Liberty Maven

By now everyone probably knows that Ron Paul’s bill, HR.1207, was passed as an amendment tacked on to the gigantic unconstitutional financial regulatory reform bill. By this measure, Paul’s effort to have a full audit of the Fed is poisoned by the underlying bill. So the question becomes, will Ron Paul himself vote against the bill even though it contains the fruits of his own labors. Earlier this week on CNBC he gave an indication that he would not vote for the bill because of all the new powers contained within it.

Ron Paul is still fighting to get HR.1207 passed as a standalone bill, but it is unlikely to get much traction in that form.

It is certainly plausible that Barney Frank, who’s been playing both sides of the audit, fought so hard to include Paul’s bill as