BERNANKE: Rand Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ Bill is ‘Very Deceptive’

Former Federal Reserve chairman  Ben Bernanke  gave a blistering rebuke to Rand Paul’s proposed bill to audit the Fed, reports NyPo.

“This is very deceptive — this bill is very deceptively titled,” Bernanke said during a discussion at Nasdaq’s Times Square headquarters to promote his new book, “The Courage to Act.”

Bernanke suggested the bill wasn’t about increasing transparency so much as giving lawmakers more control over the Fed and its monetary policies.

“You’re basically saying that Congress should run monetary policy,” he said. “I always like to say, if you love the way they’re managing fiscal policy, let them run monetary policy.”

On this specific point, I happen to agree with Bernanke.

From the start, I have not been a big fan of the Audit the Fed bill.

 In May 2009, I wrote:

I Smell A Trap

Ron Paul's House bill calling for an audit of the Fed is getting support from the strangest places.

Lew Rockwell today links to a column by Dean Baker who now supports an audit of the Fed.

The problem with Baker's column is that he doesn't quote Ron Paul. He doesn't even mention that Paul introduced the bill. He does, however, mention Elizabeth Warren, who heads a congressional oversight panel, dealing with bailout money.

I've discussed Warren before, her oversight committee went so out of bounds that two members of the five member panel dissented. She is a big time Obama operative. You don't want columnists using Warren as a signal flag to support Paul's bill.

Why?

This what Baker would like to see come from an audit:

The proposal for a GAO audit of the Fed is a first step towards reasserting democratic control over this institution...In a democracy, it is difficult to justify a situation in which the most important economic policy making body is, by design, more answerable to the banking industry than democratically elected officials.

I hope Congressman Paul knows what he is doing, to me it sounds like this may evolve into a power play over who controls Fed money printing, rather than an investigation into whether the Fed should be printing money in the first place. If Democrats start signing on to the bill in heavier numbers, it may be a sign that an audit may come, but it will end with a restructured Fed controlled by left wing radicals, who believe money is for handing out and who have no fear of inflation.

My view has always been that the focus should be on ending the Fed, or at least preventing the Fed from expanding the money supply. An audit of the Fed just leaves the door open for all sorts of power players attempting to gain control of the printing presses rather than destroying them. Do we really want Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi (or for that matter Rand) having a say in the money printing?

By all means, audit the gold, audit Fort Knox, but not the Fed. End the Fed.

-RW

FASCINATING: Data on Net Migration of LInkedin Members

Obviously, net migration is an indication of where people see opportunity.

Rand Paul Predicts Ron Paul Victory in Iowa

Check out this video of a Rand Paul--Ron Paul campaign stop in Iowa. It's a packed house and Ron Paul gets to lay out his liberty message in total.



(htLewRockwell'sPoliticalTheatre)

Rand Paul on His Father

(htLewRockwell'sPoliticalThaetre)

Rand Paul Launches Petition to Kill Online Piracy Bills

Senator Rand Paul has launched an online petition urging Congress to kill two online piracy bills.

Congress is pushing two dangerous and unconstitutional bills to regulate the one sector of our economy that’s creating jobs: the Internet, Paul said in a statement.

"The House’s Stop Online Piracy Act and the Senate’s PROTECT IP Act kill jobs, regulate the Internet, and give the Federal government and Hollywood movie studios the right to censor and shut down websites -- including social media like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube," Paul went on to say.

He added:

The Internet is a shining beacon of what’s possible when we let the free market work. SOPA and PROTECT IP change all that, threatening America’s leadership on the Internet. These bills make social networks and tiny Internet startups responsible for pre-screening every tweet and kid photo for copyright violations. That would effectively kill social media. Even worse, it empowers trial lawyers to do the bidding of Eric Holder's Justice Department and sue to shut down any website.

As conservative fighters for limited government, we stand united against SOPA and PROTECT IP. Congress needs to start over, and protect copyright in ways that don’t kill jobs or shred the Constitution.

"America has had enough of Washington’s Big Government meddling and over-regulation," Paul said.

Rand Paul Responds to Donald Trump Calling His Father a "Wacky Candidate"

On Friday, Rand Paul was interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. During the interview he slammed many of the positions Newt Gingrich holds. When Blitzer questioned Senator Rand about comments Trump made about his father, Rand handled the situation smoothly and made a very important point about Trump and his positioning himself in the Republican Party. Rand pointed out that Trump supports a lot of Democrats and wondered outloud if Trump should even be considered a Republican.

Rand Paul Warns Voters about Gingrich and Romney

In a letter to the Des Moines Register, Senator Rand Paul details why Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are not conservatives.

Rand says of Romney:

He's moderate, northeastern, don’t-rock-the-boat Republican, and I think everyone in the party clearly understands that.

As for Gingrich, Rand says:

...what worries me is that the voters are being sold a bill of goods in Gingrich.

