Federal Reserve Audit Bill Gaining Momentum

With a populace steadily losing faith in the so-called “stimulus package” actually improving the economy, HR 1207, known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, continues to gain momentum. The bill has now secured 279 co-sponsors, including all 178 Republican members of the House. Authored by Republican Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14), the bill has easily surpassed the 220 co-sponsors needed to survive on the House floor. Congressman Lloyd Doggett, Democrat (TX-25), whose district includes Austin, is among 101 Democrat members of the House who have all signed on as co-sponsors.

Paul, who has long been a critic of the Fed's unfettered power and lack of public accountability, says Congress and the American people have minimal, if any, oversight over the trillions of dollars that the Fed controls.

"Now more than ever, we need to know what the Fed has been doing in secret. I am pleased that all of my Republican colleagues in the House, as well as many Democrats, understand the need for this kind of transparency,” he said.

Federal reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, has spoken out strongly against legislative efforts to force an audit. Testifying before the House Financial Services Committee, Bernanke claimed such a review would "compromise independence." He added that if the General Accounting Office was to make judgments about the Fed's policy decisions, it would effectively amount to a "takeover of policy" by the Congress and such scrutiny would be "highly destructive to the stability of the financial system."

The bill is now with the 71-member House Committee on Financial Services, which Paul describes as the "most important step" in the bill's evolution. "If it doesn't make it out of committee, it will never come to a vote," he said, urging supporters to contact their representatives to make their voices heard.

Obama Creates Distraction With Cambridge Police and Buddy

Well it seems there is no end to the distractions that keep steering the attention of the American people away from the important issues of the day. I’m beginning to suspect that President Obama may actually be enjoying these distractions, even if he is largely responsible for them.

Take the recent snooze fest that was billed as a “press conference” on the proposed healthcare reform, for example. At the very end of the conference, Obama calls on Lynn Sweet from the Chicago Sun Times for the last question of the night and, loe and behold, it’s about the arrest of a black professor named Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge, MA. Ordinarily such an arrest might seem trivial and certainly not relevant to a nationally broadcast press conference with the President of the United States, but as it turns out, Professor Gates, described as a “scholar,” is a personal friend of President Obama, so the president had plenty to say on the matter.

“Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact," Obama concluded.

Obama’s decision to characterize the Cambridge police as acting “stupidly” for arresting his buddy is quite revealing. In recent weeks, he has remained silent on topics such as the CEO bonuses and the election protests in Iran, stating he needed more time to assess the facts. But right out of the box he comments on a local matter in Cambridge involving civilians, and during a press conference that was supposed to talk about health care, no less.

With the healthcare discussion sending many folks off into a deep visit to the Land of Nod, my cynical side has to wonder: Was Obama’s decision to wade into obviously controversial territory by design, or is it really that hard for him to pass up an opportunity to engage in racial politics? Or was this the perfect distraction at a time when Congress is trying to pass the most radical and sweeping overhaul of healthcare in our nation’s history? Whatever the case, it has come to light that the arresting officer is highly respected by both black and white officers in his department AND was hand-picked by a black police commissioner to teach recruits about avoiding racial profiling. So now, in an effort to engage in damage control, the President of the United States is left hosting a beer party for the two estranged parties. Meanwhile, what’s to become of the gazillion dollar healthcare reform bill? Who cares… just pour me another cold one!

Why I May Skip 'Bruno'

I recently read where Sasha Baron Cohen’s new movie, “Bruno,” features a scene where Bruno has a meeting with Congressman Ron Paul. Ostensibly the meeting is for an “interview” to discuss Austrian economics, but at some point Bruno, who is supposed to be a gay fashion reporter from Austria, propositions Paul. When Paul rebuffs him, Bruno then drops his pants, at which time Paul angrily gets up and leaves the room. Supposedly Paul’s reaction to the set-up reveals a certain level of “homophobia,” but I guess I’ll have to wait and see for myself.

The problem is I don’t know if I want to see for myself. This is a complete 180 for me because I have been a big fan of Cohen’s brand of irreverent comedy in the past. But his ambush interviews that seek to humiliate real people are only funny to the degree that the interviewee is a deserving target for the ambush.  In the “Borat” movie, for example, most of the humor came from the awkward reactions ordinary folks had to the socially inept Borat. Occasionally, however, the movie tracked a fine line between using unsuspecting folks as props for the joke and using them as the butts of the joke. Then there were a few scenes that seemed purposely mean-spirited, where Borat would ramp up his crude ineptitude to the point where even the most good-natured, sugary sweet grandma would be driven to kill him with her own bare hands.

Now, having seen the previews for “Bruno” and hearing a description of the scene with Congressman Paul, my suspicion is that Cohen’s latest offering has slipped over the edge into just plain mean-spiritedness. No matter what one may think of Ron Paul’s politics, from all accounts he is an upstanding man of integrity, a rare find in Washington D.C. Cohen’s alter egos--Ali G, Borat, and now Bruno-- have typically been used as humorous vehicles for exposing hypocrisy. But Paul has a reputation for being a straight shooter whose policy positions are consistently based on the restrictions the Constitution places on an increasingly over-reaching federal government.  The joke may have had some contextual relevance had it been perpetrated on, say, Larry Craig or Barney Frank. But Ron Paul?

Most likely, Paul was the only major candidate from the most recent presidential election willing to be, presumably, interviewed by an unknown Austrian reporter.  It’s hard to imagine John McCain’s or Mitt Romney’s people green-lighting that offer!  But in addition to his consistent Libertarian views, Paul has a well-known reputation for being just a plain nice guy, thus making him the perfect patsy for Cohen’s shtick. But If Paul was additionally sought for the bit because Cohen believes him to be a “homophobe,” then Cohen is either seriously misinformed, or he’s very disingenuous.  Either way, it’s a cheap shot for cheap laughs. If that’s what I’m looking for in my entertainment, I’ll stay home and watch David Letterman.