http://www.thestreet.com/story/10913171/1/ron-paul-may-oversee-fed.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN It'll be fucking hilarious when Paul says "stop the presses", if for no other reason than to watch all those heads explode inside the Beltway.
Could be a very good development. Before the crash in 2008, he was the only candidate who really saw it coming and, IMO, had any good ideas about what had to be done.
I hope he does it. This could actually be a better role for him than President, and that's saying alot.
The Fed has independent authority and the Fed governors know full well that they'll be harassed by endless bullshit no matter what they do if Paul gets subpoena power over them. Furthermore, given the legislative dynamics in place, they'll know that Paul won't have any real power to act beyond issuing subpoenas and being a general asshat. So since what the Fed does will have no effect on the degree to which the people in charge there are harassed, nor will Paul have any power to actually do anything, this would only mean that all political constraints against Fed action would immediately disappear. That may or may not be a good thing, but it certainly would mean that Ron Paul would have a sad.
Not neccessarily. Paul could demand the FED open the books and the reulting uproar over how much of our money is missing might put enough congressional feet to the flame that they have to start reigning in the FED, especially when 2012 rolls around. Imagine the incumbants running against TV ads saying "While the FED lost 3 trillion of your dollars, Congressmen Jones did nothing."
You know you're saying "the Fed only has political constraints only as long as they're not used," right? Which is the same thing as saying they already have none. But you can't just say that, because then you can't say "Ron Paul is going to harass the Fed into doing things he won't like," which is an uncalled-for dig at his political acumen, which is what you wanted to do in the first place (probably because you're bitter that he won reelection with over 75% of the vote), but you needed to couch it in terms that would make it called-for, despite the fact that the only way to do that was to make a thoroughly fallacious statement and hope no one would notice. You know, you'd be a lot more tolerable if you were just honest about your intentions.
But I can't see the GOP allowing Paul to run free with this. The GOP is as much dependent on the Beast (the Fed) as the Democrats are.
