You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
Two Opposing Amendments Emerge That Seek To Either Perpetuate The Fed's Secrecy, Or Overturn It
- AIG
- Alan Grayson
- American Express
- American International Group
- Bank of America
- Bank of America
- Bear Stearns
- Bond
- Central Banks
- Chrysler
- Fed Transparency
- Federal Reserve
- Foreign Central Banks
- Grayson
- Mel Watt
- Monetary Policy
- New York City
- Prudential
- Rating Agencies
- ratings
- Real estate
- Ron Paul
- TALF
- Transparency
- Wachovia
As the time to make or break the Fiat Money Overlords (no, not Chrysler), aka the Successor to the Second Bank of The United States which President Andrew Jackson managed to disassemble in 1832, yet which came back with a vengeance in 1913 under the guise of the Federal Reserve, approaches, two independent amendments emerged today: one drafted by Fed transparency proponents Ron Paul and Alan Grayson (found here) and one by Bank of America and Citigroup's favorite Congressman, North Carolina democrat Mel Watt (found here). As a reminder, here is a list of the Congressman's top contributors and sources of money in 2007-2008, which may explain some of his motivations: #1 Bank of America;#2 Wachovia Corp;#3 American Express;#4 American Bankers Assn.
Some more color:
Overall
in 2007-08, [Watt] received $187,359 from the Finance/Real Estate sector,
more than double the amount of money he received from any other sector.
Outside of North Carolina, his home state, Watt received the most
contributions from Washington D.C. and New York City.
Here is what the HuffPo had to say about the parallel fight between these two amendments, whose outcome will undoubtedly determine the future of America's financial, and thus political, system:
Watt pitched his amendment in a letter to colleagues circulated
Tuesday. "While my amendment will certainly fall short of demands by
those intent on destroying the independence (if not the existence) of
the Fed, the critics of my amendment will have to concede...that my
amendment will provide transparency of the Fed's financial operations
that will be completely unprecedented," he wrote.
In fact, the critics are conceding no such thing. "The Watt
Amendment, as written today, actually places new restrictions on the
little authority that exists, such as it is, for independent auditing
of the Fed," Grayson said. "It keeps in place all existing restrictions
and adds four more. So I don't see why anybody would reasonably think
that it creates unprecedented authority to audit the Fed."
It should be pointed out that Ron Paul's Bill HR 1207 to Audit The Fed has 310 co-sponsors currently: a number sufficient for seamless passage of the bill, absent such purposeful roadblocks as Mr. Watt.
An ever eloquent Grayson had this to say about the recourse the Watt amendment would provide to those intent on "auditing" the Fed: "Count the pencils on the desks," Grayson speculated. "Perhaps check on proper Metro card usage."
As the US is already on its road to having an incremental $10 trillion in budget deficits over the next decade, all likely financed with new debt, the last thing the economy needs is to be saddled with a bankruptcy inducing leverage load, and have no ability to monitor just how the bankers continue to rape and pillage the American middle class. This will become especially critical the next time the bubble pops (and pop it will, as the current batch of Fed inhabitants made about 20 public appearance over the past 24 hours saying how they see no bubbles in the making).
Zero Hedge stands firmly behind the Paul-Grayson amendment, and we believe it would be a huge threat to the country, which is already likely on its way to debt repudiation regardless, if the Watt Amendment were to pass.
Mel Watt's letter to his few remaining colleagues:
Dear Financial Services Committee Colleague:
This week during the Financial Services Committee markup of the
Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, I plan to introduce an
amendment to provide historic transparency to the operations of the
Federal Reserve. While my amendment will certainly fall short of
demands by those intent on destroying the independence (if not the
existence) of the Fed, the critics of my amendment will have to concede
(1) that I have worked diligently with them to find all possible common
ground and (2) that my amendment will provide transparency of the Fed's
financial operations that will be completely unprecedented.
My amendment acknowledges that taxpayers have a right to know how
their money is being spent. To that end, my amendment will expand the
audit powers of the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") over the
Federal Reserve to all financial activities of the Fed.
