Big surprise: White House Wants to Stop “Audit the Fed” Amendment

[t0dd]

The amendment to audit the Federal Reserve had well over 300 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, and it passed easily in the House Financial Services Committee. It lives in their version of Wall Street reform. The Senate, as part of a bankruptcy reform bill last year, passed a version of auditing the Fed, through an amendment by Chuck Grassley, by a count of 95-1. Simply put, of all the amendments to the financial reform bill on the floor of the Senate right now, the one with the most likely chance of passing is one that would bring some transparency to the Federal Reserve.

That’s precisely the measure which the Obama Administration is opposing the most:

Obama administration officials have declined to weigh in on any specific amendments, with one exception: a move by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) to give the government more power to audit certain operations at the Federal Reserve. Fed and administration officials have signaled they would fight to stop it at all costs. Mr. Sanders has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

“I can’t predict, but I think we’ve got a good chance to pass it,” Mr. Sanders said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214553398009096.html

There are other amendments that I frankly think would have a more wide-reaching impact on the banking industry. The Safe Banking Act would cap the size and leverage of financial firms. Merkley-Levin would end proprietary trading by commercial banks. Cantwell-McCain would put up the wall between commercial and investment banks. But it’s unclear how much support they have in the Senate, though it’s possible one or more will pass.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/04/30/white-house-wants-to-stop-audit-the-fed-amendment/

[gateley]

1. I can understand why the Fed would fight it, but why would the Administration

fight something that the citizens strongly want? (Never mind -- the answer to every question is $$$)

And, does it matter if they fight it? If it passes (if we keep up the pressure on our reps) I don't think Obama would dare veto it -- would he??

[flyarm]

18. calling out Timothy Geithner! You are "safe" ..we don't do accountability !! eom

[Oregone]

2. Im mixed on this

Unless people are committed with dealing with the consequences they face when peering behind the curtain, may not be best to disturb it. What if the Ponzi scheme comes crashing straight down, and the dollar reflects what everyone will know its actually worth?

[truebrit71]

5. Once you open that door there's no going back..the amount of toxic shit that is one the Fed's books.

..and they method in which they operated during the most recent "crisis" will have heads rolling if it ever comes out..

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. REally makes you wonder what they are hiding, doesn't it?

[The Northerner]

8. +1

[Oregone]

10. Sometimes it makes me not want to find out

But then again, Im mixed. Im not so Stockholmed out on this fucked system. Some days I think "fuck it"...let the house of cards come down. Surely a little suffering may be what it takes to buck this piece of crap system.

I don't volunteer to suffer

[LiberalAndProud]

3. What has the administration said?

I followed both your links. WSJ wants me to subscribe to read the story (no, thank you anyway).

FDL says nothing about what the administration has said about an audit. I'd really like to know their position, because I'm disliking Geitner more all the time.



edit because dislinking has nothing to do with it.

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. More transparency?

Whatever.

Color me unimpressed with the current Presidential administration.

[greencharlie]

6. +1 nt

[SocialistLez]

11. +2 NT

[chill_wind]

16. And oversight. And future deterrance for more secret bailouts.

Grayson:

Memo to the Senate: Stop Secret Bailouts by the Fed

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/alan-grayson-discloses-dodd-bill-covertly-eliminates-already-passed-legislation-requiring-fu

Truthout had a really great writeup about all of this when it was in the House.

http://www.truthout.org/11190910

Too bad Congress didn't feel it had the power to take the books, before blindly writing any blank checks when those guys went to them almost literally crawling on their knees in September of 2008. That should have been the deal.

[upi402]

9. k/r n/t

[truedelphi]

12. My Lord! I am shocked.

You mean that the Administration has considerations for Wall Street?

Just as they have so many considerations for Monsanto?

How will I sleep? (And more importantly, what will I eat?)

[Maat]

23. +1

HeeHee.

[Qutzupalotl]

13. What do you expect an audit to reveal?

And what do you think its effects on the value of the dollar will be?

[librechik]

14. presumably, we would find out who they lent taxpayer money to

since they refuse to tell us (that is the issue at hand, although there must be a few billion other reasons to audit the thing that eats up all our income tax money.

[chill_wind]

15. What's left of it? I thought we read that Dodd had already taken his scissors

to most of it.

Grayson told us that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8203651#8205171

[girl gone mad]

17. The die is cast.

This administration made closed door deals to severely weaken financial reform months ago.

[flyarm]

19. + 1 million

[tranche]

20. I'd kind of be against something that would bring down the whole system too.

[chill_wind]

21. Seriously? It passed the House and had over 300 Co-sponsors. n/t

[t0dd]

22. Wrong. It's the Fed's secrecy that almost brought "down the whole system"

I know you gave such an elaborate response as to why the Fed should continue operating in secrecy, but allow me to retort.

Call it a wild hunch, but I think the Fed printing unlimited amounts of money to fund gambling is actually harming the economy. When things like that happen, the value of our dollar continues to erode.

In addition, I think the taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent. The Fed spent $2 trillion providing "financial assistance", and we still don't know which institutions received that money and for what.

But just to assuage your fears: the amendment doesn't take away any of the Fed's independence nor does it create any new restrictions. It'll simply require them to be more transparent.

This amendment has broad bipartisan support. Obama just wants to expand the Fed's powers; he isn't interested in holding them accountable for their contributions to the financial meltdown.

[FLAprogressive]

26. when the system is broken who cares what's brought down?

[howaboutme]

24. The bankers are smart, greedy, and rich

and friends of the Federal Reserve.

The business media keeps telling the masses that taxpayers have been paid back with fucking interest under TARP. But that's only a tiny segment of the screwing of America. What they don't tell the public is that the trillions in toxic shit that the bankers had on their books is now on your books as US citizens and taxpayers. It was a sly move by sly bankers and a sly Federal Reserve to socialize their greed and incompetence to the taxpayers, and it is not being covered by the media. They are afraid that an "audit the fed bill" will open a can of worms and leave the cat out of the bag and politicians will be held accountable....surprise!!!

[ima_sinnic]

25. so the Wall St. crooks & the Fed have their own president--where is ours?

more "change" I didn't vote for.