Redefine Change

Fiscal & Monetary Policy

    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.


    4 comments     Oct 22, 2009

      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.


      0 comments       Jan 6, 2009

        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.


        1 comment         Dec 13, 2008

          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.


          0 comments           Nov 21, 2008

            Three slimy uses of the $700 billion bailout

            Remember how urgent the need for the bailout was only six weeks ago? “Experts”, errr, a-holes, like Henry Paulson told us that if a bailout wasn’t passed the world as we knew it would cease to exist.

            Well, it passed. And, low and behold, things have gotten worse. Why? Well, one, bankrupt firms are like Uncle Bernie – dead. And try as you might to make them wave and sunbathe and appear alive, they are still dead. Two, the Treasury is full of bumbling idiots whose primary goal is to keep their pockets, and those of their friends, nicely lined with freshly minted Benjamins. Put those together and you’ve got a recipe for cooking up large amounts of trouble. But don’t take my word for it. In an interview with NPR, Vincent Reinhart, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said “The Treasury is just drifting. It didn’t have a set of principles by which to guide its decision. What that means is they’ve had a very hard time drawing lines, and therefore, it has sort of invited firms to encroach.” So, apparently, the lesson is when you let greedy people who lack principle make decisions they only mess things up more. This is doubly true when the people asked to fix a problem are the same ones who created it. In light of the growing turmoil, while people are beginning to ask the truly deplorable question of “will $700 billion be enough?“, we take a quick look at three slimy ways the bailout is currently being abused.

            1. Bailout money being used to defend the CEOs that are being prosecuted.

            Yep, that’s right. Not only are we footing the bill to prosecute CEOs of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other criminally run firms, we are also paying for the fancy defense attorneys hired to defend them. I say we give them the greenest, cheapest, fresh-out-of-law school public defender we can find. If it’s good enough for most of us, why isn’t it good enough for them?

            2. Bailout money being used for compensation and bonuses

            Props go to sometimes quirky (ok, always quirky) Dennis Kucinich for reportedly working to stop this from happening. We can only hope his team’s effort are successful. If you’ve got a minute, drop him a quick note encouraging him to stick with it. Analysts agree that total compensation and bonuses paid from the bailout money could potentially be in the tens of BILLIONS of dollars with some estimates as high as $50 billion. Disgusting.

            3. Bailout money paying for vacations and junkets

            We’ve, no doubt, all heard about the half-million dollar bender AIG’s execs went on at an exclusive resort in California, followed by a eighty-six-thousand dollar hunting trip in England. Too bad Dick Cheney didn’t tag along for the latter. Makes me wonder, if the executives are so busy having fun, who blew through the $123 billion in October?

            Another bailout on the horizon?

            Even with those three abuses taking place, we are hearing chatter about another bailout, this time for the auto industries and credit card companies. While Kucinich gets points for his aforementioned efforts to stop compensation and bonuses, and, for twice voting against the first bailout, he fumbles some of them back for supporting said bailout of the auto-industry. All of this begs the question, if the first bailout isn’t working and has opened the doors for unprecedented abuse of tax payer money, why THE HELL is a second one being considered? Apparently the answer is this gem: “Taxpayers are being asked to step up (again) because, given the high level of risk involved, nobody else will.” Thanks for nothing. How does the old saying go? Measure twice and cut once? Well, it’s obvious that Congress didn’t even measure once and is cutting (read: scrambling to cover their backsides) far more than they ever thought they would. If you remember correctly, we didn’t want to step up in the first place. As a result, every Congressman, Congresswoman and Senator that voted for the bailout should be fired. That includes our newly elected President.

            Moving forward

            How do you fire a Congressman, Congresswoman, Senator or President? You can start by taking your head out of your you-know-where the next time you vote. But you can only do that if you continue to educate yourself on the issues. Bottom line is that while you may love your particular brand of Presidential candidate or political party, both candidates and scores from both parties voted for the monstrosity, and are therefore culpable in it’s abuse. Please remember that when you go to the polls again in two years. Finally, we know that party and personality flavored kool-aid is tasty, but if we keep drinking it, not only will we ensure continued abuse, we will also make it harder to change the system as its rigor mortise stiffens even further.


            0 comments             Nov 12, 2008