Growing opposition puts Bernanke approval in question

Washington (CNN) -- A second term for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke became more uncertain Friday as two leading liberal senators announced that they will vote no, and many other Senate Democrats said they are undecided.

Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Barbara Boxer, D-California, issued statements announcing their opposition to Bernanke.

"Under the watch of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve permitted grossly irresponsible financial activities that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," Feingold said. "Under Chairman Bernanke's watch, predatory mortgage lending flourished, and 'too big to fail' financial giants were permitted to engage in activities that put our nation's economy at risk."

Boxer said she's voting no because Bernanke "played a lead role in crafting the Bush administration's economic policies, which led to the current economic crisis."

"Our next Federal Reserve chairman must represent a clean break from the failed policies of the past," she said.

Democratic concern about Bernanke boiled over in an all-Democrat private lunch Wednesday, the day after the party lost a Massachusetts Senate seat.

A senior Democratic source familiar with meeting said it got "raucous" as several senators stood and voiced opposition to confirming Bernanke for another term.

The party's Senate vote counter, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said that enough Democrats have stated either outright opposition or deep concern to indicate that heavy reliance on GOP votes will be needed to approve Bernanke again.

"I just think there is some uncertainty here, and we don't know from the Republican side whether they can provide votes," Durbin said.

Bernanke does have some bipartisan support. Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting yes in the Senate Banking Committee last month.

The Senate would need 60 votes to approve Bernanke to overcome opposition from several members, including Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, who is leading the charge against him.

When Bernanke was confirmed for his first term in 2006 under President George W. Bush, there was no opposition. The Senate approved his nomination by unanimous consent.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, who said he will vote for Bernanke, said he believes that the anti-Wall Street fervor that senators are hearing from constituents -- and that played a role in the Massachusetts vote this week -- is having an effect.

"The Tuesday election results have caused a little angst," Baucus said.

Durbin tried to downplay the effect the Massachusetts loss is having on Bernanke's fate.

"We have a number of Democrats who have already said they are not going to support him," he said.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, said she has not decided how she will vote.

"Like everyone else, I have serious concerns about what happened in the past. On the other hand, he's had to basically steer us through this crisis, and I have found him to be honest in hearings, so I am going to look at the whole record," Klobuchar said.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he is undecided about Bernanke, too.

"I am cogitating on it right now," he said.

Harkin said he has deep concerns about Bernanke's performance "during the period of time when these investment banks were running amok."

"I just have some uneasy feelings that his mindset is not where we need to be in terms of the Federal Reserve right now," Harkin said. "He has a lot of baggage he carries."

Asked whether he has gotten any calls from the White House pressuring him to vote in favor of Bernanke, Harkin said no and then joked, "After this interview, I will."

The White House is up against a tight timetable. Bernanke's term runs out January 31.

Aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio, where Obama appeared at a town hall meeting, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs emphasized that the president is standing by his decision to renominate the Bush-era Fed chief.

"He has a great deal in confidence in what Chairman Bernanke did to bring our economy back from the brink. And he continues to think that he's the best person for the job and will be confirmed by the United States Senate," Gibbs said.


you can check the article out here.


it looks like some people are starting to get this shit through theri thick skulls!!!.......hopefully......maybe.


-shake

He and Geithner should both be grilled on where the money actually went and who their bosses are, besides the president. The bubble was a robbery as far as I'm concerned, and no one should be rewarded for their performance during it. All bonuses should be taxed to the max. :D

Congressman Paul said it all (again) Nothing has changed. :wtf:

Exactly. It really makes no difference who the fed chairman is. He's a puppet, always has been since 1913. The fed is the problem, not the chairman.

Politicians are exactly like a babies diapers, they have to be changed often for the exact same reasons. If chinese college students arent openly laughing at and mocking Tim Geitner in Beijing it seems someone else from the administration is sticking their foot in their mouth. I mean really....... we bashed Bush for being so stupid....Obama & crew are giving them a run for their money. Some village in Kenya or Indonesia has for sure lost its Idiot. The country will start ballin again when we stop worrying about these greedy, fat cat, democrat elitists hijacking our money to give to people that dont do jack shit anyway. Me and 3 of my neighbors (two of whom escaped from California to buy a real house with their $) are stockpiling Roman Candles for Nov. 2 2010, and of course for the insuing roman candle/ paintball gun war:pimp:

^ :jointsmile: and i thought we were the only ones who ever had roman candle wars. :D we used have bottle rocket battles, too, when we were kids. (don't try it kids, we were professionals.) :stoned: :rastasmoke:

Letâ??s Give The Fed A Run For Its Money!

www.ronpaul.com

Location: Congress
Date: 01/20/2010

Transcript

Ron Paul: I thank the speaker and I rise at this time to talk about a piece of legislation that Iâ??ve recently introduced. That legislation is HR 4248, itâ??s called The Free Competition In Currency Act.

