And here's why.  Congress has done an abysmal job with fiscal policy the past decade, which is much easier to administer than monetary policy.  How on earth can we trust them with the more difficult task of economic direction using monetary policy if they can not handle the easier one of fiscal policy?

Largely Congress' failure- which we all know- is due to the lobbying by entrenched and special interests on Congress and Congressional capitulation- or outright bribe taking (anybody else have a problem with Congress people being able to keep their campaign funds when they leave office).  I hate to say it, but our congress is about 3/4 bought right now.  Until we vote the bums out, and preferably enact two huge reforms- term limits and that unused campaign funds must be donated to the Election Trust fund when leaving office- we don't stand a chance with these guys.

Here's the really fun part.  The folks in Congress trying to fix things (if you believe that's what most of them really care about) are the same people who broke things.  That kills me.  The same people who screwed up are trying to tell us the solutions.  Now there is some merit in correcting one's mistakes, however, do we really believe these people have the answers?

Well, a few in Congress have a clue.  But not many.  We should really get over the notion that our best and brightest are up there in D.C.  Our best and brightest are at the second level of management in most cases at privately held companies.  We ought to be asking them for 8-12 years of service and somehow find a legit way to compensate them. 

Just to drive home the point how bad Congress is right now- on both sides- take for example these idiots jumping on Geithner this week.  Really?  Really??? Seems like an awful lot of politics from a bunch of screw ups trying to save their jobs.  Brady, Burgess, DeFazio, man o man, what a bunch of know nothing and corrupt rhetorical ideologues desperate to save their own butts.

Let's take another moment to look at who voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act at (if you don't understand that was the teeing up of the ball for the financial collapse you have no business discussing any of this) and then cross reference the sponsors of the current bill to control the Fed. An awful lot of overlap there.  Pretty scary if you ask me. 

So finally, take a minute to THINK ABOUT IT all, the way the Kid from Brooklyn suggests. 

Come on folks, let's clean house next year.  Don't just vote against incumbents, let's go a step further.  Vote against incumbents in your party's primary so if you want, you can still vote for your party in the general.  Let's create races of new candidates who can all touch the middle with a step and a dive, no more of these imbeciles from either the radical right or the loony left.  Come on, du it for the children.

5 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM, russiangambit (28.71) wrote:

We are not talking about Congress running monetary policy, even though they are  supposed to, per the Consitution.

All we want is to know what the Central Bank , i.e. FED, is doing post-factum.

And FED is doing far more than monetary policy these days. If it stuck to the monetary policy, then I would have no issue.

But FED now controls the mortgage market, the derivatives market and who knows what else. Congress shouldn't be in the derivatives business either, but hiring an audit firm that can do an audit, is another matter. They have auditors for TARP program, why not for the FED? It is not like TARP is being audited by Barney Frank himself.

I can't stand any secrecy where the government is concerned. As soon as they are allowed to keep secrets all kinds of things start going on. Don't forget , most of people in the government are the kind who get a kick out of having power. When they get right to secrecy, they immediately start assembling more power. In fact, the secrecy itself is a form of power.

Report this comment
#2) On November 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM, kirkydu (90.79) wrote:

Yeah fine, but read the bill, it's not just about a simple audit once per term like I'd support. 

Report this comment
#3) On November 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM, JamesBKRlawyer (< 20) wrote:

The U.S. Government today generally dont have to keep things secret since they can rely upon complacency and the inherent complexity of the political and economic systems to keep most voters wholly ignorant of what is going on.  Of course, they often try anyway to reduce the chance that anybody will see what is happening.  Until we rid ourselves of the election cycles that are a load of crap in the first place, we're not going to see much happen with elected officials.  The only difference between a democrat and a republican is the constituency they lie to in order to simply feather their own nest and follow the dictates of their primary financial supporters.  That ain't traditional American Democracy.  Congress should be chosen by a random draft of citizens who are then given fixed terms and paid a solid amount of money.  They then would have less motivation to do the wrong thing.  Anything less will simply land us back in this problem again.

Report this comment
#4) On November 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM, russiangambit (28.71) wrote:

>   Congress should be chosen by a random draft of citizens who are then given fixed terms and paid a solid amount of money.  They then would have less motivation to do the wrong thing.  Anything less will simply land us back in this problem again.

Like a jury duty? Intresting idea.


Report this comment
#5) On November 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, kirkydu (90.79) wrote:

That is interesting.  I could see the House using a system like that.  Would have to have some sort of qualifications though.  IQ 100+, age 30, not bankrupt.  I pick 'em. 

I don't care, but I'm shocked the kid from brooklyn didn't get this 50 recs, who cares what I said was right.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners