Redefine Change

    The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 vs. The Federal Reserve Accountability Act

    Abigail Adams once wrote “We have too many high sounding words and too few actions that correspond with them.” No where is that more true than Washington, D.C. Many of the people we incomprehensibly continue to elect to public office have mastered using “high sounding words” to collect votes only to neglect the corresponding actions. On October 20, 2009 this discrepancy was demonstrated yet again, when spineless Senators Merkley (D-OR) and Corker (R-TN) introduced a flaccid bill entitled “The Federal Reserve Accountability Act.” The bill, supposing to be a politically astute compromise to “The Federal Transparency Act of 2009,” uses the oh-so-popular high sounding word “accountability” but provides too few actions to accomplish anything substantive. Because the two words appear so similar, and because Americans have become inexplicably lazy and gullible we created the chart below to demonstrate the substantive difference between the two bills.

    Bottom line? We need to take back our financial system from the greedy, elitist political lords and their sniveling, corrupt cronies on Wall Street who, together, have destroyed our economy. Translation? Pick up the phone, call your Representative and your Senator and demand they support H.R. 1207 in the House and S. 604 in the Senate. If they don’t listen to you vote them out of office in 2010. Your individual vote is still very powerful, and presently, is still what makes America so great. To quote Teddy Roosevelt, “A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” Courage and liberty be with you! And if anyone can explain how 303 co-sponsors (125 democrats, 178 republicans) doesn’t automatically result in a bills passage please share. That makes no sense whatsoever.

      The Top Ten Senators vs. The Average American

      I’m currently reading The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Norris. I have found the fervor with which Roosevelt fought the “unholy alliance between big business, politics, and the courts” profoundly inspiring. I do not have the resources (relationally or monetarily) that Roosevelt possessed, but I do have strong convictions, a brain, and a decent proficiency for graphic design. This is my first attempt to use that proficiency to affect political reform in our country. As I’ve conveyed to several friends over the last year, the issue is not Republican vs. Democrat, but corporatism. And it is my contention that corporatism has infected both parties. I believe the chart below speaks for itself in this regard. I would love to hear your thoughts and would greatly appreciate it if you shared this chart with your friends and family!

      senateVamericans

        A $100k Pay Freeze vs. $160 Milli Inauguration

        Newly inaugurated President Obama rolled into office this week, and quickly announced a pay freeze for his top staff members making over 100k. While this move is inline with the President’s pledge to set “a new standard of openness” in Washington it seems a little ironic that it comes on the heels of the most expensive Worship Your Boss Day (ahem, inauguration) in our nation’s history.

        Lauren Farrely of DailySkiff.com notes that $49 million of the estimated $170 million came directly from tax payers AND that the largest private donors were Wall Street fat cats who benefited from the $700 billion bailout last September. It’s nice to know that “a new standard of openess” means we, average American taxpayers, take the brunt of the largest bailout AND inauguration bill ever.

        NY Daily News, in referencing Obama spokeswoman, Linda Douglas, writes “the committee’s expenses will be greater than previous years because of Obama’s commitment to make the event as open and accessible as possible to the public.” I don’t want to be a hater, but I’m a numbers guy and something doesn’t sit well with me when token gestures are used to distract us from obvious truths, in an effort to inflate the sails of campaign claims that seem to be losing their air really quickly.

        To echo Ms. Farrely conclusion, “Obama’s plan to restore fiscal discipline to Washington by ending wasteful spending has gotten off to a questionable start.”

        Moving Forward

        If we believe in balancing the budget we need to continue to insist that our representatives do not pay for things our country cannot afford. Also, we need to recognize the relationship between the size of the Federal Government and the degree of entitlement it has to tax and spend out of our pockets. I believe history shows that the bigger the government the more confidence it has to encroach unduly into our wallets and bank accounts. If you want to participate in working for a smaller government I encourage you to Meetup.com to look for groups in your area that have similar interests. If you know of any groups or are already participating in some please feel free to leave them in the comments!

          What’s your take on Obama’s plan?

          Initially, I heard his “infrastructure/stimulus” plan was going to be in the $600 billion range. However, yesterday NPR reported that the plan could be north of $800 billion. Does anyone think this will work? I want to hope the best, but considering the troubles miring the use of TARP funds, I doubt the effectiveness of another plan that has an even bigger dollar tag.

            Now we don’t even know how they’re using the money

            Bloomberg has filed suit against the Federal Reserve for refusing to disclose how it has used $2 TRILLION dollars in emergency funding. Apparently “stronger oversight” to the Fed means decreased transparency and less honesty.

            Moving Forward

            It appears that the Federal Reserve has become the source of much of our financial problems. I do not see how their ability to act secretly absent any accountability is positive for our country. As a result I encourage you to contact your representatives and ask them to support or co-sponsor H.R. 2755 which seeks to abolish the Federal Reserve System. If your representative feels that the bill is too extreme then encourage them, at the very least, to present a bill that audits how the Fed uses our nation’s money.

              Rod Dreher on Ron Paul

              Interesting column by Rod Dreher at the Dallas Morning News regarding how Ron Paul’s campaign could influence the future of the Republican party. Let’s hope he is right.

                Bombs and pianos

                According to Rod Dreher over at the CrunchyCon blog, the United States of America is spending six times more on defense than China. At the same time, China has six times as many school children learning a classical instrument than the U.S. does.

                While classical music training might not have a direct correlation with national power, I agree with Mr. Dreher’s clarification comment “the Chinese are developing discipline and craftsmanship, and the moral and mental qualities required for long-term success. We’re becoming impulsive.”

                Considering one-third of the world’s population resides in China and India it is not surprising they have higher numbers. Regardless of how you view the rise of China (and India) I think it is important to realize the growing trend in America to embrace impulsive and lazy thinking.

                Moving forward

                We need to fight our natural ethnocentric tendencies and the assumptions that accompany them. There have been significant power shifts throughout history and there no doubt will be more in the future. We will do well as a nation to try to identify factors contributing to our nations decline as well as those making us strong. On a political level we should seek to become citizens (and elect people) who understand that these current international trends will likely impact future decades. What do you think these current trends mean for the US’s role in the world over the coming years?

                  Obama’s change is starting to take shape

                  And sadly (expectedly?) it’s looking more like the same. Don’t agree? Consider the following as evidence. In a stump speech last September, Obama said, “George Bush and Dick Cheney may have perfected the art of special-interest driven partisan politics, but they didn’t invent it. It was there before they came into office, and if we’re not careful it will be there after they leave. That’s what’s at stake in this election.” (Translation, the Clintons promoted special-interest driven partisan politics and electing Hillary would guarantee more of the same.)

                  So, what is he doing to implement this newly found change during this transitional period? First, he appoints two former high-end Clinton aides, Rahm Emanuel and John Podesta, to top advisory roles. Second, he appears to have chosen Hillary, herself, to represent the United States as Secretary of State. As one blogger put it, “The problem with the Clintons is that they’re just so exhausting…I mean, doesn’t the rest of the world hate us enough already?” Third, (in a move that squashes the faint hope conservatives were clinging to that at least Warren Buffet is/was advising him on the economy),

                  we have this gem from Obama economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, “I don’t know what the number is going to be, but it’s going to be a big number. It has to be. The point is to, kind of, get people back on track and startle the thing into submission.” Apparently, the “change” millions of Americans put their hope in is really just the same old players spewing the same old nonsense. Remember the Treasury’s reassuring justification for the bailout in September? “It’s not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number.” Uh, mister potato head, things have deteriorated since then, what makes you think another “really big number” will solve the problem now?

