I don’t side with Bernie Sanders very often, but Vermont’s favorite socialist son occasionally brightens our capitol with something surprising.
Early in March, the senator challenged Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke with an interesting question: “Will you tell the American people to whom you lent 2.2 trillion of their dollars?”
Bernanke then said that the Fed explains its policies online. Terms and collateral requirements, and so on.
But that didn’t answer the question, so the senator pushed on. And Bernanke, not being the Master of Obfuscation that former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was, replied with an honest and unmistakable “No.”
He then went on to explain why he wouldn’t: It might “stigmatize” receiving banks, don’t you see.
Sanders mocked the answer. You see, he believes that the Fed should be transparent, especially regarding the current round of crisis loans.
I’m with him on this. I believe governments can only be truly republican — run by the public — when their operations are open for all to see. But there’s another reason: A transparent Fed would be a talked-about Fed. And the more people learn about the Fed, the more likely they will be to dissolve it.
America didn’t always have a national bank. And, like Tom Jefferson and Andy Jackson, I think we can do better without one at all.
We just need a good rule of law regarding money.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
5 replies on “Sanders versus Bernanke”
Down with the Federal Reserve, your darn right!!!
Support H.R. 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act!
You’re right on with this one, as usual. Get rid of the Fed, and all the regulators who did such a fine job. Only an extremly powerful and leveraged entity could create such a mess. A free market would give us exactly the amount of banking that we need, and no bank could get too big to fail.
I must disagree that:
“We just need a good rule of law regarding money.”
We already have such laws — they have to do with fraud. I agree that we do not need a national bank. In fact it is one of the most insidious evils in existence. Trying to remove the consequences of bad judgment on the part of the consumer simply transfers them to others who were prudent. Not my law — mother nature’s.
I very much enjoy your articles.
STIMULUS FOR “WE THE PEOPLE” What do you think of this idea?
There are about 140 million American Taxpayer Citizens. If each taxpayer were to receive a $25,000.00 stimulus check, that would cost about $3 trillion dollars.
Now, if we make some restrictions, we could reduce this paltry amount.
Only those who own or are buying a home would get a stimulus check.
Seniors/Veterans would get a $25,000.00 stimulus check.
Elected officials would NOT get a Stimulus Check.
Government Employees would NOT get a Stimulus check, because they are not in the Social Security program.
Felons still on probation would NOT get a Stimulus Check.
Illegal Aliens would not get a Stimulus check and their assistance would stop, so we can use that money to pay off the Stimulus check deficit.
Legal Immigrants will NOT get a Stimulus check unless they are made citizens in the year 2009.
All recipients must provide proof of spending at least 50% of the stimulus on products made in America.
NOW ADD YOUR IDEAS, MAYBE WE COULD ALL GET $50,000.00 OR MORE.
JUST LIKE THE EXECUTIVES GOT WITH THE TARP.
You are right. Government has too many secrets. The federal reserve answers to no one.
Why should they have a say in the use of our money.
The Federal Reserve was stopped twice in our history and I think it is time again to get rid of it.
Why doesn’t anyone talk about the 550Billion that was electronically removed from the Treasury in Sept and that that is the real cause this whole thing started. Electronic terriorism. Fat chance this administration would know what to do about it.