Reply With QuoteDemocrats blocked GOP efforts to place roadblocks before the President's and the majority's ability to address critical issues in a timely manner.
Yes, quite the outrage.
Democrats block more government transparency (a call for action)
Hi Bendis board Democrats. I know some of you love to throw potshots at me. I'm asking you to put aside your immaturity for a moment. This is an issue that all voters should take heed in - but specifically the Democrats here who voted on the basis of change over the last nightmare of eight years under Bush.
The Democrats, in 2008, campaigned for government transparency. This was a noted to be a big change against eight years of a President who allowed no-bid contracts, promoted a mysteriously questionable war, and promoted oneself as more powerful than Nixon with warrantless wiretaps on domestic lines.
After a virtual filibuster-proof victory, it seemed change was about to come.
And then the Democrats turned around and made the voting public fools once again.
The Democrats have blocked, time and time again, various forms of government transparency. For example, Democrats blocked an amendment which simply states that bills that are rushed through the Senate would have to garner 60 votes only if they had not been posted online for five days. Obama's administration specifically opposed this amendment. Only five Senate Democrats did not oppose it.
In 2007, Senator Jim Demint and Senator Tom Coburn sponsored an amendment titled the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. The amendment broadens the definition of “earmark” to include projects in report language and those for federal agencies. Without the amendment, only 5 percent of earmarks will be subject to the new disclosure rules. Sen. DeMint based his definition of “earmark” on the new language approved under Pelosi. But the Democrats stalled the final vote.
These are just two examples. There are more - specifically, what Democrats are doing right now with their attempt block the audit of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accounting Office (GAO).
It's important to know what the Federal Reserve is. It's an unelected cartel of private bankers that control the United States money supply. Our money supply is fiat (meaning, the dollar is legal tender by force of the government and not backed by any commodity) and our banking system is legally legitimized and supported as "fractional reserve" (meaning, banks can lend out more than what they actually have in their vaults). The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by approval of Woodrow Wilson in an attempt to keep credit flowing continuously despite bank failure. Right now, Congress has very limited knowledge of what the Federal Reserve has done. Their meetings are not recorded or even fully documented. The money they create isn't completely known on where/whom it went to. Their very practice is questionably Constitutional, since the authority of coining money appears to be more for Congress - not as something delegated to a secretive group of private banks.
But now that can all change. This specific and very important issue can be addressed and transparency is just on the horizon...
...except the Democrats are opposing it.
A bill to Audit the Federal Reserve was sponsored by the majority of Congress...then it reached Democrat Barney Frank's desk, and Elmer Fudd put it on the sideburner. So then Senator Jim Demint of South Carolina attached the full text of S 604, the Senate version of Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, to HR 2918 as Senate Amendment 1367 before it was considered for final passage (aka The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act). This $3 billion bill contains, among many other things, provisions for GAO audits on certain agencies.
However, Senate Democrats refused to even allow a vote on the amendment.
After Senator DeMint brought Audit the Fed to the floor, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska raised a "point of order" to prevent a vote, claiming that the amendment violated Senate Rule 16 by "legislating" on an appropriations bill. The Senate president agreed, and the amendment was shot down (full video here).
Senator DeMint did not back down however, and directly challenged Senate leadership by pointing out the other GAO audits contained in the bill. As Senator DeMint listed them off, the Senate president was forced to agree with Senator DeMint that each one he described, all of which would be left in for final passage, also violated Senate Rule 16.
Btw, I'm not a complete fan of Jim Demint. I don't support his views on gays or flag burning/desecration. If he ran for President, I would not vote for him. But I applaud what he did, because it tells us at least one thing: the problem wasn't with "legislating" on the bill or violating Senate Rules (which is commonly done). The Democrats were simply preventing a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve for the first time in its history, for whatever reason (and I can guess a few).
I know many of you don't trust Republicans - and you have every reason to be. However, if you believe that government - especially domestically - should be by and for the people, you would want the Federal Reserve to be audited and fully transparent to the citizens of the United States. It's time to stop living in government secrecy.
Write to your Congress person and Senators. Call them. Tell them to Audit the Federal Reserve. This is not a Republican/Democrat/Green/Libertarian issue. Don't try to spin it so. There are no excuses this time - period.
Thank you for your time.
Democrats blocked GOP efforts to place roadblocks before the President's and the majority's ability to address critical issues in a timely manner.
Yes, quite the outrage.
Are these amendments to the constitution or to certain bills?
yeah, i dont really disprove of any of that. the term earmark doesnt need broadened, especially when gop'ers are trying to demonize the word, even though most earmarks do a lot of good. ron paul's vendetta against the fed is nonsense. and the rushed through bill is just more gop stalling and trying to block anything from getting done.
i do agree with your views on the last 8 years though.
These aren't the issues that the Democrats ran on. These are a bunch of pet libertarian projects (ie, the federal reserve).
It's cool that you're passionate about these issues, but it's disingenuous to pretend that the Democrats really promised to address them (they did not).
HR 35 is a bill that deals with a lot of Bush's unprecedented secrecy orders and decisions. It has passed the House and is on the agenda in the Senate.
You start off your post about a topic that is sure to have strong opinions with an insult. Not the best way to get the reasonable, intelligent discourse that you ask for.Originally Posted by Brian Defferding
I don't see it as an insult. These threads can quickly fill up with three pages of jokes and off-topic posts. It's a reasonable statement and request and nothing to get upset about.
What reasons would those be? This sounds all fine and dandy based on principle, but what would the tangible benefits be of having more transparency for the Fed?
As for campaign trail promises, I couldn't possibly care less. I don't care about campaign trail honesty, I just want a good job done. Anyone who doesn't understand that the game changes when you suddenly become the most powerful man in the country is just being naive.
anybody knows the answer to this? am curious as well
*hugs immaturity close*
No! It's mine and I shall not set it aside!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks