1. HR 1207: Audit The Federal Reserve Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 55 co-sponsors,...
  2. Ron Paul’s Bill To Audit The Federal Reserve Now Has 28 Co-Sponsors! Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 28 co-sponsors!...
  3. Ron Paul’s Bill To Audit The Federal Reserve Now Has 33 Co-Sponsors! Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 33 co-sponsors,...
  4. Ron Paul’s Bill To Audit The Federal Reserve Now Has 46 Co-Sponsors! Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 46 co-sponsors,...
  5. Ron Paul: Audit the Federal Reserve! Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve continues to gain momentum. Last week’s...

1,139 Comments

  1. christine says:
    February 7, 2010 at 4:52 am

    JOHN PERKINS – Ex Economic Hitman Icelandic TV
    (is in English after he gets past the intro)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMcJflvA7GQ&feature=channel

    references the U.S., also hit by the economic hitman, in a different sort of way (corporations, wall street), and mentions other countries that have fallen for the financial trappings of the IMF and World Bank, that are wiser now and refusing that route, using their resources to benefit the people of their own country rather than giving it away for cheap…and that this change must and will come through the people, not the leaders.

    Reply
  2. Paul says:
    February 6, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Bernanke wins second term in 2nd closest vote ever.You wonder if the lies and munipulation will ever end.

    Reply
  3. The American Conservative » Force Fed says:
    February 5, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    [...] We’re a little late linking to this video of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing of May 5. But it’s well worth watching—especially by anyone not yet backing Rep. Ron Paul’s bill calling for an audit of the Fed. [...]

    Reply
  4. The American Conservative » Force Fed says:
    February 5, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    [...] We’re a little late linking to this video of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing of May 5. But it’s well worth watching—especially by anyone not yet backing Rep. Ron Paul’s bill calling for an audit of the Fed. [...]

    Reply
  5. christine says:
    February 3, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Second Financial Economic Crash Coming – Huge & Soon
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKlBJavw_X4&feature=related

    Reply
  6. On Central Bank Independence | Reaction Radio says:
    February 1, 2010 at 11:25 am

    [...] once-marginal proposal — from Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican — that would give Congress the [...]

    Reply
  7. The Income Tax ~ A Brief History « Michael Stollaire for Congress! says:
    January 31, 2010 at 4:59 am

    [...] call your representatives to support Ron Paul’s HR 1207 and S 604 initiatives! The Ron Paul [...]

    Reply
  8. Ron Paul’s State of the Republic Address | Roger Knecht says:
    January 31, 2010 at 12:43 am

    [...] full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal [...]

    Reply
  9. State of the Republic by Ron Paul | The Mississippi Conservative says:
    January 30, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    [...] A full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve [...]

    Reply
  10. CitizenPete says:
    January 30, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Full post with hyper links (see interesting trilateral link to Devvy):
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aaIuE.W8RAuU

    BLOOMBERG.COM
    Commentary by David Reilly

    Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — The idea of secret banking cabals that control the country and global economy are a given among conspiracy theorists who stockpile ammo, bottled water and peanut butter. After this week’s congressional hearing into the bailout of American International Group Inc., you have to wonder if those folks are crazy after all.

    Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.

    We’re talking about the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose role as the most influential part of the federal-reserve system — apart from the matter of AIG’s bailout — deserves further congressional scrutiny.

    The New York Fed is in the hot seat for its decision in November 2008 to buy out, for about $30 billion, insurance contracts AIG sold on toxic debt securities to banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank AG, among others. That decision, critics say, amounted to a back-door bailout for the banks, which received 100 cents on the dollar for contracts that would have been worth far less had AIG been allowed to fail.

    That move came a few weeks after the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department propped up AIG in the wake of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s own mid-September bankruptcy filing.

    Saving the System

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was head of the New York Fed at the time of the AIG moves. He maintained during Wednesday’s hearing that the New York bank had to buy the insurance contracts, known as credit default swaps, to keep AIG from failing, which would have threatened the financial system.

    The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also focused on what many in Congress believe was the New York Fed’s subsequent attempt to cover up buyout details and who benefited.

    By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.

    This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank.

    Geithner’s Bosses

    The New York Fed is one of 12 Federal Reserve Banks that operate under the supervision of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke. Member-bank presidents are appointed by nine-member boards, who themselves are appointed largely by other bankers.

    As Representative Marcy Kaptur told Geithner at the hearing: “A lot of people think that the president of the New York Fed works for the U.S. government. But in fact you work for the private banks that elected you.”

    And yet the New York Fed played an integral role in the government’s bailout of banks, often receiving surprisingly free rein to act as it saw fit.

    Consider AIG. Let’s take Geithner at his word that a failure to resolve the insurer’s default swaps would have led to financial Armageddon. Given the stakes, you might think Geithner would have coordinated actions with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Yet Paulson testified that he wasn’t in the loop.

    “I had no involvement at all, in the payment to the counterparties, no involvement whatsoever,” Paulson said.

    Bernanke’s Denials

    Fed Chairman Bernanke also wasn’t involved. In a written response to questions from Representative Darrell Issa, Bernanke said he “was not directly involved in the negotiations” with AIG’s counterparty banks.

    You have to wonder then who really was in charge of our nation’s financial future if AIG posed as grave a threat as Geithner claimed.

    Questions about the New York Fed’s accountability grew after Geithner on Nov. 24, 2008, was named by then-President- elect Barack Obama to be Treasury Secretary. Geither said he recused himself from the bank’s day-to-day activities, even though he never actually signed a formal letter of recusal.

    That left issues related to disclosures about the deal in the hands of the bank’s lawyers and staff, rather than a top executive. Those staffers didn’t want details of the swaps purchase to become public.

    New York Fed staff and outside lawyers from Davis Polk & Wardell edited AIG communications to investors and intervened with the Securities and Exchange Commission to shield details about the buyout transactions, according to a report by Issa.

    That the New York Fed, a quasi-governmental body, was able to push around the SEC, an executive-branch agency, deserves a congressional hearing all by itself.

    Later, when it became clear information would be disclosed, New York Fed legal group staffer James Bergin e-mailed colleagues saying: “I have to think this train is probably going to leave the station soon and we need to focus our efforts on explaining the story as best we can. There were too many people involved in the deals — too many counterparties, too many lawyers and advisors, too many people from AIG — to keep a determined Congress from the information.”

    Think of the enormity of that statement. A staffer at a body with little public accountability and that exists to serve bankers is lamenting the inability to keep Congress in the dark.

    This belies the culture of secrecy obviously pervasive within the New York Fed. Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns noted during the hearing that the bank initially refused to disclose even the names of other banks that benefited from its actions, arguing this information would somehow harm AIG.

    ‘Penchant for Secrecy’

    “In fact, when the information was finally released, under pressure from Congress, nothing happened,” Towns said. “It had absolutely no effect on AIG’s business or financial condition. But it did have an effect on the credibility of the Federal Reserve, and it called into question the Fed’s penchant for secrecy.”

    Now, I’m not saying Congress should be meddling in interest-rate decisions, or micro-managing bank regulation. Nor do I think we should all don tin-foil hats and start ranting about the Trilateral Commission.

    Yet when unelected and unaccountable agencies pick banking winners while trying to end-run Congress, even as taxpayers are forced to lend, spend and guarantee about $8 trillion to prop up the financial system, our collective blood should boil.

    (David Reilly is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

    Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

    To contact the writer of this column: David Reilly at dreilly14@bloomberg.net

    Last Updated: January 28, 2010 21:00 EST

    Reply
  11. Audit The Fed Legislation « Tea Party Federal Reserve Tiger Team says:
    January 28, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    [...] Audit the Federal Reserve: HR 1207 and S 604 [...]

    Reply
  12. Marc says:
    January 27, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Geithner: ‘I had no role’ in an AIG cover up
    By David Goldman, staff writerJanuary 27, 2010: 2:25 PM ET

    Do you Believe this guy? Geithner was the President of the New York Fed and all of a sudden got Amnesia about AIG. Look down the list and see how many banks (some in Germany received US taxpayer money under the bailout) If you look at all of the comments in this website regarding the Central banking system (The FED) and the Rothchilds, you may start to understand how all the Central Banks are tied together under the one German-Jewish family who have been stealing yours and my money for years as well as in other countries under their Central banks. Obama hired Geithner and supports these types of people who are ruining our country. Get rid of Geithner now and call your Senator and Congressman demanding his resignation as Treasury Secretary. Out with bernanke as well.. read the entire article and I’m sure you will be as mad as I am about Geithner and the Fed.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told lawmakers Wednesday that he had no involvement in an apparent attempt by government regulators to withhold crucial information about AIG’s bailout from the public.

    “I had no role in making decisions regarding what to disclose,” Geithner testified at a hearing held by the House Oversight Committee Wednesday.

    AIG payouts: Who got what
    Counterparties that got more than $1 billion from the government and AIG.
    AIG counterparty Total payment
    Societe Generale $16.5 billion
    Goldman Sachs $14 billion
    Deutsche Bank $8.5 billion
    Merrill Lynch $6.2 billion
    Calyon $4.3 billion
    UBS $3.8 billion
    Deutsche Zentral Genossenschaftsbank $1.8 billion
    Barclays $1.5 billion
    Bank of Montreal $1.4 billion
    Royal Bank of Scotland $1.1 billion
    Wachovia $1 billion

    Source:Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    New York Fed officials instructed AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) not to disclose more than a dozen controversial transactions to the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2008. At the time, Geithner was the president of the New York Fed, but he said he had recused himself from the day-to-day operations at that time because of his nomination to be Treasury secretary.

    At least two lawmakers weren’t buying Geithner’s denial.

    “He has asserted complete ignorance of the Fed’s efforts to cover up the bailout details,” said Committee Ranking Member Darrell Issa, R-Calif. “Many Americans, including members of this Committee, have a hard time believing that Secretary Geithner entered an absolute cone of silence on the day that his nomination was announced.”

    Another Republican lawmaker, Rep. John Mica of Florida, also said he did not believe Geithner’s testimony and called for his head.

    “Why shouldn’t we ask for your resignation?” Mica asked Geithner. “We’re not getting the whole story, we’re getting the blame story. You’re either incompetent on the job or you knew what was taking place and you tried to conceal it, and I think that’s grounds for your review.”

    Geithner angrily responded to Mica, “You don’t know me very well.”

    He then more calmly said, “That is your right to have that opinion. I have served my country as carefully and ably as I can.”

    AIG’s bailout has incited furor among lawmakers and the public, as the troubled insurer has come to symbolize the corporate greed, risky behavior and lack of regulation that many believe caused the Great Recession.

    The issue at hand on Wednesday was one of the bailout’s most contentious: a decision by the New York Fed to pay counterparties 100 cents on the dollar for the underlying assets that AIG has insured through so-called credit default swap agreements.

    As a result, $62.1 billion of taxpayer and AIG funds were essentially funneled to 16 banks that were counterparties to AIG insurance contracts.

    Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., called the facts of the case “murky.”

    “The circumstances surrounding the payments to the counterparties has created an air of suspicion and distrust among the American people, starting with the New York Fed’s initial refusal to name the counterparties,” Towns said at the hearing. “The New York Fed argued that disclosing the counterparties would somehow injure AIG. In fact, when the information was finally released under pressure from Congress, nothing happened.”

    Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson also testified Wednesday. He said that he had “no involvement whatsoever” in the New York Fed’s decision not to disclose the agreements in question.

    And like Geithner, Paulson argued that the AIG bailout was “correct, and I strongly supported it.” He reiterated that allowing AIG to fail would have been disastrous for the economy and jobs. “I believe we easily would have had 25% unemployment,” said Paulson.

    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is not testifying Wednesday, said in a letter that he was also not involved in any decision regarding disclosures.

    The Committee also heard testimony from Special Inspector General for the $700 billion bailout Neil Barofsky and attorneys for AIG and the New York Fed.

    How we got here
    In November, SigTARP Barofsky released an audit of the New York Fed’s decision that found the regulator failed to use its clout to negotiate concessions from AIG’s business partners.

    The House Oversight Committee, subpoenaed the New York Fed for the documents Barofsky used in his audit and recently received 250,000 pages of e-mails and other correspondence. The documents reveal that the New York Fed had urged AIG not to make any reference in its SEC filing that the counterparties had received the dollar-for-dollar value.

    0:00 /4:26AIG could not fail
    Geithner defended his decision to offer full-value for the underlying assets on the credit default swaps. But regarding any decision not to disclose those transactions, Geithner argued that he had had no involvement because of his nomination as Treasury secretary.

    “On Nov. 24, President-elect Barack Obama announced that he intended to nominate me to be Secretary of the Treasury,” Geithner testified. “Starting on Nov. 24, I withdrew from involvement in monetary policy decision, policies involving individual institutions, and day-to-day management of FRBNY.”

    One day later, on Nov. 25, the subpoenaed New York Fed documents show that AIG began to prepare its report with the SEC.

    Despite his stated lack of involvement, Geithner was adamant that those who were involved “acted solely in the public’s interest,” adding that they were “never involved in any decision for any private benefit.”

    Due to many New York Fed employees’ ties to Wall Street investment banks — including Geithner — many lawmakers and members of the public have implied that the regulator’s decisions may have been made for personal gain.

    “I think your commitment to Goldman Sachs trumped your commitment to the American people,” said Rep. Steven Lynch, D-Mass.

    Reply
    • nc patriot says:
      January 27, 2010 at 5:50 pm

      im watching his ass chewing right now on cspan,i hope its not lip service but it probably is

      Reply
    • James says:
      January 29, 2010 at 9:22 pm

      Mark. Great Post. Thank you.

      “Liars figure and figures lie” Then when the crooks are confronted they beg the Homer Simpson advice he gave to Bart. Forget all that crap you learned in school son. When you’re in a tight spot just remember these 3 things “It was like this when I got here.” Watch this for me. I’ll be right back.” “Sounds like a good idea to me boss.” Do you recognize any derivatives here from the Obama sheeple. What is really scary is that he believes he is the savior and that the role of government is more government. He is in over his head. “Vote the bums out.” RON PAUL-2012

      Reply
    • Joseph Azzato says:
      February 7, 2010 at 4:42 am

      not to men-chin Germany and the cold wars it’s in are history as well when you look you know just who was really behind 90% of all are war’s and murder’s getting gun’s band so they can round up there people in death camp’s these people are enemy’s of man kind nothing more then handing debt out which is made from nothing truthfully the only reason it is excepted is because the mass can use it at the store, this is being used to take other company’s for nothing and steal other bank’s US bank refused but then they threatened his life, they also had him kicked out, there using are troop’s to steal other country’s and calling them sup-thing other then civilians try-ing to protect there people and country this is known in Iraq by the mass that is also why they hate bush so much now they are doing it to Iran so they can put a fake system of banking in and control there government and oil there

      it’s slavery plain and simple to take any worth of your labor’s for them selves as well as take there country

      they also count people as property nothing more!

      we need the fed out of are country and removal of there debt system forever this is a very sick family in fact Hitler was half German and Jewish next go ask the Japan’s who they knew Hitler as get it!

      Reply
  13. Don Simus says:
    January 27, 2010 at 4:22 am

    A scientific study had found that Congress behaves like sand

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24711/

    Reply
  14. marc says:
    January 26, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Here are two articles posted on CNNs website today 26 Jan 2010. Bernanke and Audit the Fed movements need to call their Congressmen and Congresswomen and Senators Now, and ask for Nancy Pelosi’s resignation for heinously wasting taypayer money on frivelous trips to Denmark during one of our nations worst financial crisis. All of these Senators ans Pelosi should be mad to pay back every cent of the costs of this Denmark trip-no questions asked! President Obama must be made accountable for his Democratic staff now! Otherwise he is nothing more than what the Indians used to call a white men-People who speak with forked tongue! How can he call for cutbacks in discretionary spending and allow Pelosi and crew to waste 1 million dollars on her Christmas trip to Denmark. Notice in the article, that she was not even part of the Presidents official group at the summit! She should be fired now!

    Should Pelosi have to explain her $1 million trip to Copenhagen?
    A million dollars.

    That’s how much it cost for a delegation of more than 100 people – led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with members of Congress, staff and in some cases spouses and kids – to go to Copenhagen, site of the Climate Summit, just before Christmas.

    Pelosi attends a press conference on the 11th day of the COP15 UN Climate Change Conference.

    CBS News reports that for 21 Congressmen – food and rooms for two nights cost $4,400; and the total hotel bill – including meeting rooms – was more than $400,000.

    About 60 staff members flew commercial – at a cost of $408,000. Pelosi used three military jets for herself and her party at a cost of $170,000 in flight time.

    More than $1 million of taxpayer money. This has nothing to do with the Obama administration officials who went to Denmark to actually attend the summit.

    Pelosi filed the required expense report – but refuses to answer any questions about her use of taxpayer money for her trip. Her arrogance is absolutely breathtaking. As for the high hotel charges, Pelosi’s office says those who stayed two-nights were charged a six-night minimum at the five-star Marriott. Information that was probably available before Pelosi and the freeloaders made their vacation plans.

    Note to the House Speaker: We have skyrocketing deficits and national debt in this country. The President is talking about reining in discretionary spending. I wonder if that would have included this junket by Pelosi and her friends? I would be curious to know where Nancy Pelosi gets her sense of entitlement to simply blow a million dollars of our money at Christmas time so she and her pals can take a little trip to Copenhagen.

    Here’s my question to you: Should House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be required to explain her million-dollar trip to Copenhagen?

    Farmers could be among the groups affected by a proposed freeze on discretionary spending.
    STORY HIGHLIGHTS
    President expected to call for three-year freeze on discretionary spending
    Defense, national security, programs like Medicare and Social Security would be exempt
    Agriculture, education, law enforcement, housing could be among those feeling the pinch
    Agencies could boost spending on some programs if they made it up by cutting others
    Washington (CNN) — Be honest: Stories about the federal budget make your eyes glaze over, right?
    Unless you’re a budget analyst or die-hard political junkie, you probably have no idea what the White House means when it refers to President Obama’s plan to freeze non-security federal discretionary spending over the next three years.

    So what is the president proposing? And who would be affected if Congress adopts his plan?

    Start with the numbers.

    When the White House talks about non-security discretionary spending, it’s referring to spending on an array of domestic programs — everything from agriculture to energy — that add up to $447 billion of roughly $3.5 trillion in the federal budget.

    It does not include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Obama’s plan to freeze spending would not apply to those or other entitlement programs.

    And the federal government does not plan to stop paying interest on the federal debt, a move which would have dire economic consequences. You can remove that from the equation as well.

    Obama also would exempt programs tied to defense, veterans or national security from the freeze on spending.

    Yet his plan could put the squeeze on agencies such as the Departments of Agriculture or Interior. It could require those and other agencies to spend the same amount for the next three years that they spent this year.

    “Instead of wielding an across-the-board axe, the president will cut programs that are duplicative or that he believes serve no important purpose,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

    “We are investing in what we believe is important to invest in. We are cutting programs we think have outlived their usefulness and need to be cut.”

    So what could be hit?

    More precise information won’t be available until the White House releases its proposed 2011 budget on February 1, but the plan to freeze certain spending could affect federal housing and transportation programs. The freeze could include the Department of Agriculture, so farmers could feel the pinch.

    Law-enforcement initiatives at the Justice Department and programs from the Energy Department could be scaled back. If the budget for the Interior Department is frozen, spending on the nation’s parks could be reduced.

    The freeze on spending also would affect American diplomats. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned State Department employees Tuesday the freeze may have an impact on their pay and the way they do their jobs.

    Federal education programs might also be affected, though the administration has repeatedly said education is at the top of Obama’s priority list.

    The freeze would not affect Federal Pell Grants, said Rob Nabors, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. He declined to provide many other details.

    Administration officials have stressed that while a specific agency may be affected by the freeze, agency heads would retain significant power to give some programs increases while cutting money elsewhere.

    So what does the president hope to achieve with the freeze?

    The White House says it hopes to save $250 billion over the next decade — a first step in reducing the spiraling federal deficit.

    “If we can’t make these steps, how are we going to go after stuff that we know is politically hard?” Gibbs asked reporters Tuesday.

    Critics point out, however, that the same programs subject to the freeze today were given an increase of more than 7 percent last year.

    “Frankly, the government has to make better choices and better plans than throwing things into a big pot [for an economic stimulus plan] in one year and then freezing across the board the next year,” said Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University economist.

    “We have areas in that so-called ‘discretionary spending’ that urgently need more funding. And to freeze across the board, I think, would be kind of a dereliction of duty.”

    Reply
  15. Ron Paul’s State of the Republic Address « Patrick J. Buchanan says:
    January 26, 2010 at 2:16 am

    [...] full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal [...]

    Reply
  16. robert says:
    January 26, 2010 at 12:37 am

    dear you.
    i do not who you are.
    but i live here.
    if you look outside of your window.
    this people are not you.
    they are like you, but not today.
    they,we, you, are here.
    all need to shit, eat, sleep.
    save your ass. as you well can.
    and save the ones saving your grit.
    you need them to be you.

    Reply
  17. BOVARD » Dump Bernanke and Audit the Fed says:
    January 25, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    [...] The Senate will be voting on Bernanke while having little or no idea what the Federal Reserve has done in recent years. That is why Congress must pass Ron Paul’s legislation to Audit the Fed. [...]

    Reply
  18. Janice says:
    January 24, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Dear All Congressman and Senators who signed the petition to Audit the Fed…….
    we are still waiting for you to DO IT!
    I guess the NWO /Illuminati’s /CFR/CZARS carry more power than your suppose to eh?
    Well, our next congressman and congresswoman won’t be from either party but a Peoples Party so guess your stalling will cause you to loose your jobs !
    Then , when America goes totally broke, I guess you’ll also be loosing your pension/ retirement like the rest of us……
    If I were you I would fire Benacke and Geithner, I sure wouldn’t reinstate them…
    You all are so manipulated its a joke anymore to watch you’s……
    You’ve got nothing done but talk talk talk talk talk , give speeches , give speeches give speeches…….while we are being robbed and robbed and robbed..
    We want our banks back , we want our money bank and we want our jobs back……Snap to it!

    Reply
  19. Don Simus says:
    January 24, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Scientific analysis of congressional support for Ron Paul’s resolution to audit the Federal Reserve show that it is described by a curve, known in mathematics as Devil’s staircase. This means that the Fed is going to Hell.

    More details here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3732

    Reply
  20. ############### SPREAD THIS INFORMATION ############### | DarkData.Net says:
    January 23, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    [...] Bills to be supported: S 604 and HR 1207 http://www.auditthefed.com / Audit the FED / Audit the FED [...]

    Reply
  21. We Are Change Colorado Springs » Blog Archive » GOP Establishment threatened by Ron & Rand Paul says:
    January 23, 2010 at 10:12 am

    [...] 317 cosponsors and passed through the House Financial Services Committee a bill to audit the Federal Reserve., and has “led the fight against bailouts, Obamacare and Cap and Trade”. He [...]

    Reply
  22. | mashburn411.com says:
    January 22, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    [...] full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal [...]

    Reply
    • Mike Jaeger Live says:
      January 29, 2010 at 8:00 pm

      End Fed reserve and hire pvt CPA firms for 6 year contracts to manage our currency with strict oversight.

      End careers in poilitcs and career appointments…. 10 year max. On all appointed or elected officials… cumulative service per person… including all political offices served.

      Reply
  23. MikeJaegerLive says:
    January 19, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10WUZamrsSY
    Vote 5 stars for the above video and share it…. Reforms begin with HR 1207 in 2010… then we up the clean house !

    2010 – Banking, elected, and appointed officials… Audits – End of all career appointments and politicians – 2010 Real reforms begin.

    Reply
  24. Bullard: Fed is a firefighter, not an arsonist | Mound City Money | STLtoday says:
    January 18, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    [...] Federal Reserve has plenty of detractors these days, with Rep. Ron Paul crusading for an audit of the Fed’s monetary policy and other politicians proposing various ways to limit the [...]

    Reply
  25. Roland Patton says:
    January 18, 2010 at 3:07 am

    The Rothschild’s have been said to own 53% of the federal reserve and be running the worlds finances for too long and have corrupted too many politicians and stolen too many hard working peoples money for too long,its time the united states took the federal reserve away from the current owners and started printing our own money just as Lincoln and Kennedy did and hold any future presidents for high treason if they attempt to start another central bank or federal reserve or by any other name.Its bad enough they own the companies that own most of the major media outlets along with the Rockefellers but they also own a good portion of mining and mineral companies,pharmaceutical,vaccine labortories on and on,the UN,CFR etc.soon they will regulate the internet as they already regulate everything else.These big bank owners have started and financed most of the wars on both sides making money and gaining power. Now there is only about 6 or 7 countries left without a central bank but guess what,the US is working to get those to fall in place using US troops as a puppet for the big banks to do their bidding.Do some digging and you will become alarmed,disgusted,awakened and probably angry.All I can say to these bankers is remember Tsar Nicholas II,Americans have a way of holding a grudge.Just because we are 80% a Christian nation does not mean we do not have limits to being taken advantage of.

    Reply
  26. Ed says:
    January 17, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    Our central bank is managing well, while the economy goes sour and unemployment soars. Our elected representatives in Washington, DC have sold us “down the river”. Our congressmen and senators are afraid to speak out against the Fed.
    I fear the end of our nation is at hand, just a few years away.

    Reply
  27. Welcome to the Progressive Libertarianism Movement » Free Competition in Currency Act (HR 4248) says:
    January 16, 2010 at 2:06 am

    [...] is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal [...]

    Reply
  28. Geithner: Auditing the Fed is a “line that we don’t want to cross” - Restore The Republic says:
    January 14, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    [...] independent of politics,” which can only be said to be true insofar as Ron Paul—the sponsor of House Resolution (HR) 1207— wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system [...]

    Reply
  29. They’ve Turned Their Attack Dogs Loose On Me! « Wide Spectrum Analysis says:
    January 13, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    [...] drawn 317 cosponsors and passed through the House Financial Services Committee a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. We have led the fight against bailouts, Obamacare and Cap and Trade. And, thanks to the national [...]

    Reply
  30. Marc says:
    January 13, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Today, on CNNs website the following article about the FEd was posted:

    Fed profits: $52 billion in 2009
    By Colin Barr, senior writerJanuary 12, 2010: 11:55 AM ET

    NEW YORK (Fortune) — The Federal Reserve banks made a $52 billion profit in 2009, reaping extra income on the government securities they bought in an effort to stabilize the financial system.

