Rep. Frank eyes Fed audit, emergency lending curbs

Rep. Frank eyes Fed audit, emergency lending curbs

finance.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said he plans legislation to restrict the Federal Reserve's emergency lending powers and subject the central bank to a "complete audit."

A bill sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul that would allow the Government Accountability Office, a federal watchdog agency, to audit Fed interest-rate decisions has won the co-sponsorship of more than half of the House.

(visit the link for the full news article)

When I woke up and read this article I thought I was in the Twilight Zone.

Barney Frank to allow a vote on HR1207 (Audit the Fed Bill)? After it has been held up in Committee since April with over 280 co-sponsors?

Is this too good to be true? And then I read the rest of the article, it makes it seem as if this is all Frank's idea. Although they do reference Ron Paul's name twice (a whole 2 times!) they don't mention that Ron Paul has been fighting for an Audit/End of the Fed for YEARS.

Instead they say:

As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank is a key player in the effort to overhaul U.S. financial regulation.

Then the article goes on to say that Ron Paul could not be reached for comment, yeah right.

So what is REALLY going on here? Are the Democrats hijacking the Audit the Fed campaign to save face for all their other Congressional debacles or to intentionally change the legislation to remove all of it's "teeth"? Is Barney Frank going to go against the Master Obama who wants to give the Fed new regulatory powers in the midst of this economic chaos?

Just a few weeks ago Ron Paul was talking about having to petition Congress just to get the Bill out of Committee, so I ask again, what's really going on here?

Your thoughts?

finance.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm confused as well. Franks was instrumental in giving the Treasury more power. The same treasury that wants to give the Fed more power. But now Franks don't want the Fed to have that power.

So why give the new powers to the Treasury in the first place.

I'm glad Franks is talking this way, but credit should go to Ron Paul.

reply to post by jam321


I agree, I guess we should be happy that they even bothered to mention Ron Paul's name.

What's not a surprise is that this article was released on a Sunday and then burried on the Drudge Report. This one should have been on top of the page. Wonder if we'll be hearing about this on FoxNews or CNN?

I won't hold my breath.

Barn-dog is doin a flip-flop.. trying perhaps to woo his constituates while at the same time satisfying his bosses (and i dont mean the american people) congress has me confused to be (no pun intended) frank..

Either way I am excited that this has passed committee.

It's BS that they are hijacking the issue, credit should go to Ron Paul but nonetheless it will be a very interesting next few months.

Exciting times we live in!

Bet Bernanke's breakfast can't have tasted to good.

I really hope this will actually mean a real change rather than one on paper. Lets just hope the bill isn't watered down to much by compromise.

It would be fascinating if we actually saw the Fed's real balance sheet, so much illumination.

That can only mean one thing. Barney knows the measure will not get close to reality and is cashing in on some free press. No way Frank wants the Fed audited. He's been instrumental in helping it loot our treasury for years. Thats right folks, the Federal Reserve Bank is no more a government agency than Federal Express.

reply to post by DrZERO


I know what you mean about the Twilight Zone. I felt the same way reading the article. It does seem suspicious at first glance. And I thought your possible reasons were really good. I don't know what to think, but I'm really curious about it.

It's also possible that Franks has changed his mind or is paying attention to what his constituents want, but it's more likely that it's a Democratic strategy of some sort.

I think the reason they played it up as all about Barney Franks is that he's a lot more visible in the mainstream than Ron Paul. If they talked about Ron Paul too much, it might not gain the respect of the Democratic voters out there. Sad but true.