                  Thanks for nothing, America. Change we can believe in is really turning out to be more of the same crap. If this continues another two or three election cycles (more, less?) I fear we’ll all be doomed. Not necessarily because our leaders are trying to screw things up, it’s just that they, and we, continue to think and vote like they are smarter than the 800 pound gorillas in the room, like deficits, trade imbalances, over-supplied money and meddling foreign policy. (And before you McCain supporters chime in remind yourself that he was probably even dumber than Obama, as hard as that is to comprehend, on the economy and had a disposition that was even more partisan and malleable to the wrong influences.)

                  Moving forward

                  It’s beyond encouraging us to “contact our Senators”, blah, blah, blah. We can do that until we are blue in the face. But as long as we keep electing the same old goons to office we continue to guarantee the same two-faced responses. It’s time we stop pointing the finger at our elected leaders, blaming them for our problems, and take a long, hard look in the mirror. After you take that long, hard look, splash some cold water in your face (maybe give your self a slap or two on the cheeks – you know like a boxer going into the ring) and try to awake yourself to the fact that we are culpable in our political problems. After all, we are the ones voting every four years. The sooner you realize that you, whether democrat or republican, continue to get played by the same political hacks every four years, the sooner we can begin to anticipate more substantive change to come to our political system. Let’s encourage each other to continue to kick our addiction to false, promised hope every four years. Personalities don’t save nations or reverse their course. Principles and common sense, or adherence to them, do.

                    Have you noticed? They don’t want us there anymore

                    Not to go all Foreign Policy Expert on everyone, well, mainly because I’m not one, but, it does seem to me that if: 1. the goal of us invading Iraq was to create a democracy; 2. and a democracy for Iraq (as defined as by the Bush Administration) is a self-governing Iraq; 3. then why are we dragging our feet on the “security agreement” when it’s clear they appear to be ready to self-govern?

                    Yes, yes, I know. Stabilization of the region, protecting our oil interests and extradition for our soldiers. Still, I find it interesting, that if we’ve been so amazingly successful – as many would have us believe (i.e. everything from Bush’s “victory speech” in 2003 to all the recent insistence that the surge has worked) – why the prevailing sense of uncertainty surrounding turning power over to the Iraqis by withdrawing our troops?

                    Either we haven’t been as successful as the PR indicates, or we really have become a meddling entangler. Now, this may appear reasonable given the integrated nature of our world today, however, with every deliberate meddle we forfeit more of our national sovereignty. For instance, (and I believe our current hesitation in Iraq only reflects this much bigger issue) the “security agreement” is being referred to by many as a treaty.

                    If this is the case, then why hasn’t, to my knowledge, the Senate ratified it? After all, the Constitution calls for our Senate to ratify treaties with foreign countries. Looking at our actions, not only in this particular instance, but many others of recent years, it appears the UN trumps our Constitution and Senate. Not many politicians would admit this, but as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

                    Moving forward

                    I know some of these details are mundane and don’t have the same visceral impact as others , but I do believe it is important, if we believe in the Constitution and truly want to become better citizens to take a few minutes to write or call our Senators to remind them of their responsibility to ratify any treaty we make with foreign countries.

                    Yes, it’s not as infuriating as other recent issues, and, yes, it will probably go largely unnoticed, but it is an important detail that is being overlooked. If a few of us start insisting our leaders hold to even these simplest of guidelines perhaps we can maintain (or even reclaim) some of our national sovereignty, which our leaders seem to be hocking away more and more everyday.

                    So call or email your Senators and tell them you expect them to ratify this agreement with Iraq. You can find a list of them here.

                      Why this isn’t being reported…

                      … I don’t know. Actually, I do know. They are all in each others pockets and these facts would not be good PR for Secretary Paulson’s monarchical money slinging. Please take 10 minutes to watch this clip. Congressman LaTourette had one of the better bailout blasts during the $700 billion debate and brings up some interesting questions here, namely, why is the federal government buying a bank that is not really in need of help?

                      Three cheers for people trying to defend integrity and hold people accountable for ridiculously un-Constitutional behavior.