The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

GOP Leaders To Bernanke: “Stop, Or We’re Gonna Say ‘Stop’ Again!”

Posted on | August 26, 2011 | 15 Comments

by Smitty

From The Hill:

“I think it’s a bad idea. Just printing more money and throwing it out there is devaluing the money we already have,” said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) in an interview. “Over the long term it’s inflationary. It sends the wrong message.”
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) said he doesn’t think another round of easing is a good idea.
“QE is flooding the market with more money and it’s unacceptable,” he said.

Stocks look up as I write, with Helicopter Ben having not said publicly he’ll do QE3.

My question to the GOP, given the recent revelations about the Fed, is: What makes you think Bernanke won’t just do QE3 anyway, and not bother telling you? We are, at best, in a ‘trust but verify’ situation with the Federal Reserve. We need a full audit. Nothing less will do. I’m not quite sure which rubes are the intended audience for this bit of GOP bleating, but nobody who has been paying attention is impressed.

via Memeorandum

Category: Economics

Comments

15 Responses to “GOP Leaders To Bernanke: “Stop, Or We’re Gonna Say ‘Stop’ Again!””

  1. Anonymous
    August 26th, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

    The House under Boehner is just another arm of OHbama…Boehner needs to be primaried out of the GOP before he switches partys.

  2. ThePaganTemple
    August 26th, 2011 @ 7:36 pm

    This crap with the Federal Reserve has gone on long enough. Nobody should be allowed to wield such unchecked power. Say what you want about Rick Perry, but when he said Bernanke’s actions were treasonous he was. On. The. Money.

  3. Adjoran
    August 26th, 2011 @ 7:45 pm

    Leading with a quote from the fascist Chabot who had cops confiscate all cell phones and cameras at his recent town hall meeting makes no sense.

    But Ron Paul insanity isn’t a solution to out of control Fed Chairmen.  Putting statutory limits on their authority will help, but the real solution is getting the right people in there.  We’re going to need another Volcker to squeeze out the excess.

    Those who want to abolish the FRB system are mainly ignorant.  Who then controls the currency?  Congress?  Treasury?  There’s a good reason it was placed outside the daily machinations of politicians.  If you think things couldn’t be worse, you’re wrong.

  4. Stan Brewer
    August 26th, 2011 @ 7:48 pm

    People have been pushing for an audit and complete dismantling of the Fed for decades. Only now those voices that were shouting in the wilderness are being heard. But they are still being blocked by the big money interests i e the megabankers. Need to make our voices louder, so they can hear us NOW.

  5. Anonymous
    August 26th, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

    But voices are only heard if they are screams. The screaming comes after the crash. Then the traffic lights are installed.

  6. Charlie Martin
    August 26th, 2011 @ 8:02 pm

    I’m guessing that’s why the Federal Research Bank is called “independent”.  The Congress doesn’t actually have that kind of direct authority, and Beranke is right to tell them to piss off.

  7. CalMark
    August 26th, 2011 @ 8:06 pm

    Not-so-gratuitous Ron Paul shot:  Paul has been blustering for years about auditing the Fed.  So, wielding his enormous power as the House Committee Chairman in the best position to do just that, the Wonderful-Spectacular-Infallible Ron Paul…retires.

    I’m not a big Conspiracy Theory guy, but the whole scenario stinks to high heaven.  My guess is that the unspeakably vile Establishment (in which the House GOP leadership is a Junior Partner, kinda like dorks allowed into a cool kids’ club in high school) knows exactly what’s going on and are petrified of the truth :  the mess, incompetence, and corruption must epic.

  8. McGehee
    August 26th, 2011 @ 8:14 pm

    Putting statutory limits on their authority will help, but the real solution is getting the right people in there.

    It takes both. ALWAYS both.

  9. Anonymous
    August 26th, 2011 @ 8:14 pm

    I don’t think enough of the “right people” exist to staff the upper echelons of the fed. Bernanke was head of NY fed, not very reassuring. You may be correct that in this global economy and financial markets a central bank is required. But obviously it must be more transparent and have the sole task of protecting the currency. It’s patently absurd to believe that the fed can keep interest rates and unemployment low as well as keeping a strong currency. A bureaucracy is neither competent nor nimble enough to do all that. What is needed is over site that is extremely suspicious of the whys and hows of what the fed is doing.

  10. Anonymous
    August 26th, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

    I believe Congress in theory determines their mission.

  11. t-dahlgren
    August 26th, 2011 @ 10:53 pm

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants the authority ‘to coin Money, regulate the Value therof, and of foreign Coin’ to Congress.

  12. Adjoran
    August 27th, 2011 @ 1:57 am

    The big bankers would like nothing better than to have currency under Congress or the Treasury, so the built-in influence system of lobbying and campaign money could do their bidding.

  13. Adjoran
    August 27th, 2011 @ 2:07 am

    There is a good reason the Fed is independent.  If you think their system is flawed, you are right, but it is head and shoulders at least above the alternative of allowing Congress or the Executive to have control over the currency, which would put the monetary system at the mercies of the political system.   If your goal is “stability,” even a Paulbot should understand that’s not the answer.

    Even Congress and the President recognized that, which is why they set up an independent Fed in the first place.  Before the Fed had responsibility for the currency, the US money supply was controlled by one man, J.P. Morgan, private citizen and banker with no public position.  The power was given to him after he personally intervened in two earlier crises, putting his own money and his bank’s at risk to save the country (potentially). 

    Morgan died, though, and somebody had to do it.  Hence, the Fed.

  14. Adjoran
    August 27th, 2011 @ 2:30 am

    This whole “audit the Fed” business is puzzling, too.  The actions of the Fed under the TARP bills and other emergency lending in 2008-09 were audited specifically as part of the Dodd-Frank law, perhaps that monstrosity’s only sane provision.  But this was only necessary because the emergency powers themselves were unprecedented and granted and assumed hastily.

    The audit turned up some management problems, especially with rule-making authority for emergency loans being blurred, a couple instances of one regional bank skipping the required competitive bidding process for outside help, and other technical issues which were issues because the crisis was sudden and unforeseen, so there were no existing rules to follow.  No money was missing.

    But the assets and operations of the regional banks are regularly audited.  The FRB has no separate bank.  Their currency orders are a matter of public record, and the Chairman regularly reports to Congress publicly.

    So exactly WHAT is left to audit, or is it just that it sounds good?  When you call for an audit, the listener’s first involuntary thought is “Aha!  Must be some hanky-panky goin’ on!”  That’s ridiculous.

    And a guy like Ron Paul has a big following among conspiracy nuts, so calling for audits around them has a multiplied effect.  Paul certainly knows the only unaudited aspect of the Fed was the emergency actions, and those only because the actions were taken in real time before a framework could be designed, and that all those actions were audited already under Dodd-Frank. 

    But hey, why give up a great-sounding line that rouses the troops just because it has lost all meaning?  His fans are unlikely to understand the difference . . .

  15. Callawyn
    August 27th, 2011 @ 10:36 pm

    People forget that, because stocks are priced in dollars, the stock market will naturally go up when the dollar is devalued.

    Want the Dow Jones to double?  Devalue the dollar by 50%.  Doesn’t make the stocks worth any more than they were, it just takes twice as many dollars to buy the same amount of stock.

    BTW, ever take a look at a long term chart of stock indexes that’ve been corrected for inflation?