Philosophy vs. Conspiracy

Philosophy vs. Conspiracy

Caught this article by Jerry Salcido over on Campaign for Liberty's site. In light of the points he raises, I'd like to relate a few anecdotes of my own on the issue.

At the fall semester activities fair this year, some of the local LP guys showed up. This was good, they should be helping us with recruitment. What was not good was that they were also handing out 9/11 conspiracy theory DVDs and pamphlets as well as copies of America: Freedom to Fascism, a movie which holds that the income tax is a massive fraud perpetrated by big financial sector interests on the American people. I'm pretty sure The Obama Deception was in there too.

We were next to a student anti-genocide club. One of the conspiracy theorist pamphleteers gets drawn into a discussion. Upon hearing that they're an anti-genocide group, what do you imagine is the first thing he says? Not, "I think genocide is one of the worst consequences of totalitarianism; we should fight genocide at the source." Not, "I think you'll find a lot of similar-minded people in the libertarian movement, although some of them may have different ideas about how to solve the problem than you might."

No.

The first thing the guy says is:

"Did you know that the AIDS virus was created by the government to wipe out the black population in Africa?"

I paraphrase, of course.

What did this guy think he was accomplishing? Have enough people, upon hearing him say this, all of a sudden said, "Wow, I had never heard that, tell me more!" that he's come to think that leading with that line is the way to go?

Or maybe, as was the case this time, did the person he was talking to usually just start smiling and nodding for the rest of the conversation?

I sort of collect conspiracy theories, the way some people collect the pamphlets that some evangelicals hand out on street corners.

I was reminded of one of my favorites at the End the Fed rally I documented a few blog posts ago. One of the fellows on the megaphone relates how the Federal Reserve literally deals in blood. At the beginning he talks about how by enabling deficit spending, the Fed finances America's unending global war on everything. Fair enough. Then he explains how our debt to China is secured in human lives, and if you want proof, just put your Social Security number into the New York Stock Exchange.

My friend tried this later and did not report success. I suspect it was because he didn't make the correct Bilderberg-Illuminati gang sign when he hit the enter key. He didn't have a webcam running, but they know anyway.

I think that's enough for now. Let's suppose, then, that every single conspiracy theory is true. Ok. What now?

Do we seek to expose the conspiracy to the light of day? Won't this more likely have the effect of, I don't know, getting us unceremoniously killed, than, say, ending mankind's suffering at the hands of tyrants? Let's say that by some miracle, our efforts to throw open the curtains succeed, and every television in America shows irrefutable proof that an international banking cabal controls world politics. What then? The citizens take to the streets, and throw the bastards out? The bastards hiding behind tanks and missiles? Are the world's soldiers going to stop obeying orders because of a TV show?

What happens when the whole thing gets retconned by the corporate media as just a joke made in poor taste, or an accidentally leaked trailer from a new movie?

Libertarians of all stripes are fond of saying that truth is power, that truth will set us free.

Power is power. We will set us free.

Power is power. But libertarians don't want power--a trait that makes them unique among all political factions. They don't want it, but they sure as hell need it. To dismantle the apparatus of oppression, we need to be in the driver's seat. Because that's where the kill switch is.

Whether you're a gradualist or a revolutionary, before anything can happen, the libertarian movement needs power. It needs resources and legitimacy and reach and so on.

So what? For starters:

• No matter how right you are, you had better be prepared to spend as much on hair care as Mitt Romney and John Edwards. Combined.
• For most people, radicalism is not a conversation-starter. It is a conversation-ender. Our core message is simple and relatable. Freedom is more ethical than tyranny, freedom is more effective than tyranny. Put that in your own words, and repeat it to people. A lot.
• We are weird. Most people know very, very little about economics of any kind, and nothing at all about Austrian economics (or whatever freedom-oriented flavor of economics you like). Most people would prefer to maintain this state of affairs. Monday Night Football is on in ten minutes, and they don't want to miss kickoff listening to you explain capital consumption.
• Again, we are weird. Politics is boring. Political theory is even more boring. Jefferson is an old dead guy. Locke is an older, deader guy. Megan Fox is a young, living woman, and therefore automatically less boring. Also, you can see her on the same screen as giant robots which occasionally turn into giant explosions. There is a reason you spent your weekend at a tea party and your neighbor spent his or her weekend at Transformers 2.
• Well, I'm not sure I can top that last image. But I have to press on anyway.
• Talk to people about things they care about. People don't care about monetary policy. They do care about accountability. This is why Dr. Paul's Audit-the-Fed bill has about one billion cosponsors and his End-the-Fed bill...yeah.
• Anarchism is a nuanced and coherent political philosophy. It is also what the protesters at the G20 in Pittsburgh who broke the window of Pamela's Diner claimed to believe in. Barack Obama likes Pamela's, because the hotcakes have crispy edges. The point is buried in here somewhere.
• Power doesn't mean force. There is a world of literature on how to get your way without holding a gun to anyone's head. I, and you, should read more of it.
• The Republican party is ours for the taking. The neocons are on the defensive and the theocrats aren't what they once were. The teapartiers are willing to listen to what we have to say, and many of them are with us already.
  