    (COMMENT: How is it that The Fed (bernanke), and it crony bank CEOs can constantly be getting big bonuses, buy Government securities from our own Government and turn a profit at the same time they still owe the US taxpayer money on the TARP loans? And, President Obama is soooo concerned about controlling the budget that he has his OMB guru looking at ways to control spending on programs that benefit the taxpayer and yet turn a blind eye when it comes to his buddies in the FED? I wonder whose payroll the president is on?
    The Fed, in a statement on Tuesday, said its members returned $46 billion of that sum to taxpayers. The central bank is an independent arm of the government and its member banks are required to return all profits to the Treasury, after certain deductions.

    Those deductions account for the $6 billion difference between the two figures. Federal Reserve banks paid the private banks that control them $1.4 billion in dividends in 2009, while shoring up their own capital by $4.6 billion.
    The Fed’s 2009 profit marks a 47% increase over 2008. It comes as the Fed took in interest payments on an expanding portfolio of securities issued by the Treasury and by the government-sponsored mortgage agencies Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500).

    The Fed said last year it would buy $300 billion of Treasurys and up to $1.25 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities, in addition to $175 billion of debt issued by the agencies.

    The effort helped to keep mortgage and other long-term interest rates low as the government sought to help the economy recover from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. It also brought a flood of profits into the vaults of the 12 Federal Reserve banks.

    But the purchases also more than doubled the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, leading to questions about the possible inflationary implications of Fed chief Ben Bernanke’s aggressive response to the financial sector meltdown of 2008.

    Bernanke, for one, has said he believes the Fed will end up making more money – and thus passing more on to taxpayers – as the markets and the economy recover.

    “I do believe we’re going to get back all the money, and indeed we’ll be showing for the taxpayers fairly significant extra income,” he said last month following a speech at the Economic Club of Washington.

    Tuesday’s numbers back that claim up, for now. The Fed’s securities stash paid off in a big way in 2009 – earnings on government and agency securities soared to $46 billion in 2009 from $27.5 billion a year earlier – and should continue to do so as long as the Fed holds the bonds.

    But a big question confronting investors is what will happen to interest rates once the Fed stops purchasing agency debt, as it is scheduled to do at the end of the first quarter, and how that might affect the Fed’s efforts to pull back from its emergency support for the markets.

    Analysts expect to see mortgage rates rise modestly, on top of the increases seen since December. Freddie Mac recently said it expects to see 30-year mortgage rates, which were below 5% as recently as last month, heading to 6% by the end of this year.

    Thanks to its market-support plans, the Fed held $160 billion of agency debt and $900 billion of mortgage-backed securities as of Jan. 6, in addition to $776 billion of Treasurys. Two years ago, before the full force of the financial crisis had hit, the Fed had $728 billion of Treasurys – and no agencies or mortgage-backed securities.

    Since bonds’ value declines as rates rise, the Fed could find itself holding a large number of securities that it would be unable to sell except at a loss, at a time when it would like to have maximum flexibility to trim the size of its balance sheet.

    Flexibility is important because banks currently have more than $1 trillion of so-called excess reserves on deposit with the Fed, compared with just $4 billion in January 2008. Should the economy recover earlier than is currently expected, those reserves could fuel a price surge.

    But Bernanke and other officials have stressed that they will be prudent in withdrawing the excess reserves to prevent an inflationary spike. For instance, the Fed paid $2.2 billion last year in interest on bank reserves.

    Bernanke said last year that raising the rate the Fed pays on those deposits, along with other tools, could help policymakers “during the exit stage

    Reply
  31. Larry L. Stuler says:
    January 13, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    The Federal Reserve bankrupted the U.S. federal government in the 1930’s. This is clearly evidenced by the law itself: title 11, U.S.C., “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 C.F.R., “Federal Elections”. The Federal Election Commission is charged with implementing the laws of bankruptcy. Our elections are simply to elect a bankruptcy “administration” – the Fed is in charge, so it really doesn’t matter who gets elected. President Obama ran his election on the “change” platform, but once elected, he increased the bailout money to the same people and increased the number of troops overseas. Nothing has changed at all because the Fed has ordained what will be done.

    After bankrupting the government, the Federal Reserve then moved to enslave all Americans and make them pay the interest on their (counterfeit money) loans to the government.

    However, bankrupting the U.S. federal government wasn’t enough to make Americans pay the Fed’s interest because the American is sovereign, not the federal government. This has been held by the Supreme Court in several decisions, such as, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, and Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419. It is expressed quite clearly within Julliard v. Greenman as follows:

    “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.”

    The American is sovereign not because of the Constitution, but because the organic law of the land, the Declaration of Independence, stated that “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women) is a self-evident truth. The Declaration of Independence supercedes the Constitution, so the Constitution cannot change anything to do with the self-evident truth “all men (and women) are created equal”.

    Besides the sovereignty issue that the Federal Reserve had to deal with, the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce. Actually, this is a consequence of American sovereignty – there would be no sovereignty if the federal government could rule Americans in their commercial endeavors. The Constitution in Article I, section 8, only grants the federal government jurisdiction “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. This is known as foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.

    In order to get around the Constitutional restraints to complete the Fed’s control over America, Social Security was created, along with the deceptive use of legal “terms”. Once the law defines a word it is known as a “term” and you can throw the dictionary definition of that word out the window. An American who applies for a Social Security number has become a federal employee. The “SS-5” Form is an employment form. After all, only federal employees would be liable for federal employment taxes. The Constitutional restraints do not apply to the government’s own employees.

    You may wonder, “What is the employee?”. It is the “taxpayer”. A “taxpayer” is a term defined at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine, a federal employee. 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(b) states that the terms used here are the same throughout the Internal Revenue Code and the implementing regulations.

    The federal government does not have jurisdiction over a free, sovereign American so it cannot write laws that subject an American to any duty. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, “Since in common usage, the term person does not include the sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”.

    Has any government agency ever addressed any correspondence to you as “Dear Sovereign American”? Of course not, but you are constantly bombarded with the term “taxpayer”.

    Now what exactly is F.I.C.A.? It is defined as a U.S. possession tax (26 U.S.C. section 7655). Since the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce (commerce within a State) and no jurisdiction over sovereign Americans, it only has the limited jurisdiction as noted above. In addition, the Constitution at Article IV, section 3 grants the federal government power over its property and territory. So it may make any tax is pleases in the U.S. possessions.

    This leads to the “U.S. citizen”. This is a term defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2208 and 2501(b) and exemplified at 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship. This is the 14th Amendment citizen who is born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. A person born in one of the States is sovereign (as the above Supreme Court decisions have held) and not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. However, someone with U.S. possession citizenship is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government as there is no guarantee of any rights to U.S. possession citizens in the Constitution.

    Since F.I.C.A. is a U.S. possession tax, the government (as directed by its owners, the Fed) is relying upon the adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and presumes that an American has U.S. possession citizenship and, therefore, is a “U.S. citizen” as that person has applied for F.I.C.A.

    The federal government has jurisdiction over its own employees and its possession citizens. Applying for a Social Security number makes an American into both a federal employee and a citizen with U.S. possession citizenship. The Social Security enrollee has given away all sovereignty and become a slave for the federal government and its owners, the Federal Reserve. This allows the Federal Reserve to collect taxes from Americans to pay off the interest on its counterfeit loans to the government.

    What about the 16th Amendment you ask? It was ratified in 1913, 20 years before the government’s bankruptcy to the Federal Reserve. The 16th Amendment was declared to be Constitutional in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 decision three years later in 1916.

    The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”. The “previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision. Here the Supreme Court has ruled that the government always had the power to tax income.

    A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.

    The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being generated for the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.

    The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

    The statutes that make up the Internal Revenue Code must, therefore, be read in mind with the above Supreme Court decisions as well as the following Supreme Court decision:

    “It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” – McCullough v. Com of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898).

    Since the revenue being generated by an income tax must come from one of the original commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution, this leads right back to foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.

    These three commerce jurisdictions are listed separately within title 28, “Judiciary and judicial procedure”, chapter 85, “District Courts; Jurisdiction”. Section 1336, now “Surface Transportation Board’s orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders” in late 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction. Section 1362 is “Indian tribes”, obviously the trade with the Indians jurisdiction. Section 1340 is “Internal revenue; customs duties”, which is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.

    What the Supreme Court knew when it decided the Brushaber case was that the plaintiff, Mr. Frank Brushaber, was a collector/assessor for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary. So the income tax is within foreign commerce, just as title 28 U.S.C. section 1340 defines above. The federal government can tax its own tax collectors within its jurisdictions.

    The jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2197 (1939 Code) as “within the exterior boundaries of the United States”, which is obviously the opposite of “within the interior boundaries of the United States”, in other words, the U.S. possessions. Once again everything reverts back to the Constitution and the limited jurisdiction of the federal government.

    You must remember that in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified, the Federal Reserve Act was also approved by Congress. And the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which created the “U.S citizen”. The forces behind the scenes have been planning the government’s bankruptcy long ago, almost immediately after the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence stating that “all men are created equal”.

    The government has another term, that of “U.S. resident” (26 U.S.C. section 865(g)), which includes both of the terms “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen” within it. This is what the IRS indictments use to deceptively charge a defendant (victim).

    The Fed has now ordained that healthcare will become a federally controlled system. The citizens of the U.S. have absolutely no say in this. If the citizens did have any input, this would be an out-in-the-open debate. The polls, even those polls that are using convoluted questions to predetermine the results, all show that the citizenry is not behind this healthcare fiasco. What the Fed wants, the Fed gets. Nothing will change until the Social Security Scam and the federal government’s bankruptcy are exposed.

    ABOLISH THE FED!! ABOLISH SOCIAL SECURITY!! NOW!!

    To see the entire Social Security Scam, see my Blog at LLSTULER.wordpress.com or http://wp.me/PCW6e-E for an in depth examination of everything in this comment.

    Reply
  32. david semler says:
    January 13, 2010 at 12:16 am

    when you take your car to a mechanic the mechanic will tell you what you have to buy to fix your car ,he can be honest and tell you what exactly the problem is and how much it will cost or he can lie and tell you the engine and transmission is junk and you pay out the ass ,when you find out he lied and ripped you off you fire the mechanic and find a new mechanic .the fed is a one of these two I am sure of that.would you not agree?

    Reply
  33. Jeff Barber says:
    January 13, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Thank you Ron Paul for taking a stand against these criminals at the Federal Reserve. They have done nothing but plunder our nation every since they were put in power. Audit first, then ABOLISH!

    Reply
  34. Gordon Smith says:
    January 12, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    Ron Paul, Thank you for this Bill, make them account for every cent, Im afraid Obama has pulled off the biggest bank robbery in history, if so make sure he go’s to jail along with every person in bed with him, where is all that money ????? IM MAD. Along with everyone I know. MAKE THEM PAY IT BACK. IMPEACHMENT IS IN ORDER< HE HAS LIED TO THE PEOPLE, OH Where in the hell is the Birth certificate ? I really think we have an illeagle alien for a President. Now what you goona do about that? Why is he getting away with this? Kind Regards Gordon Smith, Hurricane Utah USA.

    Reply
  35. Federal Reserve is saying ‘we asnwer to no one’. | That Beats All says:
    January 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    [...] asnwer to no one’. Easy AdSense by UnrealRon Paul [say what you want about him] has been fighting to have the FR audited. And I know no reason why it shouldn’t be… How can they sit back and say ‘we [...]

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>

Audit the Federal Reserve: HR 1207 and S 604

Audit the Fed Amendment Passes 43-26!

On Thursday, November 19, 2009, after several hours of heated debate, the Paul-Grayson “Audit the Fed” amendment passed 43-26 in the House Financial Services Committee. The amendment calls for a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve and replaces the opposing “placebo” amendment proposed by Mel Watt.

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 on November 19, but Barney Frank surprisingly postponed the vote until after the Thanksgiving recess.

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):


Democrats
MA-04 Rep. Barney Frank nay
PA-11 Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski nay
CA-35 Rep. Maxine Waters nay
NY-14 Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney nay
IL-04 Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez nay
NY-12 Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez nay
NC-12 Rep. Melvin L. Watt nay
NY-05 Rep. Gary L. Ackerman nay
CA-27 Rep. Brad Sherman aye
NY-06 Rep. Gregory W. Meeks nay
KS-03 Rep. Dennis Moore nay
MA-08 Rep. Michael E. Capuano nay
TX-15 Rep. Rubén Hinojosa aye
MO-01 Rep. William Lacy Clay aye
NY-04 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy nay
CA-43 Rep. Joe Baca
MA-09 Rep. Stephen F. Lynch nay
CA-42 Rep. Gary G. Miller nay
GA-13 Rep. David Scott aye
TX-09 Rep. Al Green nay
MO-05 Rep. Emanuel Cleaver nay
IL-08 Rep. Melissa L. Bean nay
WI-04 Rep. Gwen Moore nay
NH-02 Rep. Paul W. Hodes aye
MN-05 Rep. Keith Ellison nay
FL-22 Rep. Ron Klein nay
OH-06 Rep. Charles Wilson nay
CO-07 Rep. Ed Perlmutter aye
IN-02 Rep. Joe Donnelly nay
IL-14 Rep. Bill Foster nay
IN-07 Rep. Andre Carson nay
CA-12 Rep. Jackie Speier aye
MS-01 Rep. Travis Childers aye
ID-01 Rep. Walt Minnick aye
NJ-03 Rep. John Adler aye
OH-15 Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy nay
OH-01 Rep. Steve Driehaus aye
FL-24 Rep. Suzanne Kosmas aye
FL-08 Rep. Alan Grayson aye
CT-04 Rep. Jim Himes nay
MI-09 Rep. Gary Peters aye
NY-25 Rep. Dan Maffei aye

Republicans
AL-06 Rep. Spencer Bachus aye
TX-19 Rep. Randy Neugebauer aye
DE-01 Rep. Michael N. Castle aye
NY-03 Rep. Peter King aye
CA-40 Rep. Edward R. Royce aye
OK-03 Rep. Frank D. Lucas aye
TX-14 Rep. Ron Paul (sponsor) aye
IL-16 Rep. Donald A. Manzullo aye
NC-03 Rep. Walter B. Jones aye
IL-13 Rep. Judy Biggert aye
NC-13 Rep. Brad Miller
WV-02 Rep. Shelley Moore Capito aye
TX-05 Rep. Jeb Hensarling aye
NJ-05 Rep. Scott Garrett aye
SC-03 Rep. J. Gresham Barrett aye
PA-06 Rep. Jim Gerlach aye
GA-06 Rep. Tom Price aye
NC-10 Rep. Patrick T. McHenry aye
CA-48 Rep. John Campbell aye
FL-12 Rep. Adam Putnam aye
MN-06 Rep. Michele Bachmann aye
TX-24 Rep. Kenny Marchant aye
MI-11 Rep. Thaddeus McCotter aye
CA-22 Rep. Kevin McCarthy aye
FL-15 Rep. Bill Posey aye
KS-02 Rep. Lynn Jenkins aye
NY-26 Rep. Christopher Lee aye
MN-03 Rep. Erik Paulsen aye
NJ-07 Rep. Leonard Lance aye

(The information below covers the original HR 1207 bill and remains relevant as additional co-sponsors keep joining.)

Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 313 co-sponsors, and the numbers keep growing! HR 1207’s companion bill in the Senate, S 604, has already attracted 30 co-sponsors.

This is history in the making, and victory is within reach. Imagine what will happen if HR 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, comes up for vote in Congress! With two thirds of the House of Representatives already co-sponsoring this bill, it has real potential to pass — BUT only if we educate and rally the people to support it and get our Congresspeople to put it to vote and pass it.

Step 1: Your Representative

If your representative is not on the following list of HR 1207 co-sponsors, call their offices, write to them, email them. Let them know they need to support HR 1207. If you live in their district, let them know. Go to their office.

Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Enter your zip code to contact your representative:

HR 1207 Co-Sponsors (as of 11/25/2009)

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] – 2/26/2009
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] – 5/6/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] – 5/6/2009
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 3/19/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 3/10/2009
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] – 5/20/2009
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] – 9/23/2009
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] – 5/6/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 4/29/2009
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] – 7/10/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 4/21/2009
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] – 4/28/2009
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] – 5/12/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 5/4/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] – 5/21/2009
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] – 5/20/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] – 4/28/2009
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] – 4/21/2009
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 5/4/2009
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 4/21/2009
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] – 10/27/2009
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] – 7/10/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 3/16/2009
Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] – 3/24/2009
Rep Boccieri, John A. [OH-16] – 7/28/2009
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] – 6/10/2009
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] – 6/9/2009
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] – 4/29/2009
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] – 5/7/2009
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] – 6/9/2009
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] – 7/20/2009
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] – 5/13/2009
Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] – 7/14/2009
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 4/22/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] – 6/11/2009
Rep Bright, Bobby [AL-2] – 6/11/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 2/26/2009
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] – 6/11/2009
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] – 4/28/2009
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] – 5/20/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] – 3/17/2009
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 3/19/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 2/26/2009
Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-4] – 4/30/2009
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 4/29/2009
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] – 6/18/2009
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] – 5/4/2009
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] – 6/23/2009
Rep Cao, Anh “Joseph” [LA-2] – 6/11/2009
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] – 4/1/2009
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] – 6/9/2009
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 3/31/2009
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 5/4/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] – 3/17/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 3/6/2009
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] – 7/7/2009
Rep Childers, Travis [MS-1] – 6/9/2009
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] – 10/6/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] – 11/19/2009
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] – 6/11/2009
Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] – 6/16/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] – 10/22/2009
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 4/21/2009
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 5/7/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 6/23/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] – 7/8/2009
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] – 5/4/2009
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] – 9/24/2009
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 3/26/2009
Rep Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. [PA-3] – 7/22/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 6/26/2009
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] – 5/6/2009
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] – 9/30/2009
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] – 3/23/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 3/9/2009
Rep Delahunt, Bill [MA-10] – 9/9/2009
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] – 5/6/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] – 7/10/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] – 6/18/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] – 4/21/2009
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] – 9/29/2009
Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] – 6/10/2009
Rep Driehaus, Steve [OH-1] – 10/6/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 3/6/2009
Rep Edwards, Chet [TX-17] – 6/16/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] – 6/11/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] – 4/21/2009
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] – 7/15/2009
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] – 4/2/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 7/8/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 7/28/2009
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] – 5/11/2009
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 3/18/2009
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 5/20/2009
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] – 5/12/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] – 3/10/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 3/23/2009
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] – 6/3/2009
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] – 7/9/2009
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] – 7/7/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] – 3/5/2009
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] – 5/11/2009
Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] – 6/16/2009
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 3/30/2009
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] – 4/23/2009
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 4/28/2009
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] – 9/8/2009
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] – 4/22/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] – 3/11/2009
Rep Griffith, Parker [AL-5] – 6/16/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 6/3/2009
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 5/7/2009
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 4/29/2009
Rep Halvorson, Deborah L. [IL-11] – 6/3/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] – 5/11/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] – 7/7/2009
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 5/11/2009
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] – 5/11/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] – 11/2/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] – 3/6/2009
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 5/4/2009
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 4/21/2009
Rep Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [SD] – 5/6/2009
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] – 10/13/2009
Rep Hill, Baron P. [IN-9] – 10/22/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] – 6/2/2009
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] – 9/10/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] – 7/8/2009
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] – 4/28/2009
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] – 6/4/2009
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] – 5/13/2009
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] – 4/23/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] – 5/12/2009
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] – 6/16/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] – 7/30/2009
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] – 4/23/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] – 9/15/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] – 6/9/2009
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 4/22/2009
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] – 4/23/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 2/26/2009
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] – 6/2/2009
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] – 2/26/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] – 4/23/2009
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] – 9/21/2009
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] – 6/4/2009
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] – 6/11/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 3/6/2009
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] – 7/15/2009
Rep Kirkpatrick, Ann [AZ-1] – 7/14/2009
Rep Kissell, Larry [NC-8] – 11/5/2009
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 4/29/2009
Rep Kosmas, Suzanne M. [FL-24] – 6/17/2009
Rep Kratovil, Frank, Jr. [MD-1] – 6/4/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 6/11/2009
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 4/21/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] – 5/11/2009
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] – 9/8/2009
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] – 4/21/2009
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] – 4/28/2009
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] – 5/20/2009
Rep Lee, Christopher J. [NY-26] – 6/10/2009
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] – 6/24/2009
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] – 9/23/2009
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] – 5/6/2009
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] – 6/4/2009
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] – 5/4/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] – 6/10/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] – 7/7/2009
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] – 4/21/2009
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 4/21/2009
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] – 11/19/2009
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] – 3/19/2009
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] – 5/7/2009
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] – 5/12/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] – 5/12/2009
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 4/21/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 3/11/2009
Rep Markey, Betsy [CO-4] – 6/25/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] – 4/22/2009
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] – 5/4/2009
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 4/21/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 3/6/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 3/19/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 4/29/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] – 6/10/2009
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] – 4/30/2009
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] – 5/4/2009
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] – 6/10/2009
Rep McKeon, Howard P. “Buck” [CA-25] – 6/11/2009
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] – 5/4/2009
Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3] – 7/10/2009
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] – 5/12/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] – 5/7/2009
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] – 9/22/2009
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] – 4/28/2009
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 6/10/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 3/24/2009
Rep Minnick, Walter [ID-1] – 5/13/2009
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] – 6/9/2009
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] – 5/4/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] – 7/7/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] – 6/9/2009
Rep Murphy, Scott [NY-20] – 7/9/2009
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] – 4/29/2009
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 4/28/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] – 9/10/2009
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 4/30/2009
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] – 6/12/2009
Rep Nye, Glenn C., III [VA-2] – 9/17/2009
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] – 7/31/2009
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 4/21/2009
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] – 5/14/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] – 6/9/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] – 5/20/2009
Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] – 3/30/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 7/30/2009
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 4/21/2009
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] – 6/10/2009
Rep Perriello, Thomas S.P. [VA-5] – 5/13/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 3/19/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] – 3/10/2009
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] – 10/6/2009
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] – 4/28/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 3/19/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 2/26/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] – 6/11/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] – 2/26/2009
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 3/10/2009
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] – 5/6/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] – 2/26/2009
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] – 5/20/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] – 7/28/2009
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 4/21/2009
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] – 7/14/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 5/13/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] – 5/20/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] – 3/6/2009
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 4/22/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 4/28/2009
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] – 6/2/2009
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] – 5/21/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] – 6/18/2009
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] – 5/12/2009
Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] – 10/20/2009
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] – 5/14/2009
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] – 10/23/2009
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] – 7/15/2009
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] – 6/15/2009
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 5/20/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 5/6/2009
Rep Schauer, Mark H. [MI-7] – 5/20/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] – 7/14/2009
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] – 6/11/2009
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] – 5/6/2009
Rep Schrader, Kurt [OR-5] – 9/15/2009
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] – 7/20/2009
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] – 5/7/2009
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 3/23/2009
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] – 5/7/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] – 6/9/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] – 6/23/2009
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] – 4/22/2009
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] – 6/12/2009
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 5/7/2009
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] – 4/28/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] – 6/17/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] – 4/22/2009
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] – 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] – 6/15/2009
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 4/2/2009
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] – 6/23/2009
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] – 6/16/2009
Rep Space, Zachary T. [OH-18] – 6/23/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] – 6/11/2009
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] – 10/13/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 3/26/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] – 3/6/2009
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] – 7/8/2009
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] – 10/6/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] – 3/6/2009
Rep Teague, Harry [NM-2] – 6/12/2009
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 3/30/2009
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] – 7/17/2009
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] – 4/22/2009
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 5/21/2009
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] – 4/28/2009
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] – 7/20/2009
Rep Titus, Dina [NV-3] – 7/14/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] – 6/9/2009
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] – 5/13/2009
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] – 4/29/2009
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] – 7/20/2009
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] – 5/4/2009
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] – 5/7/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] – 3/16/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] – 11/5/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] – 5/21/2009
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 4/2/2009
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] – 5/14/2009
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 4/29/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 4/1/2009
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] – 6/11/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] – 7/13/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] – 7/14/2009
Rep Young, C.W. Bill [FL-10] – 6/3/2009
Rep Young, Don [AK] – 3/6/2009

Step 2: Your Senator

HR 1207’s identical companion bill in the Senate is known as S 604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

If your Senator is not on the following list of S 604 co-sponsors, call their offices, write to them, email them. Let them know they need to support S 604. If you live in their district, let them know. Go to their office.

Enter your zip code to contact your senators:

S 604 Co-Sponsors (as of 11/25/2009)

Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 7/15/2009
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] – 7/15/2009
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 9/17/2009
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 7/8/2009
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] – 7/9/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] – 7/28/2009
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] – 7/8/2009
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – 7/20/2009
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] – 10/1/2009
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] – 7/20/2009
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] – 6/25/2009
Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] – 6/11/2009
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] – 9/9/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] – 7/15/2009
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 7/24/2009
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] – 8/3/2009
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] – 7/20/2009
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 7/24/2009
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] – 7/20/2009
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] – 7/9/2009
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] – 7/8/2009
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] – 9/17/2009
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] – 7/15/2009
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 7/15/2009
Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] – 9/15/2009
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] – 8/3/2009
Sen Thune, John [SD] – 9/22/2009
Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 6/16/2009
Sen Webb, Jim [VA] – 8/3/2009
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] – 10/1/2009

Step 3: Financial Services Committee

HR 1207 is now in the House Committee on Financial Services. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP in this legislation! If it doesn’t get out of committee it will not come to a vote! There are 71 members on this committee and they are all listed below.

We need to let all members of the House Committee on Financial Services know that we want them to allow full House consideration of HR 1207 so it can move forward; we need them to support this. Now is the time.

Call their offices, write to them, email them. Let them know they need to support HR 1207. If you live in their district, let them know. Go to their office.

