The Politico.com article on 6/19/09 entitled "Hill wants reins on Fed" which discusses bringing accountability and more transparency to the Federal Reserve quotes TN Senator Lamar Alexander as saying "The audit? It's a bad idea." He is also quoted as saying, "It's a sorry day when the Congress superimposes itself on the Fed, nosing around in monetary policy."

The 3rd District of Campaign for Liberty's grassroots nonpartisan group, which places a strong emphasis on Constitutional government and individual liberties, begs to differ with Mr. Alexander. Since Congress still has an obligation to coin money and regulate the powers thereof (Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution), they should rightfully oversee the Federal Reserve, which plays a critical role in the value of the dollar and our overall economy.

We support increased accountability and transparency in government and oppose such blatant support for secrecy or misinformation about the job of Congress. We support legislation H.R.1207 (with 237 bipartisan co-sponsors including Wamp) and S.604. How can one really oppose such commonsense legislation?

David Shinn, TN District 3 Coordinator, Campaign for Liberty

* * *

I also have been upset with Sen. Alexander's voting record in the past few years. First, he was given a big fat "F" by and immigration study group for his stance on immigration control. Second, he opposed windmill power off the East coast (not in my back yard) since he supposedly owns property there.

Then, he voted with the banking lobby in opposing the credit card reform bill which would help most all citizens of Tennessee. Seems he out for all the money he can make and to heck with us.

Bill Watkins
Ooltewah

* * *

I too was shocked by Senator Alexander’s comment. I can hardly believe a Senator from our great state would believe that the American people should not have insight into how private bankers are spending our money.

David Gidcumb
Hixson

* * *

Fwd: Lamar Alexander's Recent Comments Are Bewildering - And Response (2)

Postvak IN X

Allen beantwoorden
Doorsturen
Beantwoorden via een chatbericht
Berichten zoals deze filteren
Afdrukken
Toevoegen aan lijst met contactpersonen
Bericht verplaatsen naar Prullenbak
Phishing melden
Niet-phishing melden
Origineel weergeven
Weergeven in lettertype met vaste breedte
Weergeven in lettertype met vaste breedte
Tekst van het bericht onleesbaar?
Waarom is dit spam/geen spam?

Beantwoorden

|
John Wilson
aan mij

details weergeven 19:49 (4 uren geleden)


Beantwoorden

Vervolgbericht

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: JW
Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Subject: Lamar Alexander's Recent Comments Are Bewildering - And Response (2)
To: news@chattanoogan.com

There is just one problem: the Fed has been audited, many times by the Department of the Treasury, Congress, the executive branch, the General Accounting Office (GAO), and private accounting firms. Audits by private accounting firms are performed annually. The GAO is excluded from certain information so the government audits are not necessarily complete but the assertion that the Fed has never been audited is unfounded conspiracy theory and nothing more.

This is not to imply that the Fed does not have its own agenda since the policies of the Fed are not made with government approval. However, the Fed is subject to whatever statutes are implemented by Congress. In terms of Congress, most of the membership is comprised of lawyers, not business people.

A little research will show how mostly Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent increased oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac despite glaring inconsistencies in the annual reports of both companies. Am I mistaken or have there been some problems that resulted from the mortgage markets? Yeah, Congress did a bang-up job back then. Exactly what does anyone think would be accomplished by giving Congress greater control over the Fed?

One look at our current, massive budget deficit (twice the previous record) under Obama and the Democratic majority should tell anyone and everyone that financial matters are not the forte' of lawyers.

Joel Walker

* * *

Mr. Walker admits that previous audits of the Fed are "not necessarily complete" (sorry, an incomplete audit isn't an audit at all). How, then, does he find a complete audit of the Fed to be unnecessary?

As for his assertion that thinking the Fed has never been audited is "unfounded conspiracy theory", Balderdash.

The Fed lends itself to conspiracy, and anyone who follows money/credit (which are, today, sadly interchangeable) to its creation will find nothing more than imagination backing the green bills that less frequently inhabit our wallets.

Moreover, if one follows the monopoly-money from the Fed to one's local bank, and learns about "fractional reserve", it becomes evident that every bank in this nation is bankrupt from its inception.

Lamar Alexander doesn't want any of this exposed.

He built a career on his own red plaid shirt, and by telling us how beautiful the Emperor's clothes were. Lamar didn't tell us that the Emperor had no clothes, because he has been paid well not to tell us.

Tennessee's piano playing governor has turned out to be no more than a piano player in a brothel, and may be less honorable than the other employees there. When a brothel is busted, they take the piano player, too. Then, maybe, Lamar will have tickled the Fed's ivories for the last time.

Kevin Hargis

* * *

Mr. Walker,

While the Fed has been audited many times, by its own auditors and other auditing agencies, many of the Fed's most important financial programs are not allowed to be examined. In 1978, the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act gave Congress the authority to "audit" the Federal Reserve. However, the bill gave the Federal Reserve Bank immunity from disclosing information regarding deals with foreign central banks, foreign governments, international finance organizations, discount window operations, reserves of member banks, interest on deposits, and the list goes on (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/714.html). How would it be possible to conduct an audit of the Fed without information concerning its most influential financial programs?

I was stunned when I heard Senator Alexander's comments regarding the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, which does away with the audit restrictions and allows for a real audit. The Senator said he felt it was a sorry day when Congress nosed around in monetary policy. I think it is a sad day when our representatives speak out against government transparency. Who do you work for Senator Alexander? The people who elected you, or the special interests who have received money from the Federal Reserve?

Brent Stott
Red Bank