Gingrich began his career as a Rockefeller Republican from the liberal wing of the party. And though he has often spoken and occasionally acted like he left that wing, it is clear from his flip-flops and multiple “apologies” that his heart is still there...Gingrich is not from the tea party. He is not even a conservative.

He is part of the Washington establishment I was sent to fight. He has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day, and he has taken money from those who helped cause the housing crisis and create millions of foreclosures.

Senator Paul's full letter is here:

As a U.S. senator elected from and by the tea party, I am often asked about the tea party, the conservative movement and the presidential race.

While conservatives and limited-government activists did, indeed, make great strides in 2010, those could easily be set back by nominating someone with a different set of ideas and values in 2012.

Let me start with something important. I have two goals for 2012:

I want to prevent the European debt crisis from consuming America next.

I want to elect a president who will defend the ideas of constitutional conservatism and limited government.

Unfortunately, while all Republican candidates would be an improvement over the present administration, two of the current frontrunners simply do not represent the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs in 2012.

Let me begin with the most obvious reasons:

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich supported the outrageous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailouts — “one of the most unpopular government programs in American history,” even according to President Obama’s own Treasury Department.

Both Romney and Gingrich have been outspoken and unapologetic supporters of the individual mandate. This is the heart and soul of ObamaCare.

Since the tea party started as a reaction to Republicans who voted for TARP, and was strengthened into a national political force during the fight over ObamaCare, I believe this disqualifies both Romney and Gingrich from tea party support.

Rand Paul Single-Handedly Halts a Potential Future Military Confrontation with Russia

Last week, Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans’ constitutional rights, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274.

This week he has stopped another  amendment. This one would have significantly increased tensions with Russia and committed the United States to fight a war in Russia's backyard, if Russia attacked Georgia.

Senator Rand, as Brian Koening at The New American put it, "single-handedly thwarted an amendment proposed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) drafted to advance Georgia’s application for NATO membership...Paul firmly opposed Rubio’s amendment, suggesting that expanding NATO in this sensitive region could entangle the United States in Georgia’s affairs with a nuclear-armed Russia, potentially risking a U.S.-Russian war."

Here's Pat Buchanan on what Rand did:

Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio, rising star of the Republican right, on everyone's short list for VP, called for a unanimous vote, without debate, on a resolution directing President Obama to accept Georgia's plan for membership in NATO at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago.

Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into NATO, making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend...

And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with Russia? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?

The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked it – Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio's effort to get a unanimous vote.

The resolution was pulled.

Here's Buchanan on the backstory:

In August 2008, as the world's leaders gathered in Beijing for the Olympic games, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, hot-headed and erratic, made his gamble for greatness.

It began with a stunning artillery barrage on Tskhinvali, capital of tiny South Ossetia, a province that had broken free of Tbilisi when Tbilisi broke free of Russia. As Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers fell under the Georgian guns, terrified Ossetians fled into Russia.

Saakashvili's blitzkrieg appeared to have triumphed.

Until, that is, Russian armor, on Vladimir Putin's orders, came thundering down the Roki Tunnel into Ossetia, sending Saakashvili's army reeling. The Georgians were driven out of Ossetia and expelled from a second province that had broken free of Tbilisi: Abkhazia.

The Russians then proceeded to bomb Tbilisi, capture Gori, birthplace of Josef Stalin, and bomb Georgian airfields rumored to be the forward bases for the Israelis in any pre-emptive strike on Iran.

The humiliation of Saakashvili was total and brought an enraged and frustrated John McCain running to the microphones.

"Today, we're all Georgians," bawled McCain.

Well, not exactly.

President Bush called Putin's response "disproportionate" and "brutal," but did nothing. Small nations that sucker-punch big powers do not get to dictate when the fisticuffs stop.

What made this war of interest to Americans, however, was that Bush had long sought to bring Georgia into NATO. Only the resistance of Old Europe had prevented it.

And had Georgia been a member of NATO when Saakashvili began his war, U.S. Marines and Special Forces might have been on the way to the Caucasus to confront Russian troops in a part of the world where there is no vital U.S. interest and never has been any U.S. strategic interest whatsoever.

A U.S war with Russia – over Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia – would have been an act of national criminal insanity.

Days later, there came another startling discovery.

McCain foreign-policy adviser Randy Scheunemann had been paid $290,000 by the Saakashvili regime, from January 2007 to March 2008, to get Georgia into NATO, and thus acquire a priceless U.S. war guarantee to fight on Georgia's side in any clash with Russia....

Now it is impossible to believe a senator [Rubio], not a year in office, dreamed this [amendment] up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann's ilk had to have had a role in drafting it.

Bottom line: If it wasn't for Rand Paul to step forward and block the amendment, the United States, at the urging of likely dark forces, would have been obligated to fight Russia in its backyard.