House Committee on Financial Services

Chairman Barney Frank, MA

Republican Members

Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN [co-sponsor]
Rep. Spencer Bachus, AL [co-sponsor]
Rep. J. Gresham Barrett, SC [co-sponsor]
Rep. Judy Biggert, IL [co-sponsor]
Rep. John Campbell, CA [co-sponsor]
Rep. Michael N. Castle, DE [co-sponsor]
Rep. Scott Garrett, NJ [co-sponsor]
Rep. Jim Gerlach, PA [co-sponsor]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, TX [co-sponsor]
Rep. Lynn Jenkins, KS [co-sponsor]
Rep. Walter B. Jones , NC [co-sponsor]
Rep. Peter King, NY [co-sponsor]
Rep. Leonard Lance, NJ [co-sponsor]
Rep. Christopher Lee, NY [co-sponsor]
Rep. Frank D. Lucas, OK [co-sponsor]
Rep. Donald A. Manzullo, IL [co-sponsor]
Rep. Kenny Marchant, TX [co-sponsor]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, MI [co-sponsor]
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, CA [co-sponsor]
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, NC [co-sponsor]
Rep. Gary G. Miller, CA [co-sponsor]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, TX [co-sponsor]
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, WV [co-sponsor]
Rep. Ron Paul, TX [sponsor]
Rep. Erik Paulsen, MN [co-sponsor]
Rep. Bill Posey, FL [co-sponsor]
Rep. Tom Price, GA [co-sponsor]
Rep. Adam Putnam, FL [co-sponsor]
Rep. Edward R. Royce, CA [co-sponsor]

Democratic Members

Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, NY
Rep. John Adler, NJ [co-sponsor]
Rep. Joe Baca, CA
Rep. Melissa L. Bean, IL
Rep. Michael E. Capuano, MA
Rep. Andre Carson, IN
Rep. Travis Childers, MS [co-sponsor]
Rep. William Lacy Clay, MO
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO
Rep. Joe Donnelly, IN
Rep. Steve Driehaus, OH
Rep. Keith Ellison, MN
Rep. Bill Foster, IL
Rep. Alan Grayson, FL [co-sponsor]
Rep. Al Green, TX
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, IL
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, TX [co-sponsor]
Rep. Jim Himes, CT
Rep. Paul W. Hodes, NH
Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, PA
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, OH
Rep. Ron Klein, FL
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, FL [co-sponsor]
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA
Rep. Dan Maffei, NY [co-sponsor]
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, NY
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, NY
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, NY
Rep. Brad Miller, NC [co-sponsor]
Rep. Walt Minnick, ID [co-sponsor]
Rep. Dennis Moore, KS
Rep. Gwen Moore, WI
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO [co-sponsor]
Rep. Gary Peters, MI
Rep. David Scott, GA [co-sponsor]
Rep. Brad Sherman, CA [co-sponsor]
Rep. Jackie Speier, CA [co-sponsor]
Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez, NY
Rep. Maxine Waters, CA
Rep. Melvin L. Watt, NC
Rep. Charles Wilson, OH

Here’s a sample letter you can use:

HR 1207 (House)

Dear Representative,

Please co-sponsor and/or support HR 1207, an effort to audit the Federal Reserve.

Recently, it has come to light that there is little to no accountability to the people on the part of the Federal Reserve. While the citizens of this country are required by law to give an accounting of every penny they come in contact with, the Federal Reserve has never been held to the same standard. During this time of extreme economic crisis, the people deserve an accounting of where our money is going.

Currently there are 313 co-sponsors for this legislation, and it is enjoying bi-partisan support. Your efforts in supporting this important legislation would go a long way in proving to your constituents that you not only hold the Federal Reserve to the same standard as you do your constituents, but it would also show that you believe in transparency. Anything less than support for this resolution suggests that you are in favor of secrecy and a lack of accountability to the people who pay the bills. We pay the tab; we have a right to know where our money is going.

Unlike recent bills that you voted in favor of that had hundreds of pages and just a few hours to read, this bill can be read in under 5 minutes. I encourage you to take the time to read it, and then move to support it.

Thank you in advance for your attention on this important legislation. I have every expectation that you will do right by your constituents and support this measure.

Sincerely,

     S 604 (Senate)

Dear Senator,

Please co-sponsor and/or support S 604, an effort to audit the Federal Reserve.

Recently, it has come to light that there is little to no accountability to the people on the part of the Federal Reserve. While the citizens of this country are required by law to give an accounting of every penny they come in contact with, the Federal Reserve has never been held to the same standard. During this time of extreme economic crisis, the people deserve an accounting of where our money is going.

Currently there are 30 co-sponsors for this legislation, and it is enjoying bi-partisan support. Your efforts in supporting this important legislation would go a long way in proving to your constituents that you not only hold the Federal Reserve to the same standard as you do your constituents, but it would also show that you believe in transparency. Anything less than support for this resolution suggests that you are in favor of secrecy and a lack of accountability to the people who pay the bills. We pay the tab; we have a right to know where our money is going.

Unlike recent bills that you voted in favor of that had hundreds of pages and just a few hours to read, this bill can be read in under 5 minutes. I encourage you to take the time to read it, and then move to support it.

Thank you in advance for your attention on this important legislation. I have every expectation that you will do right by your constituents and support this measure.

Sincerely,

Step 4: The People

Tell everyone you know about HR 1207 and S 604 ask them to support the bills and to contact their representative as well. Link to this page and to CampaignForLiberty.com.

Link: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

Banner:


<a href=”http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/”>
<img src=”http://www.ronpaul.com/images/audit-the-fed.jpg” width=”290″ height=”127″></a>

Why Audit The Federal Reserve?

Ron Paul’s legislation is aimed at pulling back the curtain from a secretive and unaccountable Federal Reserve. Congress and the American people have minimal, if any, oversight over trillions of dollars that the Fed controls.

With recent bailouts and spending decisions shining a spotlight on the actions of the Federal Reserve, more and more pressure is bearing down on Congress to take action and demand accountability and transparency.

Auditing the Fed is only the first step towards exposing this antiquated insider-run creature to the powerful forces of free-market competition. Once there are viable alternatives to the monopolistic fiat dollar, the Federal Reserve will have to become honest and transparent if it wants to remain in business.

Introducing HR 1207

Ron Paul introduced bill H.R. 1207 on February 26, 2009 with the following speech to Congress:

Madame Speaker,

I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.

Serious discussion of proposals to oversee the Federal Reserve is long overdue. I have been a longtime proponent of more effective oversight and auditing of the Fed, but I was far from the first Congressman to advocate these types of proposals. Esteemed former members of the Banking Committee such as Chairmen Wright Patman and Henry B. Gonzales were outspoken critics of the Fed and its lack of transparency.

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed’s susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.

The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Fed’s negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates.

More importantly, the Fed’s funding facilities and its agreements with the Treasury should be reviewed. The Treasury’s supplementary financing accounts that fund Fed facilities allow the Treasury to funnel money to Wall Street without GAO or Congressional oversight. Additional funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility, allow the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to enhanced scrutiny. We hear officials constantly lauding the benefits of transparency and especially bemoaning the opacity of the Fed, its monetary policy, and its funding facilities. By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

HR 1207

This is the bill itself, H.R. 1207:

111th Congress – 1st Session

H.R. 1207

A BILL

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009″.

SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

(a) IN GENERAL. – Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after “shall audit an agency” and inserting a period.

(b) AUDIT. – Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

“(e) AUDIT AND REPORT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. -

“(1) IN GENERAL. – The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.

“(2) REPORT -

“(A) REQUIRED. – A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each sub-committee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.

“(B) CONTENTS. – The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.”.

Ron Paul’s Quotes on HR 1207

In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul refutes Ben Bernanke’s interpretation of HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, and explains why only an audit will protect the public’s interest.

Date: 7/30/2009

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, the big guns have lined up against HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What is it that they are so concerned about? What information are they hiding from the American people? The screed is: transparency is okay except for those things they don’t want to be transparent.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, argues that HR 1207, the legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, would politicize monetary policy. He claims that monetary policy must remain independent, that is; secret. He ignores history because chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the past, especially when up for reappointment, do their best to accommodate the president with politically driven low interest rates and a bubble economy.

Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns, when asked about all the inflation he brought about in 1971 before Nixon’s reelection, said that the Fed has to do what the president wants it to do, or it would lose its independence. That about tells you everything.

Not by accident Chairman Burns strongly supported Nixon’s program of wage and price controls the same year, but I guess that’s not political. Is not making secret deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs, international financial institutions, foreign governments and foreign central banks politicizing monetary policy?

Bernanke argues that the knowledge that their discussions and decisions will one day be scrutinized will compromise the freedom of the Open Market Committee to pursue sound policy. If it is sound and honest and serves no special interest, what’s the problem?

He claims that HR 1207 would give power to Congress to affect monetary policy. He dreamt this up to instill fear, an old statist trick to justify government power. HR 1207 does nothing of the sort. He suggested that the day after an FOMC meeting, Congress could send in the GAO to demand an audit of everything said and done. This is hardly the case. The FOMC function under HR 1207 would not change.

The detailed transcripts of the FOMC meetings are released every 5 years, so why would this be so different and what is it that they don’t want the American people to know? Is there something about the transcripts that need to be kept secret, or are the transcripts actually not verbatim?

Fed sycophants argue that an audit would destroy the financial markets’ faith in the Fed. They say this in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history brought on by none other than the Federal Reserve. In fact, Chairman Bernanke stated on November 14th 2007, “A considerable amount of evidence indicates that Central Bank transparency increases the effectiveness of monetary policy and enhances economic and financial performance”.

They also argue that an audit would hurt the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, the Fed, in less than a 100 years of its existence, has reduced the value of the 1914 dollar by 96%.

They claim HR 1207 would raise interest rates. How could it? The Fed sets interest rates and the bill doesn’t interfere with monetary policy. Congress would have no say in the matter and besides, Congress likes low interest rates.

It is argued that the Fed wouldn’t be free to raise interest rates if they thought it necessary. But Bernanke has already assured the Congress that rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future. And again, this bill does nothing to allow Congress to interfere with interest rate setting.

Fed supporters claim that they want to protect the public’s interest with their secrecy. But the banks and Wall Streets are the opponents of HR 1207, and the people are for it. Just who best represents the public’s interest?

The real question is: why are Wall Street and the Fed so hysterically opposed to HR 1207? Just what information are they so anxious to keep secret? Only an audit of the Federal Reserve will answer these questions.

Excerpt from Ron Paul’s 4/22/2009 appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch:

Ron Paul: After we came back yesterday from our 2-week break, I think have 15 new people signed on and somebody came up to me and says, “I signed on your bill this morning because I went to my town hall meetings, I went four of them and in every meeting people were there and say, “It’s time that we have transparency of the Fed.’”

But I call them the Fourth Branch of government. Some people don’t think of them as part of the government because they’re so secretive. But we created it, we can end it, we take no responsibility to supervise it, and look at what they’re doing. We spend hundreds of billions, but the Fed deals in trillions, and they don’t have any responsibility to tell us about it. So there’s a lot of power there and it deserves looking at.

And I think I have to say Barney Frank has been sympathetic with this. He’s for transparency. He’s not for hard money and the type of monetary policy I’m talking about. He believes that we should have more transparency of the Fed, so whether this bill gets passed or something very similar, the mood in the country is such that not only do they want us to be better in handling the appropriated fund and knowing where these TARP funds went, the American people have awakened to this whole idea of what the Federal Reserve does behind the scenes.

So I’m delighted. I’ve been pushing this monetary issue for more than 30 years believing it was THE significant economic issue of our time, and I think people are starting to realize this and we’re going to keep hearing about it and there’s a good chance that it will eventually make it to the floor.

Excerpt from Ron Paul’s 3/5/2009 appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch:

Judge Napolitano: Before we switch gears, Congressman Paul, how did Ben Bernanke react to the legislation that you introduced calling for an audit of the Fed. Did he give you a call on the phone?

Ron Paul: Oh yes, he called me, wanted to congratulate me and he wanted to support my bill. You know, interestingly, just recently, I cannot name his name but I was talking to a former member of the Federal Reserve board and told him about the bill and he was friendly enough.

I said, “What do you think of that?” He said, “I think it’s not a very good idea”. And I said, “Do the people at the Federal Reserve ever talk about, are concerned about the dollar”. I said, you know, I’m always talking about the dollar and what this is going to do to the dollar. And I said, “Do they know that all this debt and inflation could hurt the dollar?” He says, “Yes, they do.” He confirmed it. He said, “They absolutely do.” He says, “But they can’t answer your questions in public because it would cause panic.”

Judge Napolitano: This administration came to power and we all knew the words that they used, “hope” and “change”. But one of the words that they really used was “transparency”. I would think the President himself should be in favor of transparency at the Fed if he wants to be ideologically consistent. What are they afraid we will find out, Congressman Paul?

Ron Paul: Well, what they’re going to find out is, that’s the first step. Once we get the audit bill passed and we can reveal what they are doing, I think the next step is to end the Fed. That’s why they don’t want that.

You know, we had some very good comments made by our Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday from Vermont. I talked with him this morning and we’re going to be talking a lot about the need for having transparency.

And I think the mood is right. The mood is right both with the Democrats and the Republicans, because they don’t know exactly what is going on but they know the American people are sick and tired of just throwing money out there, whether it’s to the Treasury and nobody knows where it goes, whether they send it to Iraq and nobody knows where the bundles of money go, or whether the Federal Reserve can create 2 trillion dollars, and they don’t even have to tell us.

As a government all onto itself, it’s bigger than the whole U.S. Congress. They create trillions in a day, you know, in a short period of time, and in the Congress we do talk a little bit when we pass 400 million or 800 million. But the Fed is a much bigger problem.

Excerpt from Ron Paul’s 3/10/2009 interview with Alex Jones:

Alex Jones: Every few weeks they come before the banking committee and you bring up the fact that what they are doing is destroying us. What do we need to do to bring the private Federal Reserve under control?