• Education is important. It is not more important than getting people elected.

Before I go too far afield, let's tie some of that together. If you are not a conspiracy theorist, the thing to do is to start disabling the apparatus of power. If you are a conspiracy theorist, the thing to do is to start disabling the apparatus of power. There are lots of ways to go about that, and almost none of them involve shouting on a street corner about how the Federal Reserve deals in human lives, or telling a college student that the AIDS virus was created to rid the world of black people.

In any case, it is my hope that by the time I run for office, libertarianism will be mainstream enough that I won't have to answer any questions about electability or how my supporters are all insane. Because, you know, Obama's supporters are all completely stable, and Minnesota didn't elect a professional wrestler Governor. A professional wrestler who is currently the host of a television show about conspiracy theories.

Ron Paul at Cato on Federal Reserve Transparency

I posted this on my blog over at Bureaucrash Social, but since that's a password-gated community right now, I'm re-posting it here. Enjoy!

---

The Cato Institute hosted three speakers this Wednesday in the F. A. Hayek Auditorium in its DC office. The topics under discussion were Dr. Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) and the relationship between the Federal Reserve, the private sector, Congress, and the Treasury.

Dr. Paul’s bill would expand the GAO’s authority to audit the Federal Reserve. The current law, originally passed in 1978, allows only a limited audit process. For instance, the Federal Reserve’s dealings with foreign central banks are not currently subject to audit. HR 1207 removes this and other restrictions, fully opening the Fed’s books to public scrutiny. Dr. Paul stressed that the bill wouldn’t allow Congress to interfere in the Fed’s decision making process; it only makes a full record of the central bank’s activities publicly available.

Appearing on the panel with the Texan congressman were Gilbert Schwartz of Schwartz & Ballen LLP, formerly Associate General Counsel to the Federal Reserve, and Bert Ely, president of Ely & Company, Inc.

Schwartz emphasized that while the Federal Reserve and other agencies were partially to blame for the financial crisis, Dr. Paul’s bill was unnecessary at best and at worst had the potential to hurt the economy by undermining the Federal Reserve’s independence. He pointed out that although the Fed lending to private sector institutions outside of the banking industry is unusual, it is not unprecedented and is authorized by law. Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Fed to lend to businesses “in unusual and exigent circumstances,” and was used to lend to farmers and other business owners in the 1930s. Schwartz also pointed out that some of the expansion in the monetary base has been undercut by $700 billion in increased deposits with the Fed. Although by Schwartz’s admission, the Fed might be criticized for a lack of openness, he saw its intervention as instrumental to preventing a total economic collapse, citing the chaos caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers as evidence.

The third member of the panel, Bert Ely, pointed out how the balance sheets of the Fed and the Treasury are interconnected and identified several areas where current policy could be reexamined. His central question was whether the Fed’s power to lend to private industry without Congressional approval should exist at all, and whether it makes sense for that power to rest with the Fed rather than another agency such as the Treasury. Ely said that Congress should address these questions and, depending on the answers, change existing laws.

Congressman Paul posed a question which he challenged opponents of his bill to answer. “Why not?” Most objections to an audit don’t hold water. Merely opening the Fed’s books is not an assault on its independence. Concerns that an audit would endanger the trust foreign central banks have in the Fed are based on a slippery-slope scenario where auditing leads to meddling. Paul pointed out that the Fed is losing trust anyway, for reasons unrelated to an audit, and that we shouldn’t be more afraid of exposing the truth than we are of the consequences of potentially shrouding the Fed’s failures in secrecy. The other main argument against an audit is that making the Fed’s internal discussions public would upset the marketplace in ways the Fed would not intend. Paul pointed out that under the current system, rampant guessing surrounds every meeting of the Fed’s directors, and that this has much the same effect. Schwartz added that there was a time when the Fed didn’t even release its interest rate target as determined at an internal meeting until months or years afterwards, and there were doomsday predictions about the effect that making the information known immediately would wreak havoc with the economy. These predictions haven’t panned out, Schwartz said, and there’s no reason to suspect that additional transparency would cause any more speculative behavior than exists currently.