Thank you, Rand Paul.

Proof Rand Paul Needs to Get Out More

He's just not as well known as his father.

Frequently when I mention Rand, I get emails like the one below. This one came after I reported on Rand's heroic opposition to Amendment No. 1274 of the The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867)

From: mike school xxx@yahoo.com
To: rw@economicpolicyjournal.com

Subject: Isn't his name RON Paul?

And you're "the editor"?

Rand Paul Confronts John McCain about Sending Americans to Guantanamo Bay

During the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), Senator Rand Paul put it straight to Senator McCain (sponsor of the bill): "Under the provisions [of the bill] would it be possible for an American citizen to be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay indefinitely?"

Notice in the clip below how McCain doesn't answer the question directly, he just implies that it could be the case and attempts to confuse the issue by discussing those foreigners who have been released from Guantanamo and are now allegedly fighting the United States.

If this is such a great clause in the Act, why isn't McCain willing to stand up for it and say so, rather than ducking the issue?

Rand Paul Single Handedly Stops Amendment that Would Have Allowed the Government to Detain American Citizens Indefinitely

Last Night, Senator Rand Paul prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans’ constitutional rights. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror.

“Suspicion of committing a crime should lead to your attempted prosecution. If the evidence does not support conviction, it would be against everything we believe in and fight for in America to still allow the government to imprison you at their whim,” Sen. Paul said. “Tonight, a blow was struck to fight back against those who would take our liberty.”

The amendment would have passed by voice vote, but this tactic was blocked by Sen. Paul’s objection. He then forced a roll call vote, in which the amendment was defeated, 41-59.

Sen. Paul earlier this week introduced an amendment to formally end the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that troops will be removed from Iraq at the end of this year, the amendment failed 30-67.

Update: I see from the comments that there is some confusion over what Senator Paul was able to accomplish. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867) passed. Senator Paul was only able to stop amendment No. 1274 attached to the bill. Here the direct wording in Senator Paul's statement on the matter:

Sen. Rand Paul prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans’ constitutional rights. Offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror.

No doubt, other provisions in the act treat the rights of American citizens with additional disrespect. Senator Rand has won a battle here, not the war.

Rand Paul versus John McCain on the Terrorist Detainee Amendment

Senator Rand Paul has come out swinging against the bill that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

Rand and John McCain battled on the Senate floor today over a proposed amendment to the pending defense authorization bill.

Rand argued the amendment, which is cosponsored by McCain, "puts every single American citizen at risk" and suggested that if the amendment passes, "the terrorists have won."

“Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won," he argued, "[D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American."

McCain responded by saying that

An individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat. We need to take every stop necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives ... in our armed services.

The amendment would technically allow the executive branch discretion on whether a terrorism suspect ought to be tried in civilian courts or the military tribunal system and would allow and arrest without charge.

Rand Paul to Address Congressional Correspondents Dinner

On March 30th, Larry Willmore, senior black correspondent for “The Daily Show,” will headline the 67th Radio-TV Correspondents’ Dinner, re-named the Congressional Correspondents Dinner.

The Radio-Television Correspondents’ Association has also just announced the names of several members of Congress who will also address the dinner. Among them: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), and freshman representatives Ben Quayle (R-AZ) and Cedric Richmond (D-LA).

Rand Paul Buzz Continues

At WaPo, Rachel Weiner evaluates a Rand Paul presidential run.

She comments at one point:

While he raised impressive amounts of online money for his Senate bid, Paul does not have Bachmann’s eyepopping fundraising prowess or large national network of supporters.

But she notes that his father, Ron Paul, raised over $50 million during the 2008 presidential run. I'm thinking a lot of that enthusiasm gets transferred over to Rand, if he runs instead of his father.

I think the transfer happens even if Rand is more mainstream. And, he does hold many mainstream views his father does not, that will shock hardcore libertarians According to Weiner, Rand:

 says Afghanistan troop levels are up to the president, not Congress. He’s not for drug legalization, although he opposes the war on drugs. He wants to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open.

The big question for Rand is, will he be able to hold on to the hardcore base of support his father has created? If he can, his more mainstream views will mean he will collect voters beyond that base. It means, hold your nose, he will be more "electable" than his father.

If Rand runs, instead of his father, he will still be the most free market, liberty oriented of the lot. He's much more solid than other candidates who are just dying to grab the libertarian torch from Ron Paul's hands, such as Herman Cain, Mitch Daniels and Gary Johnson.

The Only Decision Rand Paul Has Made about a Presidential Run

 Earlier this week, while in South Carolina promoting his book The Tea Party Goes to Washington, Senator Rand Paul was asked about a possible presidential run. He replied that,"The only decision I've made is I won't run against my dad," reports to the Lexington Post and Courier.

