MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

New Audit the Fed Bill May Have Best Chance of Becoming Law Yet

A version of the bill has been introduced since 2009.

donielle/flickrdonielle/flickrSen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) once again introduced an audit the fed bill to Congress. H.R. 24 (S 16 in the Senate) would require the comptroller general of the United States to audit the board of governors of the Federal Reserve system and the Federal Reserve bank.

The bill was originally introduced in 2009 by then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex), who has since then been a major part of bringing the issue of Federal Reserve transparency into the mainstream. The 2012 and 2016 Republican Party platforms both had planks on auditing the Fed. Paul's son, Rand, suggested this may be the best opportunity for the bill to pass and become law. "The U.S. House has responded to the American people by passing Audit the Fed multiple times," Paul noted in a press release, "and President-elect Trump has stated his support for an audit. Let's send him the bill this Congress."

Trump had been critical of the Fed on the campaign trail. "They're keeping the rates artificially low so that Obama can go out and play golf after January and say that he did a good job," Trump said in September. Ron Paul, meanwhile, said he believed Trump wanted to audit the fed.

The latest audit the fed bill has 44 cosponsors in the House and 8 in the Senate, although just one Democrat so far, Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio. Massie's office says it expects the bill to receive bipartisan support, noting the House version had 10 Democratic cosponsors in the last Congress.

Related: How the Fed got huge

Photo Credit: donielle/flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Citizen X||

    Related: How the Fed got huge

    Squats?

  • brokencycle||

    Pills

  • Citizen X||

    Water retention?

  • ||

    Their kidneys are shutting down.

  • Aerozppln||

    By using this one weird trick

  • ||

    The utility companies hate that.

  • ||

    You even lift, brah?

  • Citizen X||

    Does a frosty beverage count?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Sic 'em Rand. That's a boy! Go get 'em.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The latest audit the fed bill has 44 cosponsors in the House and 8 in the Senate, although just one Democrat so far, Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio.

    I've really tried to understand the arguments against auditing the fed, and they're incredibly weak tea. Basically, you get platitudes about an Independent Fed (which can only apply succor to the economy if it's independent) becoming increasingly subject to political meddling.

    We have past Fed Chairmen on record saying they 'worked for the administration's interests'.

    I really don't see a substantive argument against the people being allowed to peer into the inner workings of one of the most powerful government institutions on the planet, yet for all the talk about "the people" and "democracy", the left sees any attempt shed daylight on this organization as toxic to their cause.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Rand Paul is quickly turning his absurd crusade to audit the Federal Reserve into a mainstream conservative cause célèbre—enough so that today, during her testimony before the Senate, Janet Yellen herself weighed in. (Like just about every other Fed official who has addressed the issue, the central bank's chair trashed the idea, saying it would "politicize monetary policy.")

    Boo fuckity hoo.

  • Ted S.||

    Sound money is a moral issue, not a political issue.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    He has referred to the Fed as an "an enormous creature, a creature that creates its own money," as if he were describing Cthulhu with a printing press.

    No, the media just hangs on every word dribbling from the mouth of the Fed Chairman because it doesn't really have any influence on American lives.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Jordan Weissmann did indeed reference Cthulhu, as Paul points out with a quote.

    And yet there are more than a few who seem to think that the man has no imagination.

  • chemjeff||

    Bottom line: When there's that much money sloshing around, there's bound to be something hinky going on.

  • Just Say'n||

    "The latest audit the fed bill has 44 cosponsors in the House and 8 in the Senate, although just one Democrat so far, Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio."

    How's that turn toward populism working out for Democrats?

  • ||

    Democrats, the party of NO.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In related news, Rand Paul voted against the budget resolution bill that would let the Senate repeal ObamaCare with less than 60 votes.

    "Rand Paul Endangers Health Law Repeal"

    Republican Senator said he would oppose measure to begin process of repealing Affordable Care Act, saying it adds too much to the federal budget deficit

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ra.....1483557210

    For everything there is a season.

    'tis the season for repealing ObamaCare, Rand

  • Ken Shultz||

    voted, will vote, whatever.