Ron Paul: Well, there has to be an uprising by the people. There has to be enough people who will demand that their Congressmen respond, and that is building. You know, a year or two ago nobody in Washington even thought about the Federal Reserve. Today there is a lot more thinking going on and a lot more support for our position. So it is growing. And yet, we’re not on the verge of changing it. I have the bill to get rid of the Federal Reserve, that’s the major step and the ultimate step and they’ll probably self-destruct before we actually pass legislation.

But the bill that is more important in the short run is the auditing bill, the 1207 bill, because that means they have to start answering our questions. Today they are protected. They are in total secrecy and they are protected by the law. If 1207 is passed we have an audit and they have to answer the questions. And I figure if we ever get that far and get the exposure and get the transparency that we need, then people will wake up and realize, ‘why do we have them at all?’

Alex Jones: Senator Sanders grilled them, as you know, last week saying that he is supporting 1207 or a version in the Senate because, Bernanke, the private Fed chief just said, “I’m not going to tell you where the money, buddy.” I mean, that’s amazing to see our elected Congress, the most powerful branch of the government according to our founders, being told to kiss off.

Ron Paul: Right, and I know Sanders real well. He was on the banking committee with me before he went into the Senate, and I called him after that, and I believe he has now introduced my version of the transparency bill and I’ve introduced his version. So both bills exist. Mine is a little bit more conclusive, in that it removes the total authority for them to not answer questions. His is specifically designed to answer certain questions and reveal where certain trillion dollars went. They are very similar, but somewhat different in nature, so we both support each other’s bill and they’ve been introduced in both chambers.

Alex Jones: Well, public support for this and the majority of the Congress itself are saying they are angry, they don’t know where the money is and Bloomberg sued to find out and he’s been told No on their foyer. If this gets media attention I can see now way that Congress wouldn’t vote for a proper audit of the private Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul: They’re going to, if we can get it that far. It’s a good issue, like so many of our issues, we bring different many factions together, liberals and conservatives, under the constitution. Because, if you’re a good honest liberal like Bernie Sanders, he is an honest person but is very, very liberal. He calls himself a socialist, but he agrees on the transparency issue.

So this whole idea that we expose them to bring populists, libertarians, constitutionals, liberals, socialist all together and think, “If we can’t do this, what’s left of representative government? There’s nothing left.” So it’s a good unifier, I think it’s a great issue.

Promote HR 1207


Audit the Fed Song

  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Page Print This Page

1,139 Comments

  1. christine says:
    February 7, 2010 at 4:52 am

    JOHN PERKINS – Ex Economic Hitman Icelandic TV
    (is in English after he gets past the intro)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMcJflvA7GQ&feature=channel

    references the U.S., also hit by the economic hitman, in a different sort of way (corporations, wall street), and mentions other countries that have fallen for the financial trappings of the IMF and World Bank, that are wiser now and refusing that route, using their resources to benefit the people of their own country rather than giving it away for cheap…and that this change must and will come through the people, not the leaders.

    Reply
  2. Paul says:
    February 6, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Bernanke wins second term in 2nd closest vote ever.You wonder if the lies and munipulation will ever end.

    Reply
  3. The American Conservative » Force Fed says:
    February 5, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    [...] We’re a little late linking to this video of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing of May 5. But it’s well worth watching—especially by anyone not yet backing Rep. Ron Paul’s bill calling for an audit of the Fed. [...]

    Reply
  4. The American Conservative » Force Fed says:
    February 5, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    [...] We’re a little late linking to this video of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing of May 5. But it’s well worth watching—especially by anyone not yet backing Rep. Ron Paul’s bill calling for an audit of the Fed. [...]

    Reply
  5. christine says:
    February 3, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Second Financial Economic Crash Coming – Huge & Soon
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKlBJavw_X4&feature=related

    Reply
  6. On Central Bank Independence | Reaction Radio says:
    February 1, 2010 at 11:25 am

    [...] once-marginal proposal — from Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican — that would give Congress the [...]

    Reply
  7. The Income Tax ~ A Brief History « Michael Stollaire for Congress! says:
    January 31, 2010 at 4:59 am

    [...] call your representatives to support Ron Paul’s HR 1207 and S 604 initiatives! The Ron Paul [...]

    Reply
  8. Ron Paul’s State of the Republic Address | Roger Knecht says:
    January 31, 2010 at 12:43 am

    [...] full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal [...]

    Reply
  9. State of the Republic by Ron Paul | The Mississippi Conservative says:
    January 30, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    [...] A full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve [...]

    Reply
  10. CitizenPete says:
    January 30, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Full post with hyper links (see interesting trilateral link to Devvy):
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aaIuE.W8RAuU

    BLOOMBERG.COM
    Commentary by David Reilly

    Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — The idea of secret banking cabals that control the country and global economy are a given among conspiracy theorists who stockpile ammo, bottled water and peanut butter. After this week’s congressional hearing into the bailout of American International Group Inc., you have to wonder if those folks are crazy after all.

    Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.

    We’re talking about the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose role as the most influential part of the federal-reserve system — apart from the matter of AIG’s bailout — deserves further congressional scrutiny.

    The New York Fed is in the hot seat for its decision in November 2008 to buy out, for about $30 billion, insurance contracts AIG sold on toxic debt securities to banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank AG, among others. That decision, critics say, amounted to a back-door bailout for the banks, which received 100 cents on the dollar for contracts that would have been worth far less had AIG been allowed to fail.

    That move came a few weeks after the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department propped up AIG in the wake of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s own mid-September bankruptcy filing.

    Saving the System

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was head of the New York Fed at the time of the AIG moves. He maintained during Wednesday’s hearing that the New York bank had to buy the insurance contracts, known as credit default swaps, to keep AIG from failing, which would have threatened the financial system.

    The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also focused on what many in Congress believe was the New York Fed’s subsequent attempt to cover up buyout details and who benefited.

    By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.

    This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank.

    Geithner’s Bosses

    The New York Fed is one of 12 Federal Reserve Banks that operate under the supervision of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke. Member-bank presidents are appointed by nine-member boards, who themselves are appointed largely by other bankers.

    As Representative Marcy Kaptur told Geithner at the hearing: “A lot of people think that the president of the New York Fed works for the U.S. government. But in fact you work for the private banks that elected you.”

    And yet the New York Fed played an integral role in the government’s bailout of banks, often receiving surprisingly free rein to act as it saw fit.

    Consider AIG. Let’s take Geithner at his word that a failure to resolve the insurer’s default swaps would have led to financial Armageddon. Given the stakes, you might think Geithner would have coordinated actions with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Yet Paulson testified that he wasn’t in the loop.

    “I had no involvement at all, in the payment to the counterparties, no involvement whatsoever,” Paulson said.

    Bernanke’s Denials

    Fed Chairman Bernanke also wasn’t involved. In a written response to questions from Representative Darrell Issa, Bernanke said he “was not directly involved in the negotiations” with AIG’s counterparty banks.

    You have to wonder then who really was in charge of our nation’s financial future if AIG posed as grave a threat as Geithner claimed.

    Questions about the New York Fed’s accountability grew after Geithner on Nov. 24, 2008, was named by then-President- elect Barack Obama to be Treasury Secretary. Geither said he recused himself from the bank’s day-to-day activities, even though he never actually signed a formal letter of recusal.

    That left issues related to disclosures about the deal in the hands of the bank’s lawyers and staff, rather than a top executive. Those staffers didn’t want details of the swaps purchase to become public.

    New York Fed staff and outside lawyers from Davis Polk & Wardell edited AIG communications to investors and intervened with the Securities and Exchange Commission to shield details about the buyout transactions, according to a report by Issa.

    That the New York Fed, a quasi-governmental body, was able to push around the SEC, an executive-branch agency, deserves a congressional hearing all by itself.

    Later, when it became clear information would be disclosed, New York Fed legal group staffer James Bergin e-mailed colleagues saying: “I have to think this train is probably going to leave the station soon and we need to focus our efforts on explaining the story as best we can. There were too many people involved in the deals — too many counterparties, too many lawyers and advisors, too many people from AIG — to keep a determined Congress from the information.”

    Think of the enormity of that statement. A staffer at a body with little public accountability and that exists to serve bankers is lamenting the inability to keep Congress in the dark.

    This belies the culture of secrecy obviously pervasive within the New York Fed. Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns noted during the hearing that the bank initially refused to disclose even the names of other banks that benefited from its actions, arguing this information would somehow harm AIG.

    ‘Penchant for Secrecy’

    “In fact, when the information was finally released, under pressure from Congress, nothing happened,” Towns said. “It had absolutely no effect on AIG’s business or financial condition. But it did have an effect on the credibility of the Federal Reserve, and it called into question the Fed’s penchant for secrecy.”

    Now, I’m not saying Congress should be meddling in interest-rate decisions, or micro-managing bank regulation. Nor do I think we should all don tin-foil hats and start ranting about the Trilateral Commission.

    Yet when unelected and unaccountable agencies pick banking winners while trying to end-run Congress, even as taxpayers are forced to lend, spend and guarantee about $8 trillion to prop up the financial system, our collective blood should boil.

    (David Reilly is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

    Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

    To contact the writer of this column: David Reilly at dreilly14@bloomberg.net

    Last Updated: January 28, 2010 21:00 EST

    Reply
  11. Audit The Fed Legislation « Tea Party Federal Reserve Tiger Team says:
    January 28, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    [...] Audit the Federal Reserve: HR 1207 and S 604 [...]

    Reply
  12. Marc says:
    January 27, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Geithner: ‘I had no role’ in an AIG cover up
    By David Goldman, staff writerJanuary 27, 2010: 2:25 PM ET

    Do you Believe this guy? Geithner was the President of the New York Fed and all of a sudden got Amnesia about AIG. Look down the list and see how many banks (some in Germany received US taxpayer money under the bailout) If you look at all of the comments in this website regarding the Central banking system (The FED) and the Rothchilds, you may start to understand how all the Central Banks are tied together under the one German-Jewish family who have been stealing yours and my money for years as well as in other countries under their Central banks. Obama hired Geithner and supports these types of people who are ruining our country. Get rid of Geithner now and call your Senator and Congressman demanding his resignation as Treasury Secretary. Out with bernanke as well.. read the entire article and I’m sure you will be as mad as I am about Geithner and the Fed.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told lawmakers Wednesday that he had no involvement in an apparent attempt by government regulators to withhold crucial information about AIG’s bailout from the public.

    “I had no role in making decisions regarding what to disclose,” Geithner testified at a hearing held by the House Oversight Committee Wednesday.

    AIG payouts: Who got what
    Counterparties that got more than $1 billion from the government and AIG.
    AIG counterparty Total payment
    Societe Generale $16.5 billion
    Goldman Sachs $14 billion
    Deutsche Bank $8.5 billion
    Merrill Lynch $6.2 billion
    Calyon $4.3 billion
    UBS $3.8 billion
    Deutsche Zentral Genossenschaftsbank $1.8 billion
    Barclays $1.5 billion
    Bank of Montreal $1.4 billion
    Royal Bank of Scotland $1.1 billion
    Wachovia $1 billion

    Source:Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    New York Fed officials instructed AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) not to disclose more than a dozen controversial transactions to the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2008. At the time, Geithner was the president of the New York Fed, but he said he had recused himself from the day-to-day operations at that time because of his nomination to be Treasury secretary.

    At least two lawmakers weren’t buying Geithner’s denial.

    “He has asserted complete ignorance of the Fed’s efforts to cover up the bailout details,” said Committee Ranking Member Darrell Issa, R-Calif. “Many Americans, including members of this Committee, have a hard time believing that Secretary Geithner entered an absolute cone of silence on the day that his nomination was announced.”

    Another Republican lawmaker, Rep. John Mica of Florida, also said he did not believe Geithner’s testimony and called for his head.

    “Why shouldn’t we ask for your resignation?” Mica asked Geithner. “We’re not getting the whole story, we’re getting the blame story. You’re either incompetent on the job or you knew what was taking place and you tried to conceal it, and I think that’s grounds for your review.”

    Geithner angrily responded to Mica, “You don’t know me very well.”

    He then more calmly said, “That is your right to have that opinion. I have served my country as carefully and ably as I can.”

    AIG’s bailout has incited furor among lawmakers and the public, as the troubled insurer has come to symbolize the corporate greed, risky behavior and lack of regulation that many believe caused the Great Recession.

    The issue at hand on Wednesday was one of the bailout’s most contentious: a decision by the New York Fed to pay counterparties 100 cents on the dollar for the underlying assets that AIG has insured through so-called credit default swap agreements.

    As a result, $62.1 billion of taxpayer and AIG funds were essentially funneled to 16 banks that were counterparties to AIG insurance contracts.

    Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., called the facts of the case “murky.”

    “The circumstances surrounding the payments to the counterparties has created an air of suspicion and distrust among the American people, starting with the New York Fed’s initial refusal to name the counterparties,” Towns said at the hearing. “The New York Fed argued that disclosing the counterparties would somehow injure AIG. In fact, when the information was finally released under pressure from Congress, nothing happened.”

    Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson also testified Wednesday. He said that he had “no involvement whatsoever” in the New York Fed’s decision not to disclose the agreements in question.