In short, the bill is a common-sense measure. Where disagreements exist, they’re about what to do next. Paul wants to legalize competing currencies; practically, this would mean allowing people to pay their debts in gold and to enter into contracts with payments denominated in gold. He predicts that monetary reform is coming whether we like it or not, and that to prepare, we need to have information about what went wrong in the past as well as a failsafe in the form of a legal competing currency. Regarding the current monetary regime, Paul simply said “this system has ended.” He sees a chain of central bank failures dating back to the Fed’s creation in 1913 as ample evidence, and said of our current crisis, which he views as another failure of the Federal Reserve System, “this is the big one.”

Schultz had a different take. He said that the message that more transparency is needed is getting to the Fed, and said of Paul’s bill, “I’m not sure this legislation corrects the problem.” Ely said that future actions should take into account the many different roles the Fed plays, and that each role should be examined separately.

Regardless of which direction Congress decides to go with monetary policy reform, it is clear that the issue of the Federal Reserve’s role is going to be a part of the national dialogue moving forward. HR 1207 would provide a basis for that discussion. Once we know what the Fed has been up to, we’ll have a better idea of what to do next. Said Paul, “That’s when we’ll have a lot more fun."

An audio recording of the event is available at http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6279.

HR 1207: The Cosponsorship Continues

I've let the HR 1207 saga slide a bit, since its been covered extensively by other outlets. I didn't want to let this tidbit pass by unrecorded, however.

A majority of House members now cosponsor the bill!

Also, the Senate version (sponsored by Bernie Sanders) has gained its first cosponsor, Jim Demint (R-SC). The battle now shifts to getting the house bill to the floor and building momentum behind the Senate version.

Yu Yongding Wins The Internet, For Now

Global Crisis 'Inevitable' Unless U.S. Starts Saving, Yu Says

The good news is that the Chinese seem to have a pretty good handle on what ails the US: what increasingly appears to be an unserviceable debt.

It’s “very natural” for the world to be concerned about the U.S. government’s spending and planned record fiscal deficit, Yu said...

The other good news is that they aren't buying the Obama administration's rhetoric about reducing the deficit.

It may be helpful if “Geithner can show us some arithmetic,” said Yu. “We need to know how the U.S. government can achieve this objective.”

The deficit is projected to reach $1.75 trillion in the year ending Sept. 30 from last year’s $455 billion shortfall, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The bad news is that they're likely just setting up for a massive power grab.

Central bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan has proposed a new global currency to reduce reliance on the dollar.

In any case, a skittish China is bad news for US central economic planners. In order to avoid an inflationary disaster should the economy begin to recover, the Fed will have to find someone willing to buy US debt other than itself. As things stand right now, that's a dicey proposition.

Inflation Watch

I saw Star Trek with my brother today. It was a fun time. But let's talk about monetary policy, instead.

'Star Trek' boldly goes to $31M at box office

The best opening weekend ever for the franchise was $30.7 million for 1996's "Star Trek: First Contact." According to inflation-adjusted numbers compiled by Hollywood.com, that translates to $51.2 million in today's dollars.

It's figures like that that just make your jaw drop. I couldn't quickly find how Hollywood.com calculates it's inflation adjusted ticket prices, and if I'm not mistaken movie tickets have been outpacing general inflation, but still. That's a 67% increase in the price of a movie ticket in just thirteen years. And yet Bernanke and the Fed remain committed to bringing back inflation at all costs.

Years of inflation helped create the current depression by discouraging saving and encouraging excessive borrowing. Inflation makes nominal values worth less over time--the same number in your bank account translates to less "stuff" over time, and the real value of your debt grows smaller even though the number stays the same.

Now, neither inflation or deflation are inherently bad if they are the result of market forces, but in most modern economies, inflation and deflation levels are determined (at least in the long run) by the actions of central economic planners, like my favorite secret society, the Federal Reserve. Meddling with the money supply like this creates distortions in the market which creates or exacerbates the boom-and-bust cycle the Fed is supposed to be combating.

Like many government agencies, the Fed has been given an impossible task, and it would be a better use of government resources to simply shut it down. Instead, it carries on year after year pretending to be an omnipotent, omniscient force for economic good.