    Please, let's not screw the pooch on this one.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Rand Paul admits the ACA reduces the deficit!

    And it is market-based.

    DEATH SPIRAL!!! DERP!! IT DON'T FIX THANGS!!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I believe he's talking about the other funding in the bill, you obtuse fuck.

    I've never seen someone so quick to assume that whatever happens in the world must be happening for whatever reason you want most at the moment. It's infantile.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, that is not what he is talking about.

    He knows a straight repeal of the ACA will increase the deficit and wants other items in the budget reduced to offset the deficit increase a repeal alone would cause.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    You're an idiot. The repeal of Obamacare is in a continuing budget resolution. The remainder of the bill doesn't balance the budget.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Not what I said - you moron.

  • R C Dean||

    He knows a straight repeal of the ACA will increase the deficit

    Not sure how, since the ACA is a money-loser. Any claims of deficit reduction are always in the out-years, and always assume that the cost curve will bend down and taxes and fees won't be cut, which is a fantasy.

    And that's not counting the obvious increase in spending needed to fund Medicaid expansion.

    Rand disappoints on this one.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Presumably because it would also repeal the Obamacare taxes. So our so called libertarian senator is voting for higher taxes. Nice.

  • Citizen X||

    Look, shreek is pretty seriously mentally ill, as anyone who's witnessed his last decade or so of Hit'n'Run comments can attest. Expecting him to participate in any reality outside his own damaged brain is just too much.

  • SugarFree||

    No. no, no... It's that next comment that someone will make that is sure to stop a decade of being a bad faith, dipshit troll.

    So keep taking his bait.

  • Citizen X||

    DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO.

  • Jordan||

    Can't read it because it's behind a paywall, but my understanding from skimming an article this morning is that Republicans are relying on a maneuver which will make it easier to pass bills which jack up spending in the future. I could be way off, though.

  • The Last American Hero||

    A maneuver like deeming the most significant piece of domestic legislation in 50 years "reconciled" without an actual vote?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Google the headline

  • Ken Shultz||

    The maneuver lets them pass a budget reconciliation bill with less than 60 votes.

    They rolled ObamaCare into the budget reconciliation bill. If they don't do that, they need 60 votes to repeal ObamaCare.

    If they have some pork in that budget reconciliation bill for whomever to accomplish getting them to vote to repeal ObamaCare, they should do that.

    I'm all for cutting spending. If they end up papering over instead of repealing ObamaCare, long term, however, we're on the road to a public option and single payer--and that's gonna end up being penny smart and pound foolish.

    Put a stake through its heart now, now, now.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Supposed to be to "Wild" Bill Dalasio.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    ????

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Sorry, Ken, I've got to disagree with you.

    I'm all for scrapping Obamacare. The thing is, the leadership slipped a a continuing budget resolution that never shows a balanced budget into the bill. In other words, the price they've put on doing what they promised is that everyone sign away fiscal restraint.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The budget is only good until the next time they vote on a budget.

    They can cut it later.

    If you only get one shot to kill ObamaCare, you take that shot.

  • Ted S.||

    They can cut it later.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!111!!!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Don't see why they only have one shot at repealing Obamacare. They control everything for the next two years.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Biggest bullshit title of a bill - 'Audit the Fed'.

    The Fed is fully audited every year - https://goo.gl/fAhQ5s

  • Ken Shultz||

    blah, blah, blah

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Good, so they won't mind another.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Oh, by the way, you know who else was audited every year?

  • Swiss Servator||

    Enron?

  • Charles Easterly||

    Bernard Madoff?

  • ||

    Donald J. Trump !

  • Ska||

    An audit with no opinion? So... Deloitte does a compilation with some audit testing and does not state whether the financials do in fact fairly present the financial position of the fed.

  • The Last American Hero||

    There is a clean audit opinion attached by Deloitte. However, the entity in the report is not the Fed, but the Board of Governors. Unless the only money controlled by the fed is $69 million. The Deloitte audit doesn't cover any of the Fed "decisions" made regarding interest rates, money supply, or anything else that Rand/Ron and company care about.