    And like Geithner, Paulson argued that the AIG bailout was “correct, and I strongly supported it.” He reiterated that allowing AIG to fail would have been disastrous for the economy and jobs. “I believe we easily would have had 25% unemployment,” said Paulson.

    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is not testifying Wednesday, said in a letter that he was also not involved in any decision regarding disclosures.

    The Committee also heard testimony from Special Inspector General for the $700 billion bailout Neil Barofsky and attorneys for AIG and the New York Fed.

    How we got here
    In November, SigTARP Barofsky released an audit of the New York Fed’s decision that found the regulator failed to use its clout to negotiate concessions from AIG’s business partners.

    The House Oversight Committee, subpoenaed the New York Fed for the documents Barofsky used in his audit and recently received 250,000 pages of e-mails and other correspondence. The documents reveal that the New York Fed had urged AIG not to make any reference in its SEC filing that the counterparties had received the dollar-for-dollar value.

    0:00 /4:26AIG could not fail
    Geithner defended his decision to offer full-value for the underlying assets on the credit default swaps. But regarding any decision not to disclose those transactions, Geithner argued that he had had no involvement because of his nomination as Treasury secretary.

    “On Nov. 24, President-elect Barack Obama announced that he intended to nominate me to be Secretary of the Treasury,” Geithner testified. “Starting on Nov. 24, I withdrew from involvement in monetary policy decision, policies involving individual institutions, and day-to-day management of FRBNY.”

    One day later, on Nov. 25, the subpoenaed New York Fed documents show that AIG began to prepare its report with the SEC.

    Despite his stated lack of involvement, Geithner was adamant that those who were involved “acted solely in the public’s interest,” adding that they were “never involved in any decision for any private benefit.”

    Due to many New York Fed employees’ ties to Wall Street investment banks — including Geithner — many lawmakers and members of the public have implied that the regulator’s decisions may have been made for personal gain.

    “I think your commitment to Goldman Sachs trumped your commitment to the American people,” said Rep. Steven Lynch, D-Mass.

    Reply
    • nc patriot says:
      January 27, 2010 at 5:50 pm

      im watching his ass chewing right now on cspan,i hope its not lip service but it probably is

      Reply
    • James says:
      January 29, 2010 at 9:22 pm

      Mark. Great Post. Thank you.

      “Liars figure and figures lie” Then when the crooks are confronted they beg the Homer Simpson advice he gave to Bart. Forget all that crap you learned in school son. When you’re in a tight spot just remember these 3 things “It was like this when I got here.” Watch this for me. I’ll be right back.” “Sounds like a good idea to me boss.” Do you recognize any derivatives here from the Obama sheeple. What is really scary is that he believes he is the savior and that the role of government is more government. He is in over his head. “Vote the bums out.” RON PAUL-2012

      Reply
    • Joseph Azzato says:
      February 7, 2010 at 4:42 am

      not to men-chin Germany and the cold wars it’s in are history as well when you look you know just who was really behind 90% of all are war’s and murder’s getting gun’s band so they can round up there people in death camp’s these people are enemy’s of man kind nothing more then handing debt out which is made from nothing truthfully the only reason it is excepted is because the mass can use it at the store, this is being used to take other company’s for nothing and steal other bank’s US bank refused but then they threatened his life, they also had him kicked out, there using are troop’s to steal other country’s and calling them sup-thing other then civilians try-ing to protect there people and country this is known in Iraq by the mass that is also why they hate bush so much now they are doing it to Iran so they can put a fake system of banking in and control there government and oil there

      it’s slavery plain and simple to take any worth of your labor’s for them selves as well as take there country

      they also count people as property nothing more!

      we need the fed out of are country and removal of there debt system forever this is a very sick family in fact Hitler was half German and Jewish next go ask the Japan’s who they knew Hitler as get it!

      Reply
  13. Don Simus says:
    January 27, 2010 at 4:22 am

    A scientific study had found that Congress behaves like sand

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24711/

    Reply
  14. marc says:
    January 26, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Here are two articles posted on CNNs website today 26 Jan 2010. Bernanke and Audit the Fed movements need to call their Congressmen and Congresswomen and Senators Now, and ask for Nancy Pelosi’s resignation for heinously wasting taypayer money on frivelous trips to Denmark during one of our nations worst financial crisis. All of these Senators ans Pelosi should be mad to pay back every cent of the costs of this Denmark trip-no questions asked! President Obama must be made accountable for his Democratic staff now! Otherwise he is nothing more than what the Indians used to call a white men-People who speak with forked tongue! How can he call for cutbacks in discretionary spending and allow Pelosi and crew to waste 1 million dollars on her Christmas trip to Denmark. Notice in the article, that she was not even part of the Presidents official group at the summit! She should be fired now!

    Should Pelosi have to explain her $1 million trip to Copenhagen?
    A million dollars.

    That’s how much it cost for a delegation of more than 100 people – led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with members of Congress, staff and in some cases spouses and kids – to go to Copenhagen, site of the Climate Summit, just before Christmas.

    Pelosi attends a press conference on the 11th day of the COP15 UN Climate Change Conference.

    CBS News reports that for 21 Congressmen – food and rooms for two nights cost $4,400; and the total hotel bill – including meeting rooms – was more than $400,000.

    About 60 staff members flew commercial – at a cost of $408,000. Pelosi used three military jets for herself and her party at a cost of $170,000 in flight time.

    More than $1 million of taxpayer money. This has nothing to do with the Obama administration officials who went to Denmark to actually attend the summit.

    Pelosi filed the required expense report – but refuses to answer any questions about her use of taxpayer money for her trip. Her arrogance is absolutely breathtaking. As for the high hotel charges, Pelosi’s office says those who stayed two-nights were charged a six-night minimum at the five-star Marriott. Information that was probably available before Pelosi and the freeloaders made their vacation plans.

    Note to the House Speaker: We have skyrocketing deficits and national debt in this country. The President is talking about reining in discretionary spending. I wonder if that would have included this junket by Pelosi and her friends? I would be curious to know where Nancy Pelosi gets her sense of entitlement to simply blow a million dollars of our money at Christmas time so she and her pals can take a little trip to Copenhagen.

    Here’s my question to you: Should House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be required to explain her million-dollar trip to Copenhagen?

    Farmers could be among the groups affected by a proposed freeze on discretionary spending.
    STORY HIGHLIGHTS
    President expected to call for three-year freeze on discretionary spending
    Defense, national security, programs like Medicare and Social Security would be exempt
    Agriculture, education, law enforcement, housing could be among those feeling the pinch
    Agencies could boost spending on some programs if they made it up by cutting others
    Washington (CNN) — Be honest: Stories about the federal budget make your eyes glaze over, right?
    Unless you’re a budget analyst or die-hard political junkie, you probably have no idea what the White House means when it refers to President Obama’s plan to freeze non-security federal discretionary spending over the next three years.

    So what is the president proposing? And who would be affected if Congress adopts his plan?

    Start with the numbers.

    When the White House talks about non-security discretionary spending, it’s referring to spending on an array of domestic programs — everything from agriculture to energy — that add up to $447 billion of roughly $3.5 trillion in the federal budget.

    It does not include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Obama’s plan to freeze spending would not apply to those or other entitlement programs.

    And the federal government does not plan to stop paying interest on the federal debt, a move which would have dire economic consequences. You can remove that from the equation as well.

    Obama also would exempt programs tied to defense, veterans or national security from the freeze on spending.

    Yet his plan could put the squeeze on agencies such as the Departments of Agriculture or Interior. It could require those and other agencies to spend the same amount for the next three years that they spent this year.

    “Instead of wielding an across-the-board axe, the president will cut programs that are duplicative or that he believes serve no important purpose,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

    “We are investing in what we believe is important to invest in. We are cutting programs we think have outlived their usefulness and need to be cut.”

    So what could be hit?

    More precise information won’t be available until the White House releases its proposed 2011 budget on February 1, but the plan to freeze certain spending could affect federal housing and transportation programs. The freeze could include the Department of Agriculture, so farmers could feel the pinch.

    Law-enforcement initiatives at the Justice Department and programs from the Energy Department could be scaled back. If the budget for the Interior Department is frozen, spending on the nation’s parks could be reduced.

    The freeze on spending also would affect American diplomats. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned State Department employees Tuesday the freeze may have an impact on their pay and the way they do their jobs.

    Federal education programs might also be affected, though the administration has repeatedly said education is at the top of Obama’s priority list.

    The freeze would not affect Federal Pell Grants, said Rob Nabors, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. He declined to provide many other details.

    Administration officials have stressed that while a specific agency may be affected by the freeze, agency heads would retain significant power to give some programs increases while cutting money elsewhere.

    So what does the president hope to achieve with the freeze?

    The White House says it hopes to save $250 billion over the next decade — a first step in reducing the spiraling federal deficit.

    “If we can’t make these steps, how are we going to go after stuff that we know is politically hard?” Gibbs asked reporters Tuesday.

    Critics point out, however, that the same programs subject to the freeze today were given an increase of more than 7 percent last year.

    “Frankly, the government has to make better choices and better plans than throwing things into a big pot [for an economic stimulus plan] in one year and then freezing across the board the next year,” said Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University economist.

    “We have areas in that so-called ‘discretionary spending’ that urgently need more funding. And to freeze across the board, I think, would be kind of a dereliction of duty.”

    Reply
  15. Ron Paul’s State of the Republic Address « Patrick J. Buchanan says:
    January 26, 2010 at 2:16 am

    [...] full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal [...]

    Reply
  16. robert says:
    January 26, 2010 at 12:37 am

    dear you.
    i do not who you are.
    but i live here.
    if you look outside of your window.
    this people are not you.
    they are like you, but not today.
    they,we, you, are here.
    all need to shit, eat, sleep.
    save your ass. as you well can.
    and save the ones saving your grit.
    you need them to be you.

    Reply
  17. BOVARD » Dump Bernanke and Audit the Fed says:
    January 25, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    [...] The Senate will be voting on Bernanke while having little or no idea what the Federal Reserve has done in recent years. That is why Congress must pass Ron Paul’s legislation to Audit the Fed. [...]

    Reply
  18. Janice says:
    January 24, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Dear All Congressman and Senators who signed the petition to Audit the Fed…….
    we are still waiting for you to DO IT!
    I guess the NWO /Illuminati’s /CFR/CZARS carry more power than your suppose to eh?
    Well, our next congressman and congresswoman won’t be from either party but a Peoples Party so guess your stalling will cause you to loose your jobs !
    Then , when America goes totally broke, I guess you’ll also be loosing your pension/ retirement like the rest of us……
    If I were you I would fire Benacke and Geithner, I sure wouldn’t reinstate them…
    You all are so manipulated its a joke anymore to watch you’s……
    You’ve got nothing done but talk talk talk talk talk , give speeches , give speeches give speeches…….while we are being robbed and robbed and robbed..
    We want our banks back , we want our money bank and we want our jobs back……Snap to it!

    Reply
  19. Don Simus says:
    January 24, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Scientific analysis of congressional support for Ron Paul’s resolution to audit the Federal Reserve show that it is described by a curve, known in mathematics as Devil’s staircase. This means that the Fed is going to Hell.

    More details here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3732

    Reply
  20. ############### SPREAD THIS INFORMATION ############### | DarkData.Net says:
    January 23, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    [...] Bills to be supported: S 604 and HR 1207 http://www.auditthefed.com / Audit the FED / Audit the FED [...]

    Reply
  21. We Are Change Colorado Springs » Blog Archive » GOP Establishment threatened by Ron & Rand Paul says:
    January 23, 2010 at 10:12 am

    [...] 317 cosponsors and passed through the House Financial Services Committee a bill to audit the Federal Reserve., and has “led the fight against bailouts, Obamacare and Cap and Trade”. He [...]

    Reply
  22. | mashburn411.com says:
    January 22, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    [...] full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal [...]

    Reply
    • Mike Jaeger Live says:
      January 29, 2010 at 8:00 pm

      End Fed reserve and hire pvt CPA firms for 6 year contracts to manage our currency with strict oversight.

      End careers in poilitcs and career appointments…. 10 year max. On all appointed or elected officials… cumulative service per person… including all political offices served.

      Reply
  23. MikeJaegerLive says:
    January 19, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10WUZamrsSY
    Vote 5 stars for the above video and share it…. Reforms begin with HR 1207 in 2010… then we up the clean house !

    2010 – Banking, elected, and appointed officials… Audits – End of all career appointments and politicians – 2010 Real reforms begin.

    Reply
  24. Bullard: Fed is a firefighter, not an arsonist | Mound City Money | STLtoday says:
    January 18, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    [...] Federal Reserve has plenty of detractors these days, with Rep. Ron Paul crusading for an audit of the Fed’s monetary policy and other politicians proposing various ways to limit the [...]

    Reply
  25. Roland Patton says:
    January 18, 2010 at 3:07 am

    The Rothschild’s have been said to own 53% of the federal reserve and be running the worlds finances for too long and have corrupted too many politicians and stolen too many hard working peoples money for too long,its time the united states took the federal reserve away from the current owners and started printing our own money just as Lincoln and Kennedy did and hold any future presidents for high treason if they attempt to start another central bank or federal reserve or by any other name.Its bad enough they own the companies that own most of the major media outlets along with the Rockefellers but they also own a good portion of mining and mineral companies,pharmaceutical,vaccine labortories on and on,the UN,CFR etc.soon they will regulate the internet as they already regulate everything else.These big bank owners have started and financed most of the wars on both sides making money and gaining power. Now there is only about 6 or 7 countries left without a central bank but guess what,the US is working to get those to fall in place using US troops as a puppet for the big banks to do their bidding.Do some digging and you will become alarmed,disgusted,awakened and probably angry.All I can say to these bankers is remember Tsar Nicholas II,Americans have a way of holding a grudge.Just because we are 80% a Christian nation does not mean we do not have limits to being taken advantage of.