I'm not a historian, but my guess is that this is probably the first time that a father and son are both considering a run for the White House at the same time.

Their styles are a little different, but liberty is what these two are all about. Paul for President!

Rand Paul's Five Year Balanced Budget Plan; Includes Elimination of 4 Departments

Senator Rand Paul announced today a 5 year plan to balance the budget.

The highlights of the plan are as follows:

Reduces spending by nearly $4 trillion relative to the President's budget


- Achieves a $19 billion surplus in FY2016

- Brings all non-military discretionary spending back to FY2008 levels

- Requires the process of entitlement reform, including Social Security and Medicare, with final implementation by FY2016

- Does not change Social Security or Medicare benefits

- Block-grants Medicaid, SCHIP, foods stamps, and child nutrition

· Provides the President's request for war funding

- Reduces military spending 6 percent in FY2012

· Eliminates four departments:

- Department of Commerce (transfers certain programs)

- Department of Education (preserves Pell grants)

- Department of Housing and Urban Development

- Department of Energy (transfers nuclear research and weapons to Department of Defense)

· Repeals Obamacare



DEFICITS/DEBT:



· Never exceeds $12 trillion in debt held by public

· Creates $2.6 trillion less in deficit spending relative to the President's Budget


REVENUE:

· Extends all the 2001 and 2003 tax relief

· Permanently patches the alternative minimum tax

· Repeals Obamacare taxes

Ron Paul on a Presidential Run, Gold and His Son Rand

An awesome, well done interview by WSJ's Simon Constable:

Rand Paul Scolded by Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen

After some tough questioning by Senator Rand Paul of Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, Senator Paul was scolded by Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.

Shaheen is neither the Chairman nor the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Committee that was in session hearing the testimony.

According to NYT:

Mr. Paul started to leave the hearing room shortly after his turn at questioning the witness, but he was called back into the room by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, who scolded Mr. Paul for being rude to Ms. Hogan.

The questioning by Senator Paul was actually the type of open and frank questioning that we need more of in Congress. Here's a blow-by-blow from NYT:

Senator Rand Paul’s toilets don’t work, and he blames the Department of Energy.

At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, Mr. Paul lambasted Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, telling her that the department’s “hypocrisy” and “busybody nature” has “restricted choices” for consumers rather than made life better for them.

“You don’t care about the consumer really,” Mr. Paul said. “Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house, and I blame you.”

The hearing was called not to examine toilet policy, but to consider two proposed bills, one that would update energy efficiency standards for appliances and a second bill that would repeal a measure passed in 2007 that will phase in new efficiency standards for light bulbs beginning next year.... While many Republicans have taken up the cause of the familiar 100-watt incandescent bulb, Mr. Paul said he took the law as a personal affront visited on Americans by “bureaucrats.”...

Mr. Paul also drew a pointed parallel with abortion, opening his questioning by asking Ms. Hogan, “I was wondering if you are pro-choice?”

Ms. Hogan said she was “pro-choice in light bulbs.” But Mr. Paul accused her, the energy department and Democrats in general with hypocrisy. “You favor a woman’s right to abortion,” he said, but “you’re really anti-choice on every other product.”

Don't think that Senator Rand was just picking on some bureaucratic flunkie. Here's what the DOE says about Hogan:

Dr. Hogan oversees a more than $900 million annual energy efficiency policy, program, and research portfolio including industrial, buildings, and vehicle technologies, along with federal energy management. As part of EERE's senior leadership, Dr. Hogan helps to oversee $16.8 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding.

Translation: She's on the government side of crony capitalism, handing out hard earned taxpayer dollars to crony capitalists.

UPDATE:Here's the video of Rand Paul's questioning:



(Thanks2ChrisKozlowski)

An Extremely Important Speech from the Floor of the Senate

Senator Rand Paul delivered the below speech on the floor of the Senate. It is beyond question the most important speech made from the Senate floor about the looming debt crisis. It should be viewed by every American.

Democrats and Republicans are nowhere near solving the crisis. Senator Paul in his speech makes that perfectly clear. It makes you wonder about a mainstream media that discusses the supposed epic battle between Democrats and Republicans over the budget. Watch this video clip and you will understand the false battle that will keep government spending growing, regardless of which side wins the budget "cut" battle.

Let us hope Senator Paul's message is heard throughout the country. People need to understand the dire situation that is before us. This is what they need to hear and not the happy talk of a bunch of politicians who are bought off by special interests.

Rand Paul to Vote against both Republican and Democratic Funding Resolutions

"I can't vote for anything that incorporates spending that would give us a deficit of a trillion and a half," Senator Rand Paul said, according to WaPo's Felicia Somnez. "I think that's too much."

Both resolutions are indeed simply cosmetic, the Republican cut is $61 billion, the Democratic proposed cuts are only $5 billion.  Senator Paul has his own proposal that would cut $500 billion from the budget.