  • Ska||

    Yes, I caught the second opinion after my post but you're absolutely right - different entity.

  • Jordan||

    "Fully audited". Horseshit.

    Under the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act, 31 U.S.C. section 714(b), audits of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks do not include (1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government or non-private international financing organization; (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters; (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or (4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3).
  • Citizen X||

    Fully audited, barely audited at all, potato, poTAHto...

  • R C Dean||

    What's that leave? The travel budget and the Fed cafeteria?

  • Citizen X||

    Both of those fall under "monetary policy matters." The shoeshine guy in the lobby is fair game, though.

  • DOOMco||

    yeah. upkeep. power costs. new computers.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    THEM BOYS IS STEALING OUR GOLD!

  • Nikkodemus||

    You pay your bet yet?

  • timbo||

    Stay out of this PB. You're too fucking stupid to understand market economics.

    You're too fucking stupid to understand Chavez/Castro economics

  • ||

  • Florida Hipster||

    I'm sympathetic to the family, but if you don't agree with a property owners rules, don't go on the property.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Sloppy reporting of the facts of the case. How could the singer get shot if she was singing at a Gun Free Venue? Was it a sniper attack?

  • The Fusionist||

    Apparently the theory is the liability should be greater for a venue which chooses to ban guns if something bad happens.

  • ant1sthenes||

    False advertising. It was billed as a gun free venue, and yet there were guns there.

  • Jimbo||

    If a business openly states No Guns Allowed, they should be held accountable for ensuring it. I don't think it's completely unreasonable, although I personally would think it would be a hassle to do it.
    It's like No Smoking signs: If a business has that sign, a customer would be upset if people were smoking there.

  • Jordan||

    It's like No Smoking signs: If a business has that sign, a customer would be upset if people were smoking there.

    But that shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit.

  • Jimbo||

    Killing someone seems like there could be many grounds for a lawsuit. In this case, it's not unreasonable to assume the venue will not have any guns. You and I and the rest of the H&R commentariat (should) know better, of course.
    Should the venue be held accountable in some way? I guess a jury will decide.

  • Zeb||

    And honestly, a good guy with a gun probably isn't going to stop a nut set on killing one person. If he was shooting up the whole place, that would be a different matter. But I very much doubt that this would have gone any differently if other patrons had guns that night.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Dude, read the article. This is excellent. If you declare yourself a gun-free zone, you'd better damned well be gun-free or you're liable.

    Every business that's bans firearms from carry on the planet better be quaking in their birkenstocks.

  • ||

    Yep. And if you're going to be gun-free, you'd better provide security adequate enough to catch guns coming in.

  • R C Dean||

    There's a couple of interesting sides to the argument:

    (1) By banning patrons from having guns, the establishment takes the responsibility of keeping them safe.

    (2) By going into an establishment that bans guns, the patrons assume the risk of being disarmed.

  • Tundra||

    Yes.

    The suit claims security provided "superficial bag checks with no body pat downs. We are hopeful that our lawsuit will bring widespread attention to the issue of concert security and safety and more effective safeguards will be implemented to protect performers and attendees at concerts around the U.S. in the future,"

    Unfortunately, this most likely means more metal detectors and shit, not more gun freedom.

  • The Fusionist||

    Seriously, can someone do an ideological Turing Test and give the best possible argument *against* a full audit?

  • The Fusionist||

    pass the Turing test, not do

  • The Fusionist||

    Seriously, I don't think I fully understand the case for an audit unless I've understood why the other side is wrong, and I've been unable to find out what the other side's best argument is.

    The arguments I've heard are *surely* not the best they can do.

  • Jordan||

    The only argument I've heard is that it would compromise the Fed's "independence" which is absolutely hilarious. The Fed is independent in the same sense that USPS is.

  • Pro Libertate||

    One thing I have decided for sure about the Censor is that it can't be part of the government. Just its deadly opponent.

  • ant1sthenes||

    So... terrorist organization, or assassins for hire?

