HR1207 Passes committee against Barney Frank’s wishes

Posted on November 22nd, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.

The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed’s opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal.

“The Watt amendment will fully obliterate everything 1207″ — Paul’s measure — “is intended to do,” said Paul during Thursday’s debate.

For anyone remaining confused, the debate was further clarified by the central bank itself: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Don Cohn and General Counsel Scott Alvarez spent much of the day calling committee members, urging them to oppose the Paul-Grayson amendment in favor of Watt’s, a member of Congress who asked for confidentiality told HuffPost.

Paul’s opponents also placed a letter from former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker on the seats of every committee member. Such a move is in violation of House rules and Grayson was able to have the letters removed.

As the day wore on and support held for the Paul-Grayson side, the Fed still could hope that both would pass. Watt’s amendment, which included additional restriction, would then trump Paul’s.

To counter that possibility, the Paul-Grayson side moved to fully replace Watt’s amendment with theirs, leaving only one amendment to vote on. The motion carried and the amendment passed in a landslide.

The GOP broadly backed the amendment, though Frank chided them for finding their love of Fed transparency only after they lost power, noting that Paul has been introducing some version of the measure since 1983.

Frank said he was opposing the Paul amendment because it could be perceived as influencing monetary policy, which can have inflationary pressure. “Perception is very important in monetary policy,” said Frank.

Great to see out of committee without Watt’s neutering. Too bad Frank either entirely ignorant of the fact that the market already knows that the monetary policy is influenced by Congress and government, too blind to see the immense harm the FED does therefore justifying such an action, or is just another shrill for the banking cartel.

Barney Frank in 2005: What housing bubble?

Posted on May 1st, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , ,

And this is the asshat who heads the finance committee in the House of Representatives. Who needs to drop dead (or at least leave Congress) for Ron Paul to get that position? I need to start praying to the atheist god for a favor.

Barney Frank vs Harvard student

Posted on April 7th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment »

His voice and attitude are so grating. Have you heard him in the House committee chambers?

The student could have better educated on the topic or at least more forceful. When dealing with a politician you must stand your ground and when it’s one who is so disconnected from reality it’s even a greater necessity.

CEOs in front of House Finance Committee

Posted on February 11th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , ,

I’m watching the CEOs grovel in front of the House Finance Committee and its mostly sad, some scary, entirely frustrating.

Only Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley said anything of interest. John Mack knows how to play the game. He saw the shit was hitting the fan early and got Morgan Stanley to institute policies such as the clawback penalty which would look real in front of the bureaucrats and main stream media before it was really talked about.

He also invited more and more uniform regulation very explicitly and when asked about bonuses by Frank he answered in an appoligietic yet firm response.

Any time an industry asks for regulation you should be very very causious. History shows it is for their own long term benefit.