There is a common saying that “nothing good is done in secret.” As President Kennedy stated, “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.” As everyone knows, there are few institutions with as much secrecy than the Federal Reserve.
When Mel Watt (D-NC) proposed his amendment to HR 1207, basically gutting the bill, many in the liberty movement were disheartened. Others increased their commitment. Because of the work of activists from all sides of the political spectrum, the bill had 303 cosponors. As Watt’s ideas became known, many of these cosponsors began asking why can’t we audit the Fed — what is so important about keeping their actions secret?
To answer these questions, eight economists sent a letter to House Financial Services Committee in support of Watt’s adjustments to the bill. There is just one problem with this letter: seven of the eight have either worked for or are currently funded by the Fed. In a new report from the Huffington Post, it is shown that almost every one of these economists have some compromising relationship with the Federal Reserve. Hilariously, four of them work directly for a regional Fed bank.When asked about these conflicts of interest, the general answer was that it doesn’t affect their decision-making. (Take time to wipe the tears from your eyes from the laughter that statement caused.) However, this is nothing new; the Huffpo did a report on how most of the economics profession is bought and payed for by the Fed.
This has not stopped Mel Watt’s office from parading this letter around to his fellow congressmen. He has also circulated an email of endorsement fron Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker. For some reason, I have a feeling that they might have some compromising relationships too. Its easy to see that the Fed has its favorites when looking at the two possible amendments. Kudos to the HuffPo for promoting the Fed audit.