Related posts:

1. Ron Paul Questions Dr. Meltzer and Dr. Galbraith on Federal Reserve Transparency Dr. Allan Meltzer, The Allan H. Meltzer University Professor of...
2. Ron Paul to Federal Reserve: HR 1207 Won’t Affect Monetary Policy In his opening statement at a hearing entitled “Regulatory Restructuring:...
3. Why The Federal Reserve Loves Secrecy Download the column as an MP3 file here (3:53...

Related posts:

1. What Barney Frank Really Said About HR 1207 Here’s an updated transcript of what Barney Frank really said...
2. Barney Frank on HR 1207, Ron Paul’s Bill to Audit the Federal Reserve Earlier this week, Congressman Barney Frank, the Chairman of the...
3. Barney Frank Discusses HR 1207, Ron Paul’s Bill to Audit The Fed From purplepamphleteer: “I asked Barney Frank if H.R. 1207...

The Paul-Grayson initiative is an amendment to Barney Frank’s HR 3996, also known as the “Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009″. The Committee was going to vote on that bill today, but Barney Frank surprisingly postponed the vote until after the Thanksgiving recess:

(Rep. Barney) Frank told the panel that most of the members pushing him to postpone the vote were members of the Congressional Black Caucus who said that the political environment wasn’t right for a vote this afternoon.

“It’s my understanding,” Frank said, “that the issues being addressed are not internal to this bill.” In other words, the Democrats were not expressing particular problems with the bill itself, but the larger problems in the economy made them reluctant to support a bill that could be portrayed as too friendly to Wall Street.

Ron Paul sent out the following press release shortly after the amendment passed:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) is pleased to announce that his and Congressman Grayson’s amendment based on HR 1207 has passed in the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43-26 and will be included in major banking reform legislation.

The Paul/Grayson amendment:

• Removes the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed
• Allows audit of every item on the Fed’s balance sheet, all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, etc.
• Retains limited audit exemption on unreleased transcripts and minutes
• Sets 180-day time lag before details of Fed’s market actions may be released
• States that nothing in the amendment shall be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO

“While HR 3996, if passed, will grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, at least with this amendment attached, it won’t be acting in secret anymore. This is a major victory for Federal Reserve transparency and government accountability,” stated Congressman Paul.

How they voted (HR 1207 co-sponsors in bold):

Related posts:

1. House Financial Services Committee Debates Ron Paul’s Amendment to Audit the Fed Later this afternoon, the House Financial Services Committee will be...
2. Critical Vote on Audit the Fed Today! by John Tate A few weeks ago, the Campaign for...
3. Audit the Fed: The Battle Is Far From Over The House Financial Services Committee passed the Audit the Fed...

Over the course of today’s hearing, Chairman Barney Frank unsurprisingly came out in support of the opposing Watt amendment, arguing that perception is important and that the Paul-Grayson amendment would increase inflationary pressure on the dollar.

marcaeld uploaded a video of Ron Paul introducing the Paul-Grayson amendment:

Alan Grayson and Mel Watt discuss the two amendments:

Earlier today, Ron Paul and Alan Grayson sent the following letter to members of the Committee:

Dear Financial Services Committee Colleague:

It is encouraging to see the issue of Federal Reserve transparency receiving so much attention during this current markup. Today we plan to offer an amendment to the Financial Stability Improvement Act that expands on the many extant proposals to enhance Federal Reserve transparency. Our amendment is based on HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which has broad bipartisan and grassroots support. The bill is cosponsored by 309 Members of Congress, including all Financial Services Committee Republicans and 13 Financial Services Committee Democrats.

The amendment removes restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve, as HR 1207 does, but makes a few changes to take into account some of the concerns that the Fed has made known in public testimony. Specifically, the Paul/Grayson amendment:

• Exempts unreleased transcripts and minutes from meetings of the Board and FOMC to address the Fed’s concerns that free and open debate in their meetings would be stifled.
• Sets a 180-day time lag for release of details of market actions the Fed has undertaken, to address the Fed’s concerns that Congress or GAO is second-guessing its actions.
• Removes boilerplate language that allowed GAO to make recommendations on monetary policy and adds a section stating that nothing in the amendment shall be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy to the Fed.

Unlike proposals that target the Fed’s 13(3) facilities, the Paul/Grayson amendment opens up the entire $2 trillion Federal Reserve balance sheet to a GAO audit. The Fed’s recent purchases of nearly $800 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) have occurred under the MBS Purchase Program, authorized under section 14(b) of the Federal Reserve Act. This program, which is expected to reach a size of $1.25 trillion, would remain exempt from audit even if all the current 13(3) audit proposals were to go into effect. Targeting facilities that are in the process of being drawn down and that are authorized under a specific subsection of the Federal Reserve while allowing other facilities to spring up in their place is counterproductive to true transparency. All purchases and loans that appear on the balance sheet should be subject to audit, without loopholes for the Fed to evade scrutiny.

More importantly, the Paul/Grayson amendment does not create any additional burdens. Some competing proposals, while making a good effort at expanding the number of 13(3) facilities open to audit, take a step backwards by imposing new restrictions on GAO that are more burdensome than the restrictions currently written into law. We cannot accept these new restrictions. Unlike competing proposals, this amendment amends existing restrictions on GAO audit authority, a necessary precondition for a complete audit. Competing proposals leave these restrictions in place, and even add new ones.

We also reject the false dichotomy between transparency and independence. The Paul/Grayson amendment would achieve the necessary transparency of the trillions of dollars of Fed interventions while keeping Congress from directly intervening in the decision-making process. Independence should not be synonymous with secrecy. We urge our colleagues to support the Paul/Grayson amendment.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul, Member of Congress
Alan Grayson, Member of Congress

Related posts:

1. Critical Vote on Audit the Fed Today! by John Tate A few weeks ago, the Campaign for...
2. Audit the Fed Amendment Passes 43-26! After several hours of heated debate, the Paul-Grayson “Audit the...
3. Ron Paul at the Financial Services Committee Hearing Date: 11/4/2009 Venue: Financial Services Committee Hearing Transcript: Ron...

A few weeks ago, the Campaign for Liberty sent out an alert that Representative Mel Watt was attempting to water down HR 1207 in the House Financial Services Committee.

The latest reports we have received have informed us that a vote on the Watt amendment could come today!

There’s still time for us to stop this attack on Audit the Fed! Click here to get a full list of Financial Services Committee members, along with their contact information.

Financial Services leadership seems determined to include Audit the Fed as part of a regulatory reform package instead of passing it as a standalone bill.

While C4L will still do everything in its power to fight for a standalone vote on Audit the Fed on the House floor, it is critical we challenge Watt’s amendment in Committee.

It will become much easier for our representatives to claim they still support Audit the Fed on the House floor if the Watt version passes, when, in reality, Representative Watt’s amendment puts restrictions on Government Accountability Office audits of the Fed.

For example, Watt’s amendment prevents the GAO from auditing or reviewing decisions to authorize, modify, extend, or terminate loans or liquidity facilities.

Congressman Paul will offer an amendment in Committee restoring an audit of the Fed’s entire $2 trillion balance sheet, but we have received word that some of the Democrat members may be waffling on their support for his amendment.

Help us turn up the pressure on these members! Below is the list of Democrats on the committee who have cosponsored H.R. 1207. Please call them and urge them to vote “Yes” on Ron Paul’s amendment. Click on their names to get their web contact information.

1. Rep. John Adler, NJ (202) 225-4765

2. Rep. Travis Childers, MS (202) 225-4306

3. Rep. Steve Driehaus, OH (202) 225-2216

4. Rep. Alan Grayson, FL (202) 225-2176

5. Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, TX (202) 225-2531

6. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, FL Toll Free: 1-877-956-7627

7. Rep. Dan Maffei, NY (202) 225-3701

8. Rep. Brad Miller, NC (202) 225-3032

9. Rep. Walt Minnick, ID (202) 225-6611

10. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO (202)-225-2645

11. Rep. David Scott, GA (202) 225-2939

12. Rep. Brad Sherman, CA (202) 225-5911

13. Rep. Jackie Speier, CA (202) 225-3531

When contacting these members, remember that up to this point, they have been allies on this issue. A civil yet firm tone should be kept during these calls. They should be thanked for their cosponsorship, told that Mel Watt’s changes to the bill are unacceptable, and urged to hold the line and honor their promise to support transparency at the Fed by voting “Yes” on Ron Paul’s amendment.

And don’t forget to click here to get a full list of Financial Services Committee members.

For more information on the Watt amendment, check out this article by The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim.

We are continuing our work to achieve a standalone vote on H.R. 1207 on the House floor, but we must first stop the Watt amendment in the Financial Services Committee.

Make sure the Financial Services Committee members hear from you as soon as their offices open Thursday morning!

A vote could come any time today. Call, email, and fax the Financial Services Committee members to vote “Yes” on Congressman Ron Paul’s amendment.

Related posts:

1. House Financial Services Committee Debates Ron Paul’s Amendment to Audit the Fed Later this afternoon, the House Financial Services Committee will be...
2. Audit the Fed Amendment Passes 43-26! After several hours of heated debate, the Paul-Grayson “Audit the...
3. Important Audit the Fed Update by Ron Paul In this Audit the Fed update, Ron Paul explains what...

Date: 11/4/2009
Venue: Financial Services Committee Hearing

Transcript:

Ron Paul: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this year, Secretary Geithner had an interview and he said that the main source of our problem with this economic crisis was that we kept interest rates too low too long. And I certainly agree with him on that. And I also agree with the authors of this bill that we don’t have enough regulations. But that doesn’t mean that I endorse the notion that we need more bureaucrats and more written regulations of that sort.

A lot of people think that if you don’t support the bureaucratic approach, that you don’t endorse regulations. But the free market provides a lot of regulations and those who the regulations that we have ignored, as a matter of fact we have actually allowed them to go forward. A major regulation we should have is “always enforce contracts.” The government has a responsibility to ensure contracts are enforced.

But also the issue of fraud. Just because we are unregulated in the sense of not having bureaucrats do it, it does not mean that fraud should be tolerated. And yet now it’s coming out that companies like Goldman Sachs may well have been involved in something that could be construed as fraud. They were selling AAA securities – the credit default swaps – and at the same time they were shorting the market. They knew there was a housing bubble, but they were telling their investors that they had these wonderful bonds to buy. Now that, to me, is fraud. And that should be handled by people like this going to prison. But there are free market alternatives to pretending that every single transaction and almost preemptively prevent things. To me it’s sort of like trying to protect against slander from anybody saying or writing anything that harms somebody. We don’t believe in that. If somebody commits it then we, of course, penalize them for it. But in the marketplace we assume that we can preempt it, we can have prior restraint, and that’s where the chaos comes from. So, in that sense, I don’t believe in prior restraint. The people in the media have their limits; they cannot lie and they cannot get away with defaming people.

But this “too low and too long” on the interest rates, I think, is the key to it. The free market explains the business cycle better than anybody else. Because they understand that the cycles come from artificially low interest rates. So Geithner admits they were too low too long. The reason why this is so damaging is that the interest rate level is key; it’s key to the investor. It’s key to the developer and the builder. If the interest rates are low, the signal that they’re hearing is that there is a lot of savings, and therefore there is capital available to them. But we went through a period of them when there was zero savings and interest rates were low. So it was very confusing. The savers don’t save anymore because there are so called too much savings. At the same time the developers and builders think, “Hey, there is a lot of capital out there”. But it really wasn’t capital; it was artificial. It was credit created out of thin air and it was a fraudulent approach to the issue of providing capital. And someday we’ll get to that. We’re not going to get to that whole idea in this bill because that deals with monetary policy and understanding of how that system works.

But systemic risk is very, very serious and it is the nature of money that creates the systemic risk that we’re trying to deal with. The Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913 and they were given a dollar that was worth 1/20th of an ounce of gold. Today it’s worth 1/1100th of an ounce of gold. Which means that our measuring stick is unstable; it continually loses value. And you can’t build a healthy economy domestically, or especially internationally, if that dollar or that currency becomes the reserve standard of the world. And we’re doing this constantly. Right now it’s not only the Fed’s fault; we’ve run up the deficits. There is a limit to what we can tax, there is a limit to what we can borrow. And at the same time we turn it over to the Fed and the Fed prints the money and artificially lowers interest rates, and that is where the systemic risk comes from.

So someday we’ll have to address that subject of exactly where this comes from. I will offer my amendment, which is the HR1 207, dealing with the Federal Reserve, but that deals only with transparency and we have broad bi-partisan support for this bill and I hope there will be a consensus on supporting that bill.

Thank you very much.

Related posts:

1. Private Fraud vs. Public Fraud In his latest column Ron Paul points out that governments...
2. Ron Paul Questions Ben Bernanke on Free Markets vs. Crony Capitalism Event: House Financial Services Committee Hearing Channel: C-SPAN Date:...
3. House Financial Services Committee Debates Ron Paul’s Amendment to Audit the Fed Later this afternoon, the House Financial Services Committee will be...

“This year the Social Security trust fund will pay out more in benefits than it takes in in taxes, is only 5 years away from being permanently in the red, and will be totally bankrupt by 2037,” Congressman Paul states.

The letter goes on to point out that despite Social Security’s pending financial crises, big-spending politicians continue raiding the Social Security trust fund to hide the true size of the federal deficit while they create new spending programs at the expense of America’s seniors and taxpayers.

“Whatever long-term Social Security plan you favor, I hope you agree the first step in treatment is to stop the bleeding,” Paul concludes.

HR 219 was introduced in January of this year, has been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and currently has 14 cosponsors.

Related posts:

1. Government Statistics and Lies by Ron Paul There has been a lot of...
2. Ron Paul: Income Tax = Involuntary Servitude In his latest column, Ron Paul talks about Tax Freedom...
3. Private Fraud vs. Public Fraud In his latest column Ron Paul points out that governments...

Venue: House Financial Services Committee
Topic: Systemic Regulation, Prudential Matters, Resolution Authority and Securitization
Date: 10/29/2009

Ron Paul: Mr. Secretary, more and more people today are looking critically at the Federal Reserve and wondering what’s going on. And, of course, the people are asking more questions and they want to know exactly what role the Federal Reserve has played in our financial crisis.

In the past, the Federal Reserve was held in very high esteem; they produced prosperity and full employment and stable prices. Today they are wondering somewhat differently, and many economists are joining in this. Today the Congress is by the number of 307 who are asking for more transparency of the Federal Reserve.

But also everybody agrees that we have a financial crisis and we’re working very hard on regulations and I think sometimes we get misdirected in this because if indeed the source of our problem is coming from the Federal Reserve, then you’re depending too much on regulations without looking at the real cause. We’re treating symptoms rather than the cause.

Just the idea that the Federal Reserve is the lender of last resort contributes horrendously to moral hazard, especially when we’re dealing with the reserve currency of the world. But if everybody knows that no matter what happens, the lender is going to be there to bail them out.

You had an interview this year and you were asked what you thought were the real causes of this crisis, and I was fascinated with your answer, because in a way it seems like you might have agreed a little bit with what I am saying. You listed as number one that the monetary policy was too loose for too long, and that created this just huge boom in asset prices, money chasing risks, people trying to get a higher return. That was just overwhelming powerful.

And I think that really makes my point and unless you deal with that and the suggestion is that what we do is move in with more regulations and hope and pray that it will work. But again, if this is true, that a monetary policy way too loose lasted too long, how can the solution be speeding it up? How can you say, “Well, this is the real problem so we’ll double the money supply, interest rates were too low at 1%, so let’s make them a 0.25%”. I mean, I can’t reconcile this. How can you reconcile this on just common sense?

Timothy Geithner: Congressman, there is one part of that quote you omitted which is that I said “monetary policy around the world was too loose for too long.” And I think you are right to say that this crisis was not just about the judgment individuals to borrow too much or banks to lend too much. It wasn’t just about failures in regulation and supervision. It was partly because you had a set of policies pursued around the world that created a large credit boom, asset-price boom. And I think you’re right to emphasize that getting those judgments better in the future is an important part of the solution.

Ron Paul: Okay, on the issue that it is worldwide and we don’t have the full responsibility – there is a big issue when you are running and managing the reserve currency of the world, and other countries are willing to take those dollars and use those as their assets and expand and monetize their own debt. So it would not lock in their economy, it’s a worldwide economy and it’s our dollar policy and our spending habits and our debts that really generated this worldwide crisis. That’s why it’s not a national crisis. It’s a worldwide crisis.

Timothy Geithner: Again, I am not sure I disagree, but I would say it slightly differently, which is that a bunch of countries around the world made the choice to tie their currencies to ours, and effectively adopt our monetary policy. And that made monetary policy too loose in their countries. But it also created this wave of investment and savings into US financial assets which pushed interest rates down here and pushed up asset prices up here. But you’re right to say you look at the global mix of policies, we have responsibilities to get that right. We can’t do that on our own. And that’s important to think about, not just about regulations.

Ron Paul: Well, I think we do have a responsibility of our own. If we’re managing the world reserve currency, we can deal with that, we can deal with our spending policies, our deficits, the pressure on the Fed to inflate. So I think if we do what’s right, it will benefit the entire world.

Timothy Geithner: I agree with that.

In your testimony you also talked about talking about a new international court, and that you’re working on internationalizing regulations, which literally scared me. I think we have too many regulations already, and they don’t solve the problem.

Ron Paul: But, in those negotiations, since this issue of a new reserve currency is being discussed in the ordinary media, you hear reports… just this morning I read the U.N. is planning a new reserve currency. In these reports, can you tell me every time this conversation comes up and what is being talked about and how you relate to what the Chinese are saying? Yes, they’d like to see a new reserve currency, they’d like to participate. It seems that would be some very important information for us.

Timothy Geithner: I will be happy to come and talk to you about that privately or in another context.

Mr. Speaker: The gentleman’s time has expired.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul: Geithner Is Part Of The Problem Future Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner failed his way to the...
2. Tim Geithner: Even Ron Paul Understands That We Don’t Want An Audit In this interview with Wall Street Journal Deputy Managing Editor...
3. Ron Paul: We Need More Regulation of the Federal Reserve Date: 6/18/2009 News Anchor: I want to actually bring...

Venue: Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
Date: 10/28/2009

Ron Paul: Mr. Chairman, thank you and I oppose this legislation [HR 2194: Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009]. I do not challenge the motivation of those who support this legislation, but I think it’s deeply flawed and I think it’s going to do a lot more harm than good. It reminds of all the talk that preceded us going into Iraq; all the wonderful things that could come by putting more pressure on a particular country starting first with sanctions. Sanctions are an act of war.

It was suggested that Venezuela may be going to send oil over there and that means intercepts on the high sea, but the best way for others to look at this to see my point is, how would we react if somebody closed down our oil imports. I mean, we would be pretty unhappy about that. To think that this is not a serious matter, I think it’s being rather naive.

First off, the Iranians have a right to enrich for peaceful purposes. They have never been found in violations of NPT treaty, not once. Our NIE report says they haven’t been working on weapons since 2003 and just because you disagree with it, you just can’t dismiss that report out of hand. So there is a lot of distortion on this information that we get.

When we went into Iraq, there were unintended consequences. There is still no stability there, but one thing for certain, is Iraq is a much closer ally of Iran right now. We drove the Iraqis into the hands of the Iranians and there has been an expression here that this is good [...], but we still should be concerned about China. Well, if you’re concerned about China, this is the best thing in the world for China. They are motivated. They have already invested in Iran. The production of petroleum products has gone up significantly in Iran, so this is a big motivation for the Iranians to do exactly what you don’t want them to do.

Now, the theory is that if we really punish the people, take their gasoline from them and they’re going to get angry – and they will. They’re going to get angry at us. They’re not going to get angry at the Ayatollah. What you are doing is you’re deliberately undermining the dissidents there. They will lose all credibility and people when they attack from the outside as we were on 9/11… we come together, so all we do is we keep pounding on people like this and we ruin the dissenting views that are operating in that country.

So I just think this is all going to backfire and we need to think in terms of the principle of free trade. You know, the more you put on sanctions, the more likely you will be fighting with them. We put on sanctions and we knew we were destined, at least for a lot of us, we were destined to go to war in Iraq and this means that we are willing to take on armed conflict. But you know what? What I don’t understand is your willingness to sort of disrupt what the President is trying to do. I mean, the President is trying to negotiate and talk. He said he wanted to do it; he should be allowed to do this. This just, I think, disrupts what the President is trying to do.