Mish on the Fed and Libertarianism

Mike "Mish" Shedlock posted a response to this claptrap on his blog today:
Anti-Libertarian Nonsense From Henry Kaufman & Company

If you want to learn more about the libertarian/Austrian criticisms of central banking, this would be the place to start. The gist of the article is that saying the Fed followed a philosophy that was "too libertarian" is nonsense. The Fed can't be libertarian any more than the military can be pacifist. Its existence precludes such a label by definition.

I would add that you can immediately dismiss anyone who says that lack of regulation allowed the creation of companies that were "too big to fail" or "led to companies receiving bailouts." There is no such thing as a company that is too big to fail, only a company with enough political power to demand that it be enriched at the expense of the taxpayer. Bailouts have nothing to do with deregulation; they stem from the same source that thinks intervention will fix what ails the economy. Bailouts, like regulations, are just another link in a long chain of interventions.

We should decommission the Fed, and leave failing companies to their fates. This includes public-private monstrosities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as failed corporations like AIG. These dying behemoths are being held in suspended animation at taxpayer expense, and their girth is clogging up the marketplace and choking off resources that would be better employed by new market actors.

HR 1207: A Small Personal Victory

The Campaign for Liberty has designated today a "Mass Action Day" for HR 1207 activism.

I just got off the phone with the offices of Representative Doyle and Senator Casey. I didn't bother to call Senator Specter, I feel like his office is totally inundated with noise right now. Congressman Doyle's office gave me a polite acknowledgment, as has been my experience in the past.

What I heard when I called Senator Casey made my day.

I spoke with a fellow named Joe, if I remember correctly. I explained that I hoped the Senator would consider cosponsoring S513, a bill which would allow the GAO to audit the Federal Reserve. I added that it was the Senate version of HR 1207, since the House bill seems to have more name recognition.

Joe asked me if I was referring to Ron Paul's bill. I said that yes, he has done a lot of advocacy on the issue and is the sponsor in the House. I added that the Senate version is sponsored by Bernie Sanders and cosponsored by Senators Feingold and Lincoln.

This was Joe's reply, as closely as I remember it: "To be perfectly honest with you, this isn't an issue I've asked the Senator about yet. But I feel like we've reached a threshold now where it is something I should bring to his attention."

I thanked Joe, and said that support for the bill would go a long way towards showing the Senator's commitment to openness and accountability.

How encouraging! Keep the ball rolling, everyone!

HR 1207: The Crazy 88

Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty is reporting that HR 1207 is sitting on 88 cosponsors and counting. This was after a jump to 71 cosponsors yesterday, when Congress returned to session. That's a jump of 33 congresspeople since I last reported on the issue.

Not all of the new cosponsors are listed on the Library of Congress's site yet, but here's the ones that are:

Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 4/21/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 4/21/2009
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 4/21/2009
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 4/21/2009
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 4/21/2009
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 4/21/2009
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 4/21/2009
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 4/21/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] - 4/21/2009
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 4/21/2009
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] - 4/21/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 4/21/2009
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] - 4/22/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 4/22/2009
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 4/22/2009
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] - 4/22/2009
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 4/22/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 4/22/2009
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 4/22/2009
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 4/22/2009

Those of you doing research will find it helpful to know that David Roe goes by his middle name, Philip. We picked up four more Democrats with this update: Baldwin, Doggett, Massa, and Smith. It's always nice to have Adam Smith on your side on a piece of economics legislation.

Campaign for Liberty believes the number of cosponsors will continue to rise over the next few days.

The Senate version of the bill still has no cosponsors listed on THOMAS.

HR 1207: In Which The Library of Congress is Unreliable

So apparently there were some clerical errors which led to three Democrats being listed as cosponsors of HR 1207 when they were in fact never cosponsors. Bummer.

Scratch Keith Ellison, Henry Waxman, and Louise Slaughter from your list of people who pass the awesome test. The current cosponsor count remains 55, however, since 3 more congressmen have signed on.

Rep Fallin, Mary [R, OK-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Smith, Lamar [R, TX-21] - 4/2/2009
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [R, GA-3] - 4/2/2009

HR 1207: 9 More Cosponsors, Jefferson's Quran

More cosponsors! How exciting.

Rep Paulsen, Erik [R, MN-3] - 3/30/2009
Rep Gingrey, Phil [R, GA-11] - 3/30/2009
Rep Terry, Lee [R, NE-2] - 3/30/2009
Rep Carter, John R. [R, TX-31] - 3/31/2009
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [ R, WV-2] - 4/1/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [R, VA-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [D, NY-28] - 4/1/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith [Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, MN-5] - 4/1/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [D, CA-30] - 4/1/2009

This brings the total to 55. The biggest obstacle at this point will be getting enough support from Democrats that Barney Frank (head of the committee to which the bill was referred) and Nancy Pelosi allow it to come to the House floor for consideration. Rep. Paul has said on several occasions that should the bill come to a vote, it would almost surely pass. The challenge is getting it past the gatekeepers.