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, no, no, constitutionally recognized. With licenses to tar and feather.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Wouldn't that make it part of the government? Unless it was a right of the states or the people.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Spending money we don't have to learn what we already know to suggest improvements that will never occur. Sort of like everything the GAO produces.

    GAO has repeatedly disclaimed on the financials of the US and issued adverse opinions on the DOD's financials. Hasn't done squat to change anything.

    How did I do?

    Full disclaimer: I do support a Fed audit, and believe all minutes and deliberations should be not only made public but broadcast on C-Span.

  • The Fusionist||

    OK, that's a good libertarian argument against an audit, but what would be the argument of a standard opponent - assuming he assigned a really intelligent person to write a good argument?

  • John||

    My question is why isn't it being audited now? It is a quasi government organization. There are rules for how it spends money. I honestly don't think the governors are spending official money on hookers and blow. I am fine with auditing any government organization. My question is what do they expect to find?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Only idiots believe there no annual audit of the Fed now.

    You're officially an idiot as is whoever you asked is.

  • John||

    You are fucking moron shreek. Seriously, let the adults talk for a while.

  • ||

  • SIV||

    The latest audit the fed bill has 44 cosponsors in the House and 8 in the Senate, although just one Democrat so far,

    POSSIBLE JACKALOPE SIGHTED IN WILD

  • Jimbo||

    Hey, it's one more Dem than Repubs who supported Obamacare. So it's a 10000% increase!

  • Charles Easterly||

    The picture Ed chose reminds me of the Angel of Death as depicted in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

    Apologies - I could not find the appropriate scene.

  • Jimbo||

    Can someone help out Charles?

  • Charles Easterly||

    Jimbo,

    This is what I did find , yet I (mis?)remember a scene in which a winged representation of Death akin to Ed's picture breaks out of a statue to then attempt to claim Baron Munchausen.

  • Jimbo||

    I got nothin.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Thank you, Jimbo.

    I very rarely check previous posts, and there are occasions upon which I've been glad that I did so.

    Farewell until next time,

    Charles

  • SugarFree||

    It's sad that they let that obviously unstable old man make such a fool of himself.

  • Citizen X||

    I kinda feel bad for him, but a guy who's being a dick because of dementia is still being a dick.

    He will no doubt have some choice things to say about THAT when he gets to this thread, around 6:30 tomorrow morning.

  • John||

    I will ask the obvious question; who is John Galt?

  • Zeb||

    I think the theory is that he's Michael Hihn.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I saw what John did there.

  • Contrarian P||

    It's definitely Hihn. I don't think anyone could fake his style.

    Again, I really hope I have something better to do when I'm his age than flailing about.

    And no, it's not aggression, Hihn, it's pity. Maybe one day you'll learn the difference.

  • kbolino||

    Everything is aggression to Michael Hihn. Him calling me a "psycho liar" and a "piece of shit" is somehow me aggressing against him. Go fucking figure.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't get it.

  • ||

    I once was a full on advocate of recurring Fed audits.

    After the last 8 years I'm kind of leaning the other way.

    Sunlight on shenanigans could bring down the house of cards.

  • Citizen X||

    Feature, not bug.

  • Jimbo||

    Can we just wait until I cash out? (By "cash out" I mean die)

  • DOOMco||

    so you want to repeal obamacare??!1

  • Jimbo||

    I was thinking of waiting 35-45 years before I die. I hope it doesn't take that long to appeal Obocare.

  • timbo||

    Trump did something interesting again. At least potentially.

    He is still talking to John Allison about a major role at the FED.

    That could singularly help the economy in ways that might dwarf all of his protectionist crap.

    Someone reigning in the FED and limiting their destructive might could set the economy on a course for real recovery, if only we could do something about that little debt bomb.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    The debt bomb? The solution will be the same as always: repudiate portions of it, especially monies owed to disfavored groups; monetize a bunch of it, raise taxes.

    Nobody in DC gives a flying fuck about a collapsed economy - look at the city they all flock to for fuck's sake. One could say they PREFER the economy being a shambles, it smells like "power opportunity" to them.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    ROFL, best joke on Reason ever!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online