Recently, the President spoke at the United Nations and under his pressure and leadership he had UN Resolution 1887 passed. He is working multilaterally to try to bring peace to that area by having a non-nuclear Middle East. So if that’s the administration’s position to have a non-nuclear Middle East, then why do we do this to disrupt some of the things that he is trying to do, and I just am disturbed by us not looking through and looking at the ramifications, looking at the unintended consequences and this pretense that we can just do this and everything is going to come out all right because I really believe in the long run we will suffer, the people will suffer, and there will not be more stability.

How can we get terrified of a threat from the Iranians? You know, they are a Third World nation, up until recently, they couldn’t even make their own gasoline. But because of our pressure so far, they’re getting quite capable of doing it. We’re driving them into the hands of the Chinese. They have our money. They can control us through the dollar and yet, we’re driving the Chinese into taking over just as we drove the Iraqis to become close allies of the Iranians. I think our policies are deeply flawed. I say your motivations are fine and dandy, but motivations aren’t the answer; we have to think of the consequences.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul: Leave Iran Alone! In his latest video update, Ron Paul exposes the latest...
2. Ron Paul on Russia Today: H1N1, Quarantine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran Channel: Russia Today Date: 11/01/2009 Transcript Dina Gusovsky: A...
3. Ron Paul: It’s Been A Busy Week In Washington In his latest video update, Ron Paul reports on a...

Venue: Joint Economic Committee Hearing
Date: 10/22/2009

Transcript

Ron Paul: Thank you, Madam Chairman and welcome, Dr. Brummer. I appreciate this opportunity to attend this hearing. I’m sorry I have to leave shortly to do some votes, but I did want to make a couple of points and maybe you can follow upon this later on.

In the several years that I have been here I have never met anybody that is not for a sound economy, everybody is for the economy. Everybody debates the issues and what we should do. We have a Federal Reserve that dictates the money supply and what the interest rates should be. And they want a sound economy and then the Congress rates the regulations. We have regulating agencies that are supposed to give us a sound economy, and yet we have probably real unemployment close to 20% and still a lot of problems.

Although I find that everybody wants a sound economy, nobody talks about a sound dollar. And I know you’re interested and have worked in the monetary field. But we don’t talk about what sound money is, and I don’t know how you can have a sound economy without a sound dollar. As a matter of fact, we talk too often about a weak dollar. We allow the Fed to devalue the dollar by printing too much money to accommodate the Congress. At the same time, we say that the secretary of treasury has the job of maintaining a strong a dollar, at the same time the dollar keeps going down.

And this has a lot to do without our imbalance of payments and all the problems that we face. But a lot of people say this is great, you know, a weak dollar is good for exports. Well, you know if you look at it from an individual level and you’re a saver, who wants a weak dollar? Who wants to have their dollar lose their purchasing power? And yet we actually say “Yeah, we should”. And I hear comments that come across that say, “Well, it’s okay to have a weaker dollar as long as it’s orderly”. Well, if a weak dollar is bad, if it goes down suddenly or orderly, you’re still hurt and you’re paralyzed. There should be no [...] in economics that argues the case it is good to have a weakening dollar and see your purchasing power dried up.

So my concern is that we don’t talk about the value of money. On the books still, and the Constitution still say that there is a definition for a dollar in terms of a weight for something that governments can’t create… precious metals. But at the same time, under the law… and the laws says that the Federal Reserve notes are legal tender and everybody has to obey all he laws doing it, because a Federal Reserve note is a dollar. If you’re asking, “What is a dollar?”. Well, we don’t know what a dollar is, but there is nothing on the books that says that a Federal Reserve note is a dollar. This is like building a building with a measuring rod that constantly changes. I cannot see how you can ever have a sound economy without a sound dollar and getting back to defining what a dollar really is. Our founders knew about this, they advised us and we have ignored it and we’re in a mess.

I yield back.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul: A “Strong” Dollar? The Real Policy is Constant Devaluation Date: 11/12/2009 Ron Paul: I’d like to talk about...
2. Ron Paul and Paul Volcker Discuss Fiat Currencies In the “Hearing on Restoring the Economy: Strategies for Short-term...
3. Ron Paul: End The Fed, Stop Inflation, Restore Sound Money In a speech to the Mises Circle in Houston, Ron...