    Reply
  26. Ed says:
    January 17, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    Our central bank is managing well, while the economy goes sour and unemployment soars. Our elected representatives in Washington, DC have sold us “down the river”. Our congressmen and senators are afraid to speak out against the Fed.
    I fear the end of our nation is at hand, just a few years away.

    Reply
  27. Welcome to the Progressive Libertarianism Movement » Free Competition in Currency Act (HR 4248) says:
    January 16, 2010 at 2:06 am

    [...] is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal [...]

    Reply
  28. Geithner: Auditing the Fed is a “line that we don’t want to cross” - Restore The Republic says:
    January 14, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    [...] independent of politics,” which can only be said to be true insofar as Ron Paul—the sponsor of House Resolution (HR) 1207— wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system [...]

    Reply
  29. They’ve Turned Their Attack Dogs Loose On Me! « Wide Spectrum Analysis says:
    January 13, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    [...] drawn 317 cosponsors and passed through the House Financial Services Committee a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. We have led the fight against bailouts, Obamacare and Cap and Trade. And, thanks to the national [...]

    Reply
  30. Marc says:
    January 13, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Today, on CNNs website the following article about the FEd was posted:

    Fed profits: $52 billion in 2009
    By Colin Barr, senior writerJanuary 12, 2010: 11:55 AM ET

    NEW YORK (Fortune) — The Federal Reserve banks made a $52 billion profit in 2009, reaping extra income on the government securities they bought in an effort to stabilize the financial system.

    (COMMENT: How is it that The Fed (bernanke), and it crony bank CEOs can constantly be getting big bonuses, buy Government securities from our own Government and turn a profit at the same time they still owe the US taxpayer money on the TARP loans? And, President Obama is soooo concerned about controlling the budget that he has his OMB guru looking at ways to control spending on programs that benefit the taxpayer and yet turn a blind eye when it comes to his buddies in the FED? I wonder whose payroll the president is on?
    The Fed, in a statement on Tuesday, said its members returned $46 billion of that sum to taxpayers. The central bank is an independent arm of the government and its member banks are required to return all profits to the Treasury, after certain deductions.

    Those deductions account for the $6 billion difference between the two figures. Federal Reserve banks paid the private banks that control them $1.4 billion in dividends in 2009, while shoring up their own capital by $4.6 billion.
    The Fed’s 2009 profit marks a 47% increase over 2008. It comes as the Fed took in interest payments on an expanding portfolio of securities issued by the Treasury and by the government-sponsored mortgage agencies Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500).

    The Fed said last year it would buy $300 billion of Treasurys and up to $1.25 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities, in addition to $175 billion of debt issued by the agencies.

    The effort helped to keep mortgage and other long-term interest rates low as the government sought to help the economy recover from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. It also brought a flood of profits into the vaults of the 12 Federal Reserve banks.

    But the purchases also more than doubled the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, leading to questions about the possible inflationary implications of Fed chief Ben Bernanke’s aggressive response to the financial sector meltdown of 2008.

    Bernanke, for one, has said he believes the Fed will end up making more money – and thus passing more on to taxpayers – as the markets and the economy recover.

    “I do believe we’re going to get back all the money, and indeed we’ll be showing for the taxpayers fairly significant extra income,” he said last month following a speech at the Economic Club of Washington.

    Tuesday’s numbers back that claim up, for now. The Fed’s securities stash paid off in a big way in 2009 – earnings on government and agency securities soared to $46 billion in 2009 from $27.5 billion a year earlier – and should continue to do so as long as the Fed holds the bonds.

    But a big question confronting investors is what will happen to interest rates once the Fed stops purchasing agency debt, as it is scheduled to do at the end of the first quarter, and how that might affect the Fed’s efforts to pull back from its emergency support for the markets.

    Analysts expect to see mortgage rates rise modestly, on top of the increases seen since December. Freddie Mac recently said it expects to see 30-year mortgage rates, which were below 5% as recently as last month, heading to 6% by the end of this year.

    Thanks to its market-support plans, the Fed held $160 billion of agency debt and $900 billion of mortgage-backed securities as of Jan. 6, in addition to $776 billion of Treasurys. Two years ago, before the full force of the financial crisis had hit, the Fed had $728 billion of Treasurys – and no agencies or mortgage-backed securities.

    Since bonds’ value declines as rates rise, the Fed could find itself holding a large number of securities that it would be unable to sell except at a loss, at a time when it would like to have maximum flexibility to trim the size of its balance sheet.

    Flexibility is important because banks currently have more than $1 trillion of so-called excess reserves on deposit with the Fed, compared with just $4 billion in January 2008. Should the economy recover earlier than is currently expected, those reserves could fuel a price surge.

    But Bernanke and other officials have stressed that they will be prudent in withdrawing the excess reserves to prevent an inflationary spike. For instance, the Fed paid $2.2 billion last year in interest on bank reserves.

    Bernanke said last year that raising the rate the Fed pays on those deposits, along with other tools, could help policymakers “during the exit stage

    Reply
  31. Larry L. Stuler says:
    January 13, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    The Federal Reserve bankrupted the U.S. federal government in the 1930’s. This is clearly evidenced by the law itself: title 11, U.S.C., “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 C.F.R., “Federal Elections”. The Federal Election Commission is charged with implementing the laws of bankruptcy. Our elections are simply to elect a bankruptcy “administration” – the Fed is in charge, so it really doesn’t matter who gets elected. President Obama ran his election on the “change” platform, but once elected, he increased the bailout money to the same people and increased the number of troops overseas. Nothing has changed at all because the Fed has ordained what will be done.

    After bankrupting the government, the Federal Reserve then moved to enslave all Americans and make them pay the interest on their (counterfeit money) loans to the government.

    However, bankrupting the U.S. federal government wasn’t enough to make Americans pay the Fed’s interest because the American is sovereign, not the federal government. This has been held by the Supreme Court in several decisions, such as, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, and Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419. It is expressed quite clearly within Julliard v. Greenman as follows:

    “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.”

    The American is sovereign not because of the Constitution, but because the organic law of the land, the Declaration of Independence, stated that “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women) is a self-evident truth. The Declaration of Independence supercedes the Constitution, so the Constitution cannot change anything to do with the self-evident truth “all men (and women) are created equal”.

    Besides the sovereignty issue that the Federal Reserve had to deal with, the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce. Actually, this is a consequence of American sovereignty – there would be no sovereignty if the federal government could rule Americans in their commercial endeavors. The Constitution in Article I, section 8, only grants the federal government jurisdiction “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. This is known as foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.

    In order to get around the Constitutional restraints to complete the Fed’s control over America, Social Security was created, along with the deceptive use of legal “terms”. Once the law defines a word it is known as a “term” and you can throw the dictionary definition of that word out the window. An American who applies for a Social Security number has become a federal employee. The “SS-5” Form is an employment form. After all, only federal employees would be liable for federal employment taxes. The Constitutional restraints do not apply to the government’s own employees.

    You may wonder, “What is the employee?”. It is the “taxpayer”. A “taxpayer” is a term defined at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine, a federal employee. 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(b) states that the terms used here are the same throughout the Internal Revenue Code and the implementing regulations.

    The federal government does not have jurisdiction over a free, sovereign American so it cannot write laws that subject an American to any duty. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, “Since in common usage, the term person does not include the sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”.

    Has any government agency ever addressed any correspondence to you as “Dear Sovereign American”? Of course not, but you are constantly bombarded with the term “taxpayer”.

    Now what exactly is F.I.C.A.? It is defined as a U.S. possession tax (26 U.S.C. section 7655). Since the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce (commerce within a State) and no jurisdiction over sovereign Americans, it only has the limited jurisdiction as noted above. In addition, the Constitution at Article IV, section 3 grants the federal government power over its property and territory. So it may make any tax is pleases in the U.S. possessions.

    This leads to the “U.S. citizen”. This is a term defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2208 and 2501(b) and exemplified at 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship. This is the 14th Amendment citizen who is born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. A person born in one of the States is sovereign (as the above Supreme Court decisions have held) and not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. However, someone with U.S. possession citizenship is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government as there is no guarantee of any rights to U.S. possession citizens in the Constitution.

    Since F.I.C.A. is a U.S. possession tax, the government (as directed by its owners, the Fed) is relying upon the adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and presumes that an American has U.S. possession citizenship and, therefore, is a “U.S. citizen” as that person has applied for F.I.C.A.

    The federal government has jurisdiction over its own employees and its possession citizens. Applying for a Social Security number makes an American into both a federal employee and a citizen with U.S. possession citizenship. The Social Security enrollee has given away all sovereignty and become a slave for the federal government and its owners, the Federal Reserve. This allows the Federal Reserve to collect taxes from Americans to pay off the interest on its counterfeit loans to the government.

    What about the 16th Amendment you ask? It was ratified in 1913, 20 years before the government’s bankruptcy to the Federal Reserve. The 16th Amendment was declared to be Constitutional in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 decision three years later in 1916.

    The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”. The “previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision. Here the Supreme Court has ruled that the government always had the power to tax income.

    A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.

    The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being generated for the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.

    The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

    The statutes that make up the Internal Revenue Code must, therefore, be read in mind with the above Supreme Court decisions as well as the following Supreme Court decision:

    “It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” – McCullough v. Com of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898).

    Since the revenue being generated by an income tax must come from one of the original commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution, this leads right back to foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.

    These three commerce jurisdictions are listed separately within title 28, “Judiciary and judicial procedure”, chapter 85, “District Courts; Jurisdiction”. Section 1336, now “Surface Transportation Board’s orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders” in late 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction. Section 1362 is “Indian tribes”, obviously the trade with the Indians jurisdiction. Section 1340 is “Internal revenue; customs duties”, which is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.

    What the Supreme Court knew when it decided the Brushaber case was that the plaintiff, Mr. Frank Brushaber, was a collector/assessor for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary. So the income tax is within foreign commerce, just as title 28 U.S.C. section 1340 defines above. The federal government can tax its own tax collectors within its jurisdictions.

    The jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2197 (1939 Code) as “within the exterior boundaries of the United States”, which is obviously the opposite of “within the interior boundaries of the United States”, in other words, the U.S. possessions. Once again everything reverts back to the Constitution and the limited jurisdiction of the federal government.

    You must remember that in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified, the Federal Reserve Act was also approved by Congress. And the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which created the “U.S citizen”. The forces behind the scenes have been planning the government’s bankruptcy long ago, almost immediately after the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence stating that “all men are created equal”.

    The government has another term, that of “U.S. resident” (26 U.S.C. section 865(g)), which includes both of the terms “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen” within it. This is what the IRS indictments use to deceptively charge a defendant (victim).

    The Fed has now ordained that healthcare will become a federally controlled system. The citizens of the U.S. have absolutely no say in this. If the citizens did have any input, this would be an out-in-the-open debate. The polls, even those polls that are using convoluted questions to predetermine the results, all show that the citizenry is not behind this healthcare fiasco. What the Fed wants, the Fed gets. Nothing will change until the Social Security Scam and the federal government’s bankruptcy are exposed.

    ABOLISH THE FED!! ABOLISH SOCIAL SECURITY!! NOW!!

    To see the entire Social Security Scam, see my Blog at LLSTULER.wordpress.com or http://wp.me/PCW6e-E for an in depth examination of everything in this comment.

    Reply
  32. david semler says:
    January 13, 2010 at 12:16 am

    when you take your car to a mechanic the mechanic will tell you what you have to buy to fix your car ,he can be honest and tell you what exactly the problem is and how much it will cost or he can lie and tell you the engine and transmission is junk and you pay out the ass ,when you find out he lied and ripped you off you fire the mechanic and find a new mechanic .the fed is a one of these two I am sure of that.would you not agree?

    Reply
  33. Jeff Barber says:
    January 13, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Thank you Ron Paul for taking a stand against these criminals at the Federal Reserve. They have done nothing but plunder our nation every since they were put in power. Audit first, then ABOLISH!

    Reply
  34. Gordon Smith says:
    January 12, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    Ron Paul, Thank you for this Bill, make them account for every cent, Im afraid Obama has pulled off the biggest bank robbery in history, if so make sure he go’s to jail along with every person in bed with him, where is all that money ????? IM MAD. Along with everyone I know. MAKE THEM PAY IT BACK. IMPEACHMENT IS IN ORDER< HE HAS LIED TO THE PEOPLE, OH Where in the hell is the Birth certificate ? I really think we have an illeagle alien for a President. Now what you goona do about that? Why is he getting away with this? Kind Regards Gordon Smith, Hurricane Utah USA.

    Reply
  35. Federal Reserve is saying ‘we asnwer to no one’. | That Beats All says:
    January 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    [...] asnwer to no one’. Easy AdSense by UnrealRon Paul [say what you want about him] has been fighting to have the FR audited. And I know no reason why it shouldn’t be… How can they sit back and say ‘we [...]

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>