Ron Paul calls for Federal Reserve Audit at the Cato Institute

“Why in the world should this much power be given to a Federal Reserve that has the authority to create $1 trillion secretly?” Ron Paul asked a standing room-only crowd today at the Cato Institute.

Paul was on a panel of speakers, including Gilbert Schwartz, former associate general counsel to the Federal Reserve, to discuss a new bill that will audit the Fed for the first time in its history. This comes at a time when the Fed’s balance sheet has almost tripled, from just over $800 billion before the financial crisis to almost $2.3 trillion now.

“We will only win when the people wake up and realize that transparency is what we need,” said Paul. “When we know exactly what’s happening, there will be monetary reform.”

Listen to Ron Paul’s speech below:Download the speech as an MP3 file here.

Listen to the entire event:Download the event as an MP3 file here.

Transcript of Ron Paul’s speech:

Caleb Brown: This is a Cato special podcast. I’m Caleb Brown. Republican congressman and two-time presidential candidate Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve, arguing that Americans need to know more about the Central Bank, especially given the dramatic increases in the size of the bank’s balance sheet. He spoke at the Cato Institute on June 24, 2009. The full event is available at Cato.org.

Ron Paul: Thank you very much. It’s a real delight to be here and, of course, I’m pleased to come here and discuss a subject that fascinates me and it’s been an interest of mine for not a couple of years, but quite a few decades. As a matter of fact, it was the monetary issue that first got me interested in running for Congress back in the 1970s and some of you here may even remember the 1970s and they were rather hectic. If you don’t remember them, you’ve probably had read about them and they were very hectic, and I was fascinated with the fact that the Austrian free market economists predicted early on in the 1960s that the Bretton-Woods arrangement would never last, and it failed, and then that led into chaos in the 1970s.

But on a lark, I thought I would speak out and run for Congress and there was a little bit of concern by my wife about this because she considered it a dangerous thing to do and I couldn’t understand that, and to her, the danger was I could end up getting elected. But I guaranteed that couldn’t happen because I was going to be talking about, you know, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Open Market Committee and who cared about that? But she was more right than I was on that.

But the 1970s were hectic and there was a cry even at that time to know more about the Federal Reserve, and even that decade was not the first time the people through their congressmen were speaking out and wanted more openness about what the Federal Reserve was doing. Early on, even from 1913 on, there was always somebody talking about it.

And interestingly enough, a lot of that sentiment originated in Texas. Anybody remember Wright Patman? He came from a populist viewpoint. He wanted to know more about how Wall Street was being taken cared of by the Federal Reserve and he wanted the books opened, and lo and behold, Henry Gonzalez advocated the same thing. But they came not from a free market perspective, but a populist perspective, but at least, they were advocating more openness.

In 1978, there was a change in the law. It was a law that we’re dealing with today and the law said that the Federal Reserve now can be audited and you think, “Well, that’s fine and dandy.” But interestingly enough, and this is not unusual for Congress, they said, “Sure, you can be audited except for A, B, C, and D.” And, of course, A, B, C, and D are all the important things that the Federal Reserve does, whether it has to do with FOMC meetings, whether it has to do with international agreements, deals that they make with other central banks, the international financial organizations. All that is to be kept secret and so it was more or less exempt from the Freedom of Information or Access to Freedom of Information Act, and therefore, really we don’t know a whole lot about goes on behind the scenes at the Federal Reserve.

But conditions have changed dramatically, if you haven’t noticed this past year, and although I’ve been talking about it for decades and arguing that we had a financial system that was very fragile, very vulnerable, and it was the Fed that was creating the bubbles, and therefore we should be looking into it and preventing these problems rather than waiting for a cataclysmic financial crisis to hit and there were more than a few talking about that.

But nevertheless, Congress and others were receiving too much benefit by a secretive Federal Reserve System that created money out of thin air and was able to finance big government. So there were two groups over the Hill that loved this set up. The one group, the conservatives. They loved it because you could finance war without being responsible, and the left liked it because you could finance welfare without direct taxation. It was the indirect taxation through inflation and diluting of the money supply that finance big government.

The best answer I have about defending my bill [on auditing the Fed, HR 1207]is asking a question, “why not?” I mean, why in the world should this much power be given to a Federal Reserve that has the authority to create a trillion dollars secretly? And Congress says nothing. I mean, why not? I mean, it just makes so much sense. So the sentiment has changed. It wasn’t because all of the sudden, the people woke up and decided the Federal Reserve indeed needed to be audited and we needed to know more about the Federal Reserve. It had to do with the TARP funds.

It was $700 billion. It’s sort of like what they do after an emergency like 9/11. “Well, we need a Patriot Act. If you don’t vote for the Patriot Act, you are not patriotic,” and they rushed that through in a couple of weeks and nobody gets to read it, but the people want action.

So when the crisis hit, TARP funds were passed, $700 billion. There are still a bunch of it floating around, but all of a sudden, some of those funds got into the hands of unsavory characters like people who ruined their companies and they end up getting hundreds of millions of, if not billions of dollars in bonuses coming from the American taxpayer. People say, “What is going on?” And they sent a strong message out to Congress, “We want to know what’s happening. We want transparency. Let’s find out what’s happening.”

But then it became known to so many people at the grassroots level that the Federal Reserve is very much involved. They don’t quite understand how the Federal Reserve created our problems, but they understand how the Federal Reserve has been very much involved. So though I have a different motivation for transparency overall because of the monetary system and what’s been going on for years, right now, the motivation is to know what kind of shenanigans the Federal Reserve has been up to and how they’ve been wheeling and dealing and bailing out their friends.

Congress deals in hundreds of billions of dollars. The Federal Reserve deals in trillions and we don’t know exactly how much line of credit, guarantees, and direct loans that they have made and promised. It’s estimated it could be $3 or $4 trillion in the past year. We don’t know exactly. So the real necessity is for us to find out, and then we deal with the aftermath.

The bill is mainly to open up the books and find out what’s going on. It does not deal with monetary policy. It does not deal with regulatory policy and it is mainly for opening up the books, so it’s less confrontational for those who want to design regulations and deal with monetary policy, and I think that’s why we’re getting such bipartisan support. The support is very strong, but it is a reflection, not of my ability to go around and twist arms because I have no clout whatsoever over in the Congress.

But there are a few spammers out there that are interested in what I’ve been doing and they’re letting their congressmen know. And for that reason, there’s a strong move on and there’s a lot of legislative consequences going on, on where this goes and when we’ll have hearings and whether it gets edited on in the Senate. I don’t think we have enough time to go into all those details, but one thing for sure is it’s never going to be the same again. Never! Because if tomorrow, if they come in and all the members of Congress removed their names. It changes and there’s no transparency, all we have to say is, “What do they have to hide?”

And for once, I think it’s the first time the Federal Reserve has hired a lobbyist to lobby the members of Congress against this bill, and guess where the lobbyist came from? Well, she is a hangover from Enron. She lobbied for Enron. So that’s very appropriate. She’ll know the ropes and she’ll recognize a Ponzi scheme and hopefully… but unfortunately, she’ll probably be wanting to protect it.

So anyway, we are very pleased with it and the thrust of the bill is just openness to find out what’s going on, and, of course, my ultimate will be that once you find out exactly what the Federal Reserve has been up to and the conclusion being that it’s the Federal Reserve that creates financial bubbles and, of course, Congress adds a lot of problems to that, but that’s the key to it, and once that is known and once you see the deterioration of the dollar, which will come – you can’t double the money supply in six months and not have some consequences to it – that is when we will have true monetary reform and that when we’ll have a lot more fun.

Caleb Brown: Ron Paul represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas. You can watch his full comments on Federal Reserve Transparency at Cato.org.

  • https://bounceconnect.com/blogs/187489/389413/top-tips-and-advice-to-find-the birth injury news

    I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own
    blog and was curious what all is needed to get setup? I’m assuming having a blog
    like yours would cost a pretty penny? I’m not very internet smart
    so I’m not 100% sure. Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.
    Kudos

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Pingback: Killing the Economy One Fraud at a Time – The Fed | ChrisLittleton.com()

  • Jason

    Matt,

    “Normal people try to conform, and reasonable people do not conform, and look for alternatives. Therefore all progress belongs to unreasonable people.” ~Dr Bernard Shaw

    You can try and stop the revolution but it’s already here Matt and Ron Paul is the lone dissenter.

    “Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.” ~Congressman Ron Paul

    Dr Paul, much respect for you sir. I and some of my friends in Iraq have read your book “The Revolution” and agree 100%.
    /salute

    »crosslinked«

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Matt

    wth Ron Paul?

    “It wasn’t because all of the sudden, the people woke up and decided the Federal Reserve indeed needed to be audited and we needed to know more about the Federal Reserve. It had to do with the TARP funds.”

    Really? Is that your genius assessment Ron? Ummm, FYI TARP funds are administered through the TREASURY you propagandist, bandying about inflammatory words with no causal relationship. If it had to do with the TARP funds you would audit the treasury? I am sure there is some tangential relationship, but come on, TARP was approved by Congress and allocated through the Treasury.

    By this logic we should be auditing Congress’ idiocy in voting for it and Treasury’s administration of it. If you are going to provide your assessment, please try to insure it makes sense.

    On a serious note, you gotta work on getting rid of the ‘uh’ when you speak, it would make this transcript twice as long if they were included.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Matt

      And please, don’t give me this ‘TARP is taxpayer money and went to protect banks, and the Federal Reserve is the central bank’. By that line of reasoning, you might as well pick any bank or any congress, or any treasury. There are better reasons why the Fed came under review, this is just a terrible reason, one of which i assume only had a self-serving or ill-informed rationale for providing.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Nate Y

        “I am sure there is some tangential relationship, but come on, TARP was approved by Congress and allocated through the Treasury.”

        This leaves out a crucial step. Here I’ll fix it for you…

        There is a direct relationship. TARP was approved by Congress, allocated through the Treasury, and funded by the Federal Reserve.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Matt

          Umm, isn’t EVERYTHING funded by the Federal Reserve? What were they supposed to do if CONGRESS PASSED THE BILL, the Fed just arbitrarily says ‘nah, sorry government, we aren’t funding it?’ How is TARP any different than anything else Congress has ever passed that requires funding?

          I just don’t think anyone thought ‘OMG WE PASSED TARP LETS AUDIT THE FED’ – except maybe Ron Paul. It demonstrates his disconnect, normal folks would have thought to Audit the treasury.

          However, Ron Paul probably also thought ‘OMG WE PASSED THE STIMULUS BILL LETS AUDIT THE FED’ and thought that was logical too.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • longshotlouie

            We want to know where the money is, and the FED says that they do not have to tell.

            Pretty simple.

            What is the worst that can happen if the FED is fully audited?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Nate Y

            “What were they supposed to do if CONGRESS PASSED THE BILL, the Fed just arbitrarily says ‘nah, sorry government, we aren’t funding it?’”

            Yes. The Fed is fully able to say “NO” to the Congress. They don’t have to fund whatever legislation the Congress passes. In fact, they’re supposed to do say “NO” in order to prevent Congress from borrowing and spending the country into ruin. The Fed is supposed to be independent of Congress/politics, not beholden to them. Of course, it is a completely politicized institution almost always working in collusion with government.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • a no brainer

            They love to say that they want to keep the politics out of the equation, but isn’t the FED chair a political appointment?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Matt

            “Yes. The Fed is fully able to say “NO” to the Congress. They don’t have to fund whatever legislation the Congress passes.”

            What the heck? Since when did the Fed become responsible for vetoing public policy – which is what they would be doing if they pick and choose among what policies, that Congress has appropriated, to fund? ‘Hmmmm, ok we will fund the war, but no on TARP, ok and we think FEMA is important so we will give you money for that, but that’s a no on the stimulus package.’ Entertaining that thought is ludicrous.

            Like I originally said, noone is going to think ‘OMG TARP PASSED AND THE FED ACTUALLY GAVE THE MONEY TO THE TREASURY THAT CONGRESS APPROVED, THEREFORE AUDIT THE FED!’.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Nate Y

            You must remember that deficit financing (mainly made possible through the Fed) is not the only way for Congress to fund it’s endeavors. Congress could do so openly and honestly through taxes. Of course, they wouldn’t be able to get away with it for long. The Federal Reserve System serves to confuse, bewilder, and blind the people to the facts. It has obviously done so to you.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • longshotlouie

        Wow, nitpicking and whining really are your forte.

        Who administers the TARP funds, Matt?

        And the Congress will be ‘audited’, around election time.

        Would you go ahead and list all of the ‘better reasons’ why the FED should be under review (audited)?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Matt

          Best reason? To silence all of the conspiracy theorists.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • longshotlouie

            good enough reason, except it would have the opposite effect and that is why we have your ilk fighting it.

            No such thing as a conspiracy, right matt?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Matt

            Dude, im not fighting an audit, but I am fighting silly statements.

            If you aren’t for the conspiracy then you must be part of the conspiracy, right louie?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • a no brainer

            Fighting silly statements? Such a noble cause.

            ‘For the conspiracy’ and ‘Part of the conspiracy’ are the same.

            Right, matt?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • longshotlouie

            lmao

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Matt

            Then what do you call the person arguing with the person who is fighting silly statements and pointing out inaccuracies? :)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • longshotlouie

            How does one fight silly statements by making them?

            Oh yeah, the same way the FED fights inflation, by inflating.

            gotcha

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • longshotlouie

    By the 1940’s this revolution in “new economics” had infiltrated the universities and permeated economic thinking to the point that all opposing views were effectively rooted out of the higher educational system in this country. A generation of economic students were completely indoctrinated in the essentials of this new economic catechism. By 1950, the majority of universities and professors were teaching this new economic doctrine, textbooks reflected the accepted doctrine and the students were oblivious to just what they were being taught since it was the only accepted school of economic thought presented.

    The truth of the matter is that so-called new economic theory was not new at all, but a revival of core socialist patterns of economic thought that were formulated during the second half of the 1800’s. This core socialist pattern involved government intervention into economic affairs that would gradually lead to government intervention into social affairs; the outcome of which would be a transformation of the entire political structure of the country.
    http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0