By Martin Hill
Presidential hopeful Rand Paul announced in a recent op-ed that he seeks to "ultimately make the Fed more effective." Unlike his father, Ron, who sought to "abolish the fed," Rand insisted "it's reasonable that the Fed should be audited more thoroughly than in the past.
"
Paul continued "Earlier Congresses turned much of their constitutional responsibility for money over to the Fed, often during times of war or crisis. The Fed is sometimes called the fourth branch of government, even though the Constitution created only three branches. Congress is complicit in this concentration of power, and should take responsibility for helping the Fed find constructive limits. A more thorough audit would be a good start."
Paul's 4-page Senate bill, the "Federal Reserve 5 Transparency Act of 2015" is here.
He also tweeted about making the federal reserve more effective.:
Read the rest here.
Rand Paul wants to make the fed more effective at doing what? Things it has no business doing in the first place?
ReplyDeleteHow many ordinary people really care about what the fed is doing in a 'positive' way?
Judge Napolitano claims Rand is "as libertarian as" his father, so he would think this is to broaden his base, but really, which ordinary Republican conservative cares about the role of the fed in a supposedly positive way? Would Rand really sabotage broadening his base by going full blast against the fed?
He is not broadening his base, he is simply being a somewhat moderate Republican, which is what he really is, as opposed to a libertarian.
I guess this means another 15 years where the public is not being taught the simple fact that inflation is a purposeful government policy and not a mysterious force of nature.
ReplyDeleteI guess this means another 15 years where the public is not being taught the simple fact that the first people to get the new funny money are snatching away purchasing power from those holding the existing money, all without due process of law and in an outrageous violation of the Constitution (if that's your thing). Sometimes the Constitution is ambiguous. On this, it isn't.