The Fed's Worst Nightmare!

Ron Paul Is About to Totally Revolutionize the House Monetary Policy Panel

By: John Carney
Senior Editor, CNBC.com

Odds are you haven’t heard of the monetary policy subcommittee. Officially known as the House Subcommittee for Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, it’s a subdivision of the House Financial Services Committee that has mostly occupied itself with pressing questions of issuing commemorative coins and whether or not to eliminate the penny.

That’s about to change. Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas, is the ranking member of the monetary policy subcommittee, and when the next Congress takes over he’ll likely be the chairman of the subcommittee.

And Congressman Paul has some big plans.

“I will approach that committee like no one has ever approached it because we’re living in times like no one has ever seen,” Paul said in an interview with NetNet Thursday.

Paul said his first priority will be to open up the books of the Federal Reserve to the American people.

“We need to create transparency there. To see what it is they are buying and lending, and who it is they are dealing with,” Paul said.

Paul mentioned that he hoped to use subcommittee hearings to educate the public about the causes of business cycles—which he believes are mainly attributable to monetary manipulation by central bankers.

Monetary reform is also on the agenda. Paul is a noted advocate of the gold standard.

“We will have to have monetary reform,” Paul said. “I think those on the other side of this issue are already planning. They are going to try to replace a bad system with an equally bad system.”

The day after the election the Fed quietly instituted what they called "QE2". That was the second "quantitative easing" or buying public debt. QE2 spent $600 billion of the public's money. What this means is that they authorized printing another $600 billion. If one accepts that money is like any other commodity, what happens when you increase the supply exponentially? When you flood the market with more dollars the value of each dollar is proportionally less. The value of your money just decreased. If you are living on a pension you just took a huge pay cut. If you have a large life savings, a life insurance policy, or a big 401k you just took a huge loss. Wouldn't it be better if they just didn't incur the flippin' debt in the first place? This is malfeasance of the first order. Ron Paul's taking the chairmanship of this subcommittee and having subpoena power over Fed officers is a good thing.

I don't think Republicans will allow Ron Paul or anyone else to yeild subpoena power over the administration over a fear of returning to the Clinton years and accusations of partisan politics.

I'm not Ron Paul would use such power out of purely partisan reasons but I'm sure there are those in Washington who would.

I do know that if Republicans do not govern and only oppose President Obama or try-as I watched one loon on John Stossel last night attempt to explain-try to impose their moral standards over government because part of governing is ensuring a functioning society, Republicans will only have control for a short period of time.

Are you talking about Ed Schultz' crazy assertion that incoming republicans want to impeach Obama?

Listen: Republicans have subpoena power over administration figures. They'd goddamn well better use it. I want to know what these flippin' czars are doing. And what's more I want to know what the Fed and it's Board of Governors think they're doing. They're public servants, too. They can go make me a sandwich!

Furthermore, I'd have to believe that republicans were elected for the sole purpose of opposing Obama. Republicans may only have control for a short time - they're on probation. Let them watch their asses, too!

Well said, Ohio, well said.

Enough of that damnable PC'ism among Congressional members and/or Federal Agencies.

When they are devious, dishonest or flat out lying ...... CALL THEM ON IT ........ and not behind closed doors but so that it is included in the Congressional Record.

Damn skippy!

That's all well and good and I'm probably the last person to give advice on one holding one's tongue but if Congressional Republicans come after the Obama Administration in a manner that looks as if it is petty partisan politics, they will accomplish nothing, waste any opportunity of getting anything done and likely hand the House back to Democrats in 2012.

And if any on the far right want to start talking impeachment proceedings, they'll most certainly sway the public opinion back to the left.

If they truly want to govern, they must make spending a priority and not just liberal spending, but all spending including defense.

Record numbers of Republicans were sent to the House with a mandate to go after the failed policies of this President & his administration.

There may be a small number of Republicans who would like to see Obama impeached. I'm fairly confident only a tiny fraction of those are foolish enough to try it. Hell, I'd like nothing better than to see this President leave office, but I don't want to see him impeached.

They're not all morons, Aaron.

I wouldn't bet my mortgage payment on that last statement Stephanie, particularly considering Republican's history when they last had control of the House and Senate.

Add to that the loon I watched on Stossel the other night who said Republicans had a mandate to implement their social agenda and I wouldn't even bet a bisquit and gravy breakfast on that last statement.

Stephanie wrote:Record numbers of Republicans were sent to the House with a mandate to go after the failed policies of this President & his administration.

There may be a small number of Republicans who would like to see Obama impeached. I'm fairly confident only a tiny fraction of those are foolish enough to try it. Hell, I'd like nothing better than to see this President leave office, but I don't want to see him impeached.

They're not all morons, Aaron.

First the jury is still out on whether or not they are morons or not. Their performance during the next year will determine if they are or aren't. On a personal note, I have no trust for any politican. I have seen far too many say one thing and then do the exact opposite when they got in office.

Aaron,

I repeat, they're not all morons, Aaron. Some of them are quite intelligent and they want to expose not only Bernanke & the Federal Reserve but Barney Franks & Maxine Waters & Co.

What is it you think will happen? Do you think Ron Paul will take over that subcommittee and back off? Or is it you think he will not be awarded that chair? He doesn't get that chair, Aaron, the backlash will be swift and don't think the neocons aren't aware of it.

This isn't about some pet project being unfunded or a bridge to nowhere receiving a few hundred million. This is about the collapse of our economy and the destruction of our currency.

Let me say this, 3+ years ago the only person we heard speaking much of about such things was Ron Paul. The power brokers in the GOP marginalized not only Congressman Paul, but folks like me who read the material and did a little research and got a clue about things nobody wanted to talk about like topics such as fiat currency or the Constitutional obligation of Congress. They called us "tin foil hat wearers".

The citizens of Kentucky just elected Rand Paul to the US Senate and the State of New Hampshire just sent the former chair of NH's RLC to their House, along with 81 other RLC endorsed candidates. The TFH club isn't just growing in numbers, it's winning elections.

I think you need to go back and re-read my post Stephanie. I'm not talking about Ron Paul, I'm talking about the GOP as a whole so while there very well is many intelligent people-just as there are on the opposite side of the aisle-that doesn't mean that collectively, they aren't a bunch of morons.

If Republicans take the approach that they were given a mandate by Americans to implement their political agenda, they will be making the same mistake Democrats have made in the last two elections. What Independents like me (and it is this segment that has decided the last ~10 elections) want to see is responsible government, not party partisan bickering. Going after the opposing party with subpoenas is not what we're looking for.

As to whether Paul gets the chair or not, I don't know, nor do I really care. If he doesn't, while I am sure there will be some bickering among a select few, the backlash you speak of is nothing more the a figment of your imagination. Or did you not witness the last Republican Presidential primary election in which "Dr. No" was an afterthougt?

Regardless, one sub-committee is not going to completely change policy as they do not have that power. The true power of any committee or sub-committee is that is where unwanted legislation is sent to die and any policy they write must meet the approval of the full house. As such, you can bet your last dollar we are not heading back to the gold standard simply because Congressman Paul is granted a sub-committee chair.

As to Rand Paul, I witnessed his speech and while I was somewhat impressed, I can see where he will go to Washington and seldom be heard from again. He's one of 100 and if you think the other 99 are going to get in line behind him, you're dreaming.

If Republicans truly want to back the future of their party, they will get inline behind the likes of Marco Rubio of Fl. He gave the most impressive speech of the night and is easily the future of your party.

I don't disagree with anything you said here, Aaron. Republicans didn't get a mandate to implement their agenda (such as it is), they got a mandate to demand spending cuts and make a herculean effort to trim the deficit.

While I like the gold standard personally, I don't think the public has or will coalesce behind it. I also note that the Fed's backroom dealing didn't get anybody too stirred up here, either. I think Ron Paul is just the guy to subpoena Bernanke and the Board of Governors to make this murky mess a little more transparent.

In the early days of the republic the very idea of a central bank was enough to set citizens against one another. Jefferson said that a central bank was more dangerous than an invading army and I think Hamilton's avid support of a central bank had more than a little to do his murder at the hands of Aaron Burr.

I hear often that the public abhors the political bickering but in the only poll that matters (the election) the public votes for just that...

This is what Byron York said in the Washington Examiner:

Here's Barack Obama's problem when it comes to dealing with newly elected Republican members of Congress. They are convinced they won because voters rejected Obama's agenda of national health care, spending and bailouts. But Obama cannot admit that his agenda--his legacy--is fundamentally flawed and that voters repudiated it. The result will be irreconcilable conflict. . . .

[Consider] how President Obama answered a question about national health care during his post-election news conference. "Well, I know that there's some Republican candidates who . . . feel very strongly about it," the president said. "Now, if the Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, if they want to suggest modifications that would deliver faster and more effective reform to a health care system that has been wildly expensive for too many families and businesses and certainly for our federal government, I'm happy to consider some of those ideas."

In other words, Obama is open to suggestions to make Obamacare a reality more quickly.

I don't think Byron York has any insights you don't. But it also doesn't sound like a recipe for a good working relationship. I think the vast majority of voters have told Congressmen that we expect them to run their Houses the same way we run our's - within our means. I don't think anything is sacred: neither defense nor intelligence is outside the parameters of the budget cutters. Raise the retirement age. Cut Social Security payouts. Do what you got to do. Cut spending and trim the deficit. Don't we agree?

ohio county wrote:This is what Byron York said in the Washington Examiner:

Here's Barack Obama's problem when it comes to dealing with newly elected Republican members of Congress. They are convinced they won because voters rejected Obama's agenda of national health care, spending and bailouts. But Obama cannot admit that his agenda--his legacy--is fundamentally flawed and that voters repudiated it. The result will be irreconcilable conflict. . . .

[Consider] how President Obama answered a question about national health care during his post-election news conference. "Well, I know that there's some Republican candidates who . . . feel very strongly about it," the president said. "Now, if the Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, if they want to suggest modifications that would deliver faster and more effective reform to a health care system that has been wildly expensive for too many families and businesses and certainly for our federal government, I'm happy to consider some of those ideas."

In other words, Obama is open to suggestions to make Obamacare a reality more quickly.

I don't think Byron York has any insights you don't. But it also doesn't sound like a recipe for a good working relationship. I think the vast majority of voters have told Congressmen that we expect them to run their Houses the same way we run our's - within our means. I don't think anything is sacred: neither defense nor intelligence is outside the parameters of the budget cutters. Raise the retirement age. Cut Social Security payouts. Do what you got to do. Cut spending and trim the deficit. Don't we agree?

Yes we do OC. And for the record, if the aim is transparency, then I have no problem with subpoenas. My point is, if Paul or others do it in the spirit of transparency and if Paul can educate as well as clear the murky waters then he will be successful. If not or if it is done in the spirit of partisan politics, it will backfire on Paul and others issuing subpoenas.

The same can be said for Republicans in general. If they approach governing with the attitude of "we must cut spending”, Americans will accept their approach even if it means going to the extreme of shutting down the government out of disagreement with the President. But if they are perceived as partisan and petty which is what will happen if impeachment is even hinted at, they will be viewed as the party of no, obstructionist with no real answers or solutions and in time, Washington will be handed back to Democrats.

That is why I think if John Boehmer is smart, the first thing he will do is start by looking at programs historically supported by Republicans and then move on to other areas. And they must cut spending on all fronts, to get this deficit down. If they do that, the Republican Party can rule Washington for 50 years.

I don't think Paul is interested in partisan politics in the least.

Man, I really hate it when my sleep gets so disrupted.

Yes, I remember the primary, and I remember how he was treated. No, I don't expect Republican leadership to ever admit he accurately predicted many of the troubles we've been experiencing. I don't think they take him too seriously. I do think he will get that chair, in part because they are hopeful it will keep him too busy to go after things they favor, such as the undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan, among other things.

I've given some thought over my earlier statement, regarding backlash. I think there will be some if he is denied that position, but I don't think it would be enough to change anything.

I do hope he chooses to run for President again. Of course I'd like to see him win, but I don't expect that. What I do expect is a Ron Paul candidacy will result in topics I care deeply that would otherwise be totally ignored brought up.

ohio county wrote:I don't think anything is sacred: neither defense nor intelligence is outside the parameters of the budget cutters. Raise the retirement age. Cut Social Security payouts. Do what you got to do. Cut spending and trim the deficit. Don't we agree?

I don't agree unless you specifically meant ......

"Raise the retirement age of all Public Employees to age 65".

And, .........

"Cut Social Security payouts to all the psuedo disabled drunks, druggies and 'foreign immigrants' or whatever, ....... and to all those who have never paid anything into SS".

This can only be a good thing.

Dr. Paul doesn't really hold with the federal reserve, anyway. He can't do away with it and he can't ignore it (for various reasons, accusations of "partisan obstructionism" not least among them), so perhaps, with some subpoenas and some snooping, he can hone it down into something less megalithic and scary.

One can hope, anyway.