Meanwhile, Vermont's Bernie Sanders has introduced an identical bill in the Senate. Sanders is an independent who caucuses with Democrats. The Senate version of the bill was introduced on March 16th and referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

A word about Keith Ellison: this guy is pretty awesome. He's the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. I don't tend to go for identity politics, but whatever. He's pretty awesome regardless of his religion. He co-sponsored Kucinich's bill to impeach Dick Cheney, for example. The really cool thing, though? For his "swearing-in reenactment photo op" (actual swearing in is done en masse, without any books around) he used a copy of the Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson. Apparently Jefferson picked up a copy while he was studying for the bar.

A word about former member of the House Virgil Goode: all I have to say about this bigot is "Goode riddance." Goode issued a statement on the matter which read in part "If American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran." Because only Christians are allowed to be "REAL 'MERICANS." Clearly. There are a lot of good reasons to consider closing our borders. Hateful jingoism shouldn't be considered among them. The stinger? Ellison is a natural born citizen.

HR 1207: An Introduction

Congressman Paul has introduced legislation in the house to facilitate an audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO (the office headed by the Comptroller General). The current law insulates the Fed from any serious auditing. The bill currently has 46 cosponsors.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [D, HI-1] - 2/26/2009
Rep Akin, W. Todd [R, MO-2] - 3/19/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [R, LA-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [R, MN-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [R, MD-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [R, TN-7] - 3/16/2009
Rep Blunt, Roy [R, MO-7] - 3/24/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [R, GA-10] - 2/26/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [R, FL-13] - 3/17/2009
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [R, TX-26] - 3/19/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [R, IN-5] - 2/26/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [R, DE] - 3/17/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [R, UT-3] - 3/6/2009
Rep Culberson, John Abney [R, TX-7] - 3/26/2009
Rep Deal, Nathan [R, GA-9] - 3/23/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [D, OR-4] - 3/9/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [R, TN-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Fleming, John [R, LA-4] - 3/18/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [R, NC-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [R, AZ-2] - 3/23/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [R, NJ-5] - 3/5/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [D, FL-8] - 3/11/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [R, NV-2] (R) - 3/6/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R, NC-3] - 2/26/2009
Rep Kagen, Steve [D, WI-8] - 2/26/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [R, GA-1] - 3/6/2009
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [R, WY] - 3/19/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [R, TX-24] - 3/11/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [R, CA-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [R, MI-11] - 3/19/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [R, FL-1] - 3/24/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [D, MN-7] - 3/19/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [R, WI-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [R, PA-19] - 3/19/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [R, TX-2] - 2/26/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [R, FL-15] - 2/26/2009
Rep Price, Tom [R, GA-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [R, MT] - 2/26/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [R, CA-46] - 3/6/2009
Rep Sessions, Pete [R, TX-32] - 3/23/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [D, CA-13] - 3/26/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [R, FL-6] - 3/6/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [D, MS-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [R, TN-3] - 3/16/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [D, CA-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Young, Don [R, AK] - 3/6/2009

8 of these 46 are Democrats, which is nice, if you care about that sort of thing. I'm of the opinion that the Democrats and Republicans are basically the same party anyway, but I'm pretty sure most people in office disagree, so it says something when a congressperson is willing to look past deeply ingrained prejudices and cosponsor a bill from the opposition.

The bill is very short, only a page or two. I encourage you to look it up at the Library of Congress's website.

Okay, so why should anyone care? Well, for starters, the bill's author predicted the housing crisis in 2003. Check out Congressman Paul's statements before the House Financial Services Committee. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve is at the center of the current economic maelstrom. It's essentially a fourth branch of government and is accountable to nobody. I personally don't believe that we need a central bank controlling the economy, but its hard to debate the subject when no one has any idea what the Federal Reserve has done and is doing. Congressman Paul is the ranking member on Financial Service's subcommitee responsible for overseeing monetary policy--i.e. Federal Reserve actions--and has repeatedly said that the Federal Reserve is more secretive than the CIA (ex. this interview).

I could continue to talk about the role of the Fed in the economy and the ways central economic planning hurts us, but that would only complicate the issue. This is about opening up an exceptionally secretive part of government to Congress and the citizens of the US--and that's something that everyone should get behind.

More on this as it develops.