I. Complete GAO Audit Authority of the Numbers.
Under my amendment, the GAO will have complete authority to review and audit, including by onsite examination:
(1) Federal Reserve programs, activities and operations: A full
audit of the functions, programs, activities and operations of the
Federal Reserve Board and Federal reserve banks relating to prudential
supervision, provision of currency, check clearing and collection
services, payment systems operations and provision of wire transfer
services;
(2) Federal Reserve financial statements: A full audit, of the kind
performed by outside auditors, of the Federal Reserve's financial
statements, including all the Fed's assets and liabilities no matter
how they are acquired or incurred; and
(3) "Emergency" 13(3) lending facilities: An audit of the emergency
actions taken by the Fed under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act
("13(3) powers") to extend credit to a single partnership or
corporation, or broad liquidity facilities for distressed markets,
including:
* The effectiveness of the Fed's internal control structure to
ensure limited risk exposure to the Fed with respect to each liquidity
facility and the prevention of waste, fraud and abuse in the use of
that facility;
* Whether the collateral policies and procedures appropriately address risk to the Fed;
* Whether credit extended and fees charged by the Fed are collected
in accordance with the terms and conditions established by the Fed;
* The manner in which the Federal Reserve system accounts for the
facility on its balance sheet and the adequacy of the procedures for
financial reporting.
For example, my amendment would allow the GAO to audit the financial
aspects of multi-billion dollar credit facilities extended to Bear
Stearns and AIG during last year's financial crisis, as well as the
broader market credit facilities such as the Term Asset-backed Loan
Facility (TALF). In addition, the specific names of borrowers of 13(3)
credit facilities would be disclosed after 1 year.
In sum, the GAO will have new powers under my amendment to audit
every aspect of the Fed's nearly $2 trillion balance sheet, providing
unprecedented transparency to the American people.
II. No Interference with Monetary Policy.
The critics of my amendment will say that it does not allow the GAO
to audit or second guess Fed monetary policy decisions. They are
correct. My amendment strikes a sensible balance between providing
increased transparency to the public, while preserving the
long-standing independence of the Federal Reserve regarding the making
of monetary policy. Every industrialized nation observes strict
independence of their central banks to set monetary policy and shields
them from undue political interference. Such independence from
political interference is important for several reasons:
* An independent central bank can limit inflation and promote
economic growth. If there is even the perception that politics is
interfering with monetary policy decisions, fears of inflation could
rise and erode market confidence in the ability of the central bank to
make sound economic decisions, which could cause higher prices and
increased job losses;
* Bond rating agencies view the independence of central banks as an
important factor in determining sovereign credit ratings. An erosion of
Federal Reserve independence could harm the credit rating of Treasury
bills, increasing our cost of borrowing and hurting the economy in the
form of higher prices to all American consumers;
* Foreign central banks would fear engaging in transactions with a
politically compromised Federal Reserve, which could destabilize the
U.S. and international economies.
Recently, over 400 economists, academics and former government
officials signed the attached petition supporting the independence of
the Federal Reserve regarding monetary policy. The petition included
three winners of the Nobel Prize in economics and five former
presidents of the American Economics Association. The notion that we
should allow the GAO or any other government agency to audit or second
guess Fed monetary policy is nonsensical and would be terrible public
policy.
Conclusion
My amendment strikes the appropriate balance of increasing Federal
Reserve transparency while preventing political interference with
monetary policy. Only a transparent central bank, free from political
interference, can effectively carry out its congressionally-required
dual mandate of stable prices and fostering job growth. I hope you will
support the amendment to provide an historic advance of transparency at
the Federal Reserve while preserving its independence to be able to
fulfill the dual missions for which it was formed.
/S/
MELVIN L. WATT
»
- 4123 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:
- Time To Make The Federal Reserve Accountable For Its Actions
- Dylan Ratigan Discusses The "Audit The Fed" Support Letter
- A Less Than Opaque Look At Mel Watt's Motivations To Kill The "Audit The Fed" Bill
- Support the Sanders-Feingold-DeMint-Leahy-McCain-Vitter-Brownback Federal Reserve Transparency Amendment to the Financial Reform Bill
- Guest Post: Damien Hoffman Exclusive Interview With Alan Grayson
Have an open debate. Paul/Greyson vs. Watt.
ha, could only wish i suppose...
Congressional switchboard: 1-866-220-0044
Just emailed my critter (he serves on barney's committee) who is a cosponsor of HR 1207 and indicated my displeasure with the Watt amendment and indicated any support of Watt is a vote against transparency in gov't.
by the way, Mel, do you really think the Fed is independent? Of what? of whom?
I'm in no way condoning violence, but why can't Watt have one of those unfortunate hiking accidents, or have a heart attack while going for a late night swim. Doesn't BofA have a branch over in the Ukraine he can go visit for a few?
of the folks that make the law and the law the folks make
I suspect that Mr. Watts wouldn't propose that amendment without the secret blessing of that fat queen Barney Frank. Trust me, these drama queens love to stir shit up behind the scenes. They're so two faced. I hope I'm wrong but he already admitted in a nytimes article that he was working with Blackhawk Benny. If you're the type to let your political feelings be known here are Barneys numbers: 202-225-5931; 617-332-3920; 508-999-6462; 508-822-4796.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/business/11fed.html
There's no doubt at all that Frank sat his fat ass on 1207 until he could find someone on the committee willing to nerf the bill. The man helped make bad loans "a policy," and hasn't lifted a finger to reinstate Glass-Steagall, why on God's green earth would he want to start encouraging transparency and fiscal responsibility now?
Trust me, these drama queens love to stir shit up behind the scenes. They're so two faced. I hope I'm wrong..
Wrong?? You couldn't be more right..
I've said this before,,, They are 535 commoditized temple monkeys scouring the ruins of America searching for bribes,,The whorehouse on the hill where you can slide in a quarter and out slides the desired legislation...Creeping coup..
All crashing down now fellas,,,what bunker are you going to run to now??? hmmmm
Similar cycles in modern history (400+ years) have seen landmark banking changes, especially Federal / CB, occur at very similar junctures. A simple extrapolation from rather complex research, assumes that monumental changes will occur at a similar point with the current 'cycle' no earlier than two years from now and no later than six.
Furthermore .. would you rather be whining about the federal deficit with Jim and Tracy at the water cooler or listening to a CB radio at home while you cook a hot dog, without a job, a lifeline or a prayer. Feels great to complain about something together, doesn't it? We all agree, yay; yet very few have any clue about what they are speaking to and 99.99% of us harbor xyz emotions because everyone else does, so ... we herd.
Are you saying...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygxi2YOn5sM&feature=related
conclusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8&feature=related
Skippy...a film of my youth reintroduced on another blog to my aging self bewilderment.
Let's all take the time ( repeatedly and obsessively) to remind our elected officials that we the people refuse to endure their treacherous decision making and if they intend on representing us in the future, they need to do so by supporting HR1207 and S604.
This has been suggested and discussed before. I've done exactly this (all 3 of my reps, via phone and e-mail), but I would be an idiot to think it makes any difference. Quixotic is more like it.
After leaving those messages anyway, here's the 1 response I got, from my rep:
The last line probably sums it up best, unfortunately. These people are owned - and not by those they represent.
the last line really does some it up, doesn't it
the whole country is "unattended"
Generally speaking, the easy equation between "transparency" or "just knowing what the hell is going on" and "interference" is not made in the business world. Public corps file public documents that tell outsiders what's going on inside. Yet when it comes to the Fed, any realistic, real-time information on just what the hell they're doing, and how, and where all the money is going, and how much they're creating out of thin air, and under what authority they do any of this stuff is strictly verboten. This has to stop. If it's a house of cards, we may as well find out now. When the dollar hits zero, it's zero. Why does it matter if we find out how, exactly, it happened?
Ditto Mr. Washington...I have become a thorn in the side of my local "leadership"
Unfortunately we are not the majority...
Even more interesting is why was Mr. Watt trading leveraged short ETF's in 2008? If you look at his disclosure you would see several transactions and it would be interesting to see if those transactions occurred before or after meetings/votes for certain bailouts...
link? google permutations on this search are failing me
i don't think there is any ban or ethical prohibition against congress critters trading.....
You, sir, are correct...no such thing as insider trading if you're a member of CONgress. This trading is nothing out of the ordinary.
This article is very dated, but still holds it's value...
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/03/28/more-on-congress-and-insider-trading/
Mel Watt's office:
202-225-1510. Tell him he's not welcomed back to the hill next year with the mickey mouse amendment.