I believe that in the long-term this is a piece of legislation that will play an important role in the monetary reform that will be a necessity if we continue to do what we have been doing with our economy and our financial system.

Weâ??re in the middle of a financial crisis today. Some people think we have turned the corner, but quite frankly I do not believe that has occurred. Recently, though, we have just had the opening bells of an inquiry into what the cause of the crisis has been. Thatâ??s the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, and this is a takeoff of the Pecora Commission that was established in the 1990s when the crash occurring then.

Of course, that commission met, they talked to people, they tried to figure what was the matter, and from my viewpoint, they came down with all the wrong conclusions. They said that the Federal Reserve was involved, but the Federal Reserve didnâ??t print enough money fast enough. They didnâ??t have a big enough bailout package, and they needed a lot more regulations.

So they did all those things for the first time in our history under the two administrations: the Hoover and the Roosevelt administration. And what happened was they prolonged the depression, they took a one year depression/recession and turned it into a 15 year depression.

So I believe what weâ??re going through right now is the same old song and dance. Weâ??re doing the same thing again. We have this new enquiry, and the members of the commission are people who didnâ??t see it coming, didnâ??t explain it and didnâ??t anticipate it. And the people who are coming before the commission, as I can see so far, had no anticipation or were acting surprised that the crisis came, that there was a bubble. So I can hardly see any good results coming from this.

My position over the many years has been that the Federal Reserve is a dangerous organization because it creates the bubble. Our country would be better off without a strong central bank like the Federal Reserve. I argue from a moral, economic and a constitutional viewpoint that it has no right to exist and itâ??s very dangerous to us.

I am very pleased, though, that one piece of legislation I introduced, HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve, has met with a large amount of support. We have 316 co-sponsors of that bill. And I think that is a major step in the right direction: looking to the Federal Reserve for the cause of our problems. The easy money system, the easy credit system, the fixing of interest rates too low.

Now, the reason why Iâ??m addressing this is I believe the correction has a long way to run and that eventually weâ??ll have to have monetary reform. Now, in spite of my position being that we donâ??t need the Federal Reserve, Iâ??m not in favor of closing the Federal Reserve down in one day or two. But I do believe the monetary system will close down this government and the monetary system and the Federal Reserve and a lot of other things if we continue on our profligate ways of spending and borrowing and inflating the currency and regulating the currency and this will get much worse until we have a total collapse of the system.

So, what my bill does is it introduces competition; competition in currencies. The Federal Reserve System and the dollar standard are run by a cartel; a monopoly. They donâ??t allow competition because they know they canâ??t compete. Just as we have competition in the post office with FedEx and UPS, I think that the Federal Reserve deserves a little competition. The public school system has competition with private schools, it has competition with homeschooling. And there is no reason in the world why we canâ??t enforce the Constitution, legalize the Constitution, and say that we can have competition in currencies.

But there are three major things that we must do to do that, and the bill does this. We repeal legal tender laws and we remove the monopoly control of the Federal Reserve. We legalize private mints so that mints can mint coins, and they will be controlled by fraud laws and anti-counterfeit laws. Today, our government commits fraud and counterfeit by just printing money at will. If a private organization did that, they would be in prison for the fraud that they are causing.

But the other important reform that would have to occur for money to circulate and compete against the monopoly control of the Federal Reserve, would be to take taxes off money. And the Constitution said only gold and silver can be money and only that can be legal tender. So you canâ??t tax it and allow it to be competitive.

So, these three things could occur and if nobody wanted to use it, they wouldnâ??t have to and everybody could be happy with the Federal Reserve. But, if the conditions get so chaotic and the people are looking for an alternative, they can go over and start operating in another currency.

So this, to me, could provide a smooth transition, it would not be chaotic, it would be legalizing the Constitution, it would be good sound economics, and eventually, the most important thing it would do is it would restrain the spending of this Congress. Because as long as you have a Federal Reserve over there willing to print up the money, anytime we spend more money than we donâ??t have and we canâ??t borrow, then the Federal Reserve will accommodate us.

Therefore, I argue the case for competition in currencies and strictly limited government.

:s4:

I stand in support of this bill and thank my reps for sponsoring for HR 1207, although the original version seems to have been altered significantly. :wtf:

Sounds like a good plan except for one thing. Who has the corner on over 70% of the worlds gold reserves? The fed. SO they will make money off of this too. I advocate to just have the government print and back the currency and pay off the fed ebt with that and then forever ban ever having a central bank again.

Its looking more and more likely that he will squeak by....I think the guy will get the votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

Sounds like a good plan except for one thing. Who has the corner on over 70% of the worlds gold reserves? The fed. SO they will make money off of this too. I advocate to just have the government print and back the currency and pay off the fed ebt with that and then forever ban ever having a central bank again.

---

I think that is about the most reasonable solution I have heard yet. :thumbsup:

I could support either one of these ideas as long as we end up with a currency without that creepy eye to choose from. :jointsmile: