Ron Paul Gets His Shot at the Federal Reserve and Debt Based Money
The news that Ron Paul now gets the chance to take on the Fed is making pro-Fed people very nervous. by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Friday, December 10, 2010
Reuters, among other news sources, is reporting that Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has been named by incoming House Republicans as the next chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee. The big bankers and politicians rarely get news this bad, and Ben Bernanke's life just got miserable.
It's not known how much incoming House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio was influenced by the likely negative reaction of Paul's supporters if he had followed his original instincts and tried to block Paul's nomination to the post. Also, the largest tea parties get a break on the issue, being able to put off for another day the inevitable split that would have occurred in their ranks if they had chosen not to fight for Dr. Paul on this issue. However, the Washington Post did report that a group of about 30 tea party-aligned groups wrote a letter urging Congressman Spencer Bachus of Alabama, who has been chosen to chair the parent House Financial Services Committee, and Boehner to support Paul's bid for subcommittee chairman. In the letter, the groups warned that the "implied message" of blocking Paul would be "one of indifference towards the concerns of those who helped put the Republican Party back in the majority." It's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Paul, but it's better than what we've seen before. The Post article didn't specify which groups signed the letter. My guess is that none of the largest tea party groups were involved.
Today, reactions across press-land are varied. The Financial Post asks bluntly, "Can this man kill the Fed?", while Politico says simply, "Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sparked the movement to 'audit the Fed.' Now he might get his way."
So what will Paul's priorities be once he takes over the subcommittee's reigns? The Atlantic reports that his top two priorities are to challenge the Fed's latest round of quantitative easing, but even more importantly to investigate the Fed's role in fomenting the business cycle, also known as the "boom/bust" cycle. Since Paul already knows, via the teachings of the Austrian School of Economics, that the Fed is responsible for that cycle, this really means that he plans to use his new power to educate the American public about those teachings.
That thought put a smile on my face this morning as I perused the news.
I'm sure we will now see a renewed vigor in support of his Audit The Fed bill, which was swamped and sunk by Barney Frank last year leading up to its watered-down inclusion in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 signed into law by President Obama in July. Frank's comments since the latest revelations about who the Fed ended up bailing out as a result of the financial crisis suggest that he may be on board with Dr. Paul on the issue this year much more than last year, and that (in this case) it has nothing to do with a change in which party is in control of the House. I'm confident, though, that Dr. Paul will now not be satisfied with merely auditing the Fed. I expect we'll see many of his other prized bills get greater attention, including his Free Competition in Currency Act, and with son Rand sitting in the other chamber, things could get very interesting in fractional reserve banking land.
One of the more entertaining things we'll be watching will be the periodic grilling Ron Paul gives Ben Bernanke when he reports to the subcommittee. That's always been widely watched in financial circles in the past, but from now on those confrontations should become much more entertaining, now that Paul is less restricted that he was before as a simple subcommittee member.
But more than anything, I hope Paul's new-found power leads to a greater public awareness of the inherent harm to all of us with continuing to use a monetary system based on debt-based money. I intend to do my part to continue to help educate America in regard to this bane of our existence as human beings on his planet.
Go get 'em, Dr. Paul!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 24
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen 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.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: December 11, 2010 11:40:50 AM
In the letter, the groups warned that the "implied message" of blocking Paul would be "one of indifference towards the concerns of those who helped put the Republican Party back in the majority." It's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Paul, but it's better than what we've seen before. The Post article didn't specify which groups signed the letter. My guess is that none of the largest tea party groups were involved.
You're right. Searching for an exact match on the quote, I discovered that this "Tea Party" letter was actually the open letter issued by the Republican Liberty Caucus on Wednesday. Here's the URL:
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: December 12, 2010 02:20:40 PM
Hi Walt,
My guess is there are more people in the GOP and more people who would self-label as a Tea Party person who are terrified of Ron Paul having an influence on the operations of the FED. It is good to see the RLC doing something constructive for a change even it it is just writing a letter. Generally the RLC is about a useful in the defense of liberty as the LP -- which is to say, not effective at all, and for the same reasons. (self-righteous self-marginalization, of course, as I have been repeating like a broken record..ah, remember vinyl...but I digress.)
What is your take on the inevitable rift in the Tea Party?
I believe the rift will be defined as being between those who believe the war on terror is the American imperative and those who believe it is a catastrophe of evolutionary scale like an asteroid strike. I am not a Tea Party person so I'm not concerned about the eventual rift you mentioned. I believe the world and all of its inhabitants will never be the same after the current civilization self-destructs.
The problem Congressman Paul faces is that most of his peers have attained their present positions by leveraging the fiscal power provided by central banks to buy votes and influence policy. Most (perhaps all) state economies are addicted to the perpetual flow of military spending. I would not be surprised if Boehner and company intend to give Dr. Paul enough rope to hang himself and his entire following along with him. When the general public is bludgeoned with the horrors of the economic consequences his opponents will claim as the likely result of ending the unlimited funding mechanism their state economies depend on I would expect to see a mass uprising against Ron Paul that unifies both the left and the right in Congress and in the streets.
Ending the FED means ending the growth of empire. It means ending the Christian crusades against Islam. It means ending the growth of government and the jobs that come with it. It means ending the welfare state. It means ending the homogenization of communities across the nation due to influence and addiction to the FED's product...Federal spending.
Anyone who thinks Dr. Paul's opponents will hesitate from using all available means to discredit him just isn't paying attention to the reasons most of our nation believes a central bank is a good thing.
Posted By: Walt
Date: December 13, 2010 01:40:09 AM
What is your take on the inevitable rift in the Tea Party?
I believe the rift will be defined as being between those who believe the war on terror is the American imperative and those who believe it is a catastrophe of evolutionary scale like an asteroid strike.
I don't quite define the rift that way, although I can certainly see your point. Most rifts are more generalized than specific, and I think this one will continue that pattern. I would not be surprised if Ron Paul turns out to be the focus of such a rift.