Take a look at the gerrymandered 12th House District of North Carolina, which runs along I-85 picking up majority African-American parts of towns for 150 miles or so. It used to go even further east on 85, to Durham, until a court ruled it unconstitutional. Watt's House seat is not in any jeopardy, which makes him the perfect front man for killing the bill to audit the Fed.
http://watt.house.gov/SupportingFiles/documents/NC12_109.pdf
Thanks for the map. I'll send a link to the ZH article to the editors of the various fishwrap vendors in Mel's district.
john thain......is this guy serious??????
mel watt is a fat piece of crap who needs to be sucked down an atomic toilet....
"My amendment acknowledges that taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent..."
since when is the fed authorized to spend taxpayer money? it's supposed to be self funding but asshole's helief is that it is a 4th branch of government which should spend tax payer dollars without representation.
the fed should not be making monetary policy - it belongs with the treasury if you are going to have an evil squid such as central planning...
and to suppose that the fed is independent of political forces is the most comical farce since the 3 stooges....bernanke, paulson, and dimon were in constant cahoots during the planned economic meltdown last year....the rawest form of politics ever to decide who was going to divy up the spoils....
the fed was brought into existence to serve the political interests of the plutocrats....
abolish the fed now.
It's going to take an infuriated public pouring out into the streets - especially Maiden Lane. Washington does not understand the severity of the situation and how it relates to integrity of the financial markets. They are currently opaque.
Anyway, its all gonna be fine now, since Lloyd has apologized:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/782afd66-d3bd-11de-8caf-00144feabdc0.html?ncli...
Well everytime I brutally beat the crap out of Goldman Sachs. I pledge to doctor the wounds 1 percent of the time and say I'm sorry 3 percent of the time. Cause that's my idea of wholeness.
Thank you TD for your effort. And thank you to those of you who contact your reps.
Sadly, we will not see an audit. The Fed IS the United States. The banks. They. Own. Everything. And they own the Fed.
Only with catastrophic implosion will we have change.
As much as I don't want to believe that, my big fear is that it is true. I spent a lot of weekends this summer with Campaign for Liberty going door to door to get petition signatures to urge congress to support HR 1207. I was really proud to see it get national attention and to have secured so many co-sponsors. If Mell Watt wins... I'm not sure where we go from here.
The second half of the Joe Biden interview with Jon Stewart on tonight's show is appalling. How long will we have to endure these lies? It can't go on much longer. Can it?
The second half of the Joe Biden interview with Jon Stewart on tonight's show is appalling. How long will we have to endure these lies? It can't go on much longer. Can it?
yes svend..we are an impotent populace (since the vietnam war) all chasing money..
Thanks for continuing to support this Tyler. You guys have done a great job spreading the word about 1207 this year.
I wouldn't characterize the efforts to push out the Watt amendment to be necesarily a futile exercise. Any efforts to contact our representatives to endorse Grayson's/Paul's alternatives is something we CAN do... and with over 300 reps endorsing Audit the Fed, it can help.
That being said, this will be a tough uphill battle. These Watt amendments, as constructed, have Barney Frank's dirty little hands all over them. And then there will be snakes in the Senate to deal with.
Point being, if we don't succeed with full audit authority... we will be revisiting Fed transparency as we protest in the streets.
I perfer we don't go that far.
+1
I wrote my 2 Senators last week and they actually personally responsed so they are listening. I recommend anyone who really wants to assist in getting this pass take 10 minutes out and write your senators.
It is time for another round to hound congress.
Using the ZH reference, I found that my TX Senator Cornyn's no. one contributer is Exxon and no. two is JPM. The other Senator, Hutchison has law firms as the top individual contributors. My representative, McCaul, has my employer in his top five individual contributors.
By industry, the top contributors are:
1. Cornyn has Lawyers/Law Firms, Retired, Oil & Gas, Health Professionals, and Real Estate.
2. Hutchison has Lawyers/Law Firms, Retired, Oil & Gas, Misc Finance, and Real Estate.
3. McCaul has Misc Finance, Oil & Gas, Real Estate, Leadership PACs, and Computers/Internet.
In summary, there are conflicts of interest between Fed transparency and support from Real Estate and Finance.
Industry wide I see Retired as a contributor. Anyone know who this would be? How do the contributions of lawyers to congress affect finance?