Topic: Federal Reserve
How to get HR 1207 to the House Floor Congressman Dr. Ron Paul's HR 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, with 300 co-sponsors still sits in committee. Here is a radical proposal for getting it out onto the house floor for a vote.by Cliff Adams
(libertarian)
Monday, October 5, 2009
At the time of this writing (Oct 5, 2009), the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, HR1207, has 300 co-sponsors. That is 10 votes more than required for a veto-proof majority. So what’s going on? Why hasn’t the bill come up for a vote? When 300 out of 435 members of the House of Representatives support a bill you would think it would be a no-brainer. But still it sits.
One could go through all of the mechanical details of how a bill goes through and gets out of committees, but they are only visible mechanics and not the engine that’s driving the machine. This bill is a very, very hot topic, as we can see from listening to Chairman B. and other cheerleaders for the Fed making speeches about dire consequences to the economy if the Fed’s "privacy is compromised". Foxes, you understand, need privacy in the matter of the administration of chicken coops; otherwise chicken coops would become frightfully disorganized, and might even descend into anarchy. Foxes also have very sharp teeth, and do not look with favor upon having the privacy of their chicken coops disturbed, especially when it might mean a transition from being a very fat and happy keeper of chickens to being a fur coat. A few trillion dollars buys a lot of influence even in today’s economy, and it would not be surprising if that influence is being very intensively focused on the defeat of HR 1207. So how do we break through that barrier?
Here is what I would propose as an amendment to Congressman Paul’s bill: Offer total immunity and amnesty to anyone and everyone that might be found to be involved in any type of embezzling, misdirecting, or anything that is illegal or inappropriate with all of the trillions of dollars that they have been jockeying around for the past almost 100 years. This would apply only to the first audit, for obvious reasons, and only with full cooperation from those who might need such immunity. I would even include immunity from forfeiture. What we would feel like doing if we discover that our friendly bankers at the Fed have been siphoning off hundreds of billions, or trillions, of dollars for private purposes or questionable projects is not necessarily what will get us the best result.
We cannot fix the past, even though we are looking at the potential discovery of the largest swindle in the history of the world, one that has lasted almost 100 years and involves trillions. The cost is too staggering even to contemplate. It is not just a matter of the money that may have been siphoned off of the productive economy into the pockets of big moneymen and into dubious coffers – the cost must be reckoned in terms of the spiraling, compounding productivity that this money privately invested would have caused, but didn’t. There is simply no way of recovering it – and no need to. What we do need is to re-start the upward spiral, by extracting the information that we have been lacking, and then acting upon it. This is the ball we need to keep our eye on, and to try to fix the past through recrimination and prosecution would be, besides futile, simply a distraction from a future that we owe it to our children and grandchildren to build.
Let us consider three main aspects of the proposal.
We have nothing to gain, either tangible or intangible, from vindictiveness and "righteous indignation". It is the electorate (you and me) that was asleep at the wheel, and we cannot let ourselves off the hook by directing the blame at the foxes that ate the chickens. Foxes always do what foxes always do. Getting into a grandiose drama of moral outrage and indignation is pointless, futile and self-defeating. There is no restitution possible – chickens have been eaten and foxes are licking their lips, and we will find little meat on old chicken bones. What will make a difference is if the public gets an insight into how foxes manage to get themselves appointed as the guardians and administrators of chicken coops - and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Then there will likely be more chickens in our future.
Here is the kicker – adding an amendment to ensure immunity/amnesty will call attention in a non-confrontational (some might say sneaky) way that there may in fact be some very, very high level embezzlement, misdirection and fraud; think of Enron with 3 zeroes added. No one speaks of it out loud in those terms, perhaps partly because the magnitude is to horrifying to contemplate, and partly from fear of the reaction. The immunity/amnesty clause would say it out loud in a way that will bring the thought to people’s attention without the backlash.
It is highly plausible that the same heavy machinery that is in action to stop HR 1207/S 604 from passing will stay in action even if the bill is passed, and follow the audit from start to finish, hamstringing, delaying, derailing, sidetracking and obfuscating wherever possible. The immunity/amnesty clause will grease the wheels that will open the floodgates of information that is vital to the future of the Republic.
If this way of proceeding is successful, it will not only lead to the audit and possible dissolution of the Fed – it will also set a precedent for the larger transformation of the US government. One plank that is missing in the Ron Paul platform is the call for a very gentle and very, very thorough housecleaning, in every single agency of government. The very-gentle is the only viable route to the very-thorough. It is consistent with Dr. Paul’s and his constituents’ Christian spirit and follows the Lincoln principle of "malice toward none and charity for all." As I said, this only works one time; forgiving breaks in integrity in the past does not condone it for the future – but the future will be secured more by structures for transparency and by a new awareness of the electorate than by threats of retribution. Let’s start securing that future now.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 37 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Cliff Adams only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Cliff Adams is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
talk about giving in before the fight starts! Do we really think we will find all of this great information that will show clearly what misdeeds have been done? I think not! But, that said, I do believe that we will cause the foxes to tread with caution in the future while they look to create other loop holes to meet their agenda.
The only path that will take us to where we need to be in order to protect the average american is to get away from Fiat money and bite the bullet. By reverting back to a currency that is backed by some hard commodity will allow us to eliminate the need for so many reglatory branches and teach everyone to live within their means.
Although I agree with the sentiment about immunity - I think if someone was going to propose immunity one would need to state who is and is not immune. For example - I believe only Congressmen and Senators who voted for HR 1207 and S 604 should be immune, and no one else.
There is an old adage that says, "If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem." If Congressmen are part of a solution, then only they should be immune.
To Sid: The point is to get the bill to the floor - that is called winning the fight, not giving it up. What is needed is a massive awakening of the masses, and a thorough audit of the Fed could very well do that. The foxes will eventually die anyway, but awareness passes (or at least it is possible to pass) from generation to generation. Also, pay close attention to item #2 - the current conversation is all about accountablilty and policy, not about culpability. Once you start talking about immunity, then the conversation is forced to be shifted to the subject of culpability. Again, the point is a shift in awareness.
It is not a good idea to corner a fox when you catch him in the chicken coop - they bite, therefore it is not a bad idea to leave him an escape root. Then close the door so he doesn't get back in.
To Steve: Remember that I said, "...only with full cooperation from those who might need such immunity." Meaning only those people involved who gave full disclosure, whether they be members of Congress or not. Come to think of it, it would be pretty dodgy for Representatives or Senators to vote themselves immunity from prosecution based on whether or not they voted for the investigation. In any case, I was thinking more of bankers and cronies.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2009-10-06 15:29:18
This economic disaster is bigger than you not being able to buy topshelf wine. its all fine and dandy that the suffering you have experienced can be easily shrugged off. the fact is in other countries people are loosing whole livlihoods and lives because of the greed and criminality of wall street and the fed. these men are responsible for more than no new prada shoes, or passing on that new omega watch. If they are found to have commited the acts you mention they should be tried and punished according to the law.....and it should not be a wholly american court but a world court...and the punishment should fit the crime:) toodles
The point of the article was to get the bill passed.
Right now even with 300 out of 345 for, does it stand a chance? You would think yes, however you are dealing with the biggest crime against the American people and the Constitution that was ever committed. The FED was created and is run by the most influential people in the world. Don't think they will let you do anything they do not want you to do. If they do not want the FED to end then they will stop this.
The author suggest a little sugar to help the medicine go down which makes sense if it were not for the incredible power behind the FED. The author states "A few trillion dollars buys a lot of influence even in today’s economy, and it would not be surprising if that influence is being very intensively focused on the defeat of HR 1207. So how do we break through that barrier?" I personally do not think you can. Even absolute amnesty will not help persuade the FED to give up unless they wish to. How did Israel get Palestine to stop the war crimes investigation?!!!? Politics are dark and dirty...
I really enjoyed the Foxes and Chickens analogy. We have given the Foxes the job to watch the hen house. How did that happen? We have been betrayed by our own government and we let them betray us. Congressman and Senators gave us the FED, yes they were tricked but still today such simple minds still exist. They do not deserve our trust, most are idiots whom are bought or easily tricked. Therefore when the FED gets this included as an add on to another bill instead of on its own merit, it will be watered down.
Saying all that I really like and respect Ron Paul for trying and I am for anything that would get this bill HR1207 and S604 to pass.
It is funny that Steve Stoltz said that "I believe only Congressmen and Senators who voted for HR 1207 and S 604 should be immune, and no one else." I don't think that Congress or the senate have dirty hands from the FEDS. They are in the dark as much as anyone as to what is happening with the money. However Steve Stoltz is onto something. I think that the American voters should say very clearly that if your name is not on the sponsor list of this bill say goodbye to your job. We will not vote for you!
As much as I want the wrong doers to suffer I know it's not my place to judge, and agree with this article. We will get more bees with honey. It's very insightful. Can I please repost on my campaignforliberty.com blog?
Amber: It's fine for anyone to link to this article from blogs or websites. Maybe you can bring it to Dr. Paul's attention next time you talk to him. :)
I believe there is much more to the issue than misdeeds. I doubt if past misdeeds are the issue.
The House was foolish and established a committee whose members are closely tied to Big Banking. The very forces that created our recession and the world wide recession, are represented in that committee. This is political thinking, do you see?
You put onto your Finance Committee those members of the House who are most closely tied to Big Money. Because, after all, they know the area best. This is political thinking. This leads us to our present situation.
This is not democractic thinking. Democractic think would nominate committee members who know something about finance, but are not closely tied with Big Money.
Political thinking would nominate committee members who are most closely tied to Big Money. And that is the situation we have here. Transparancy is not in the committee member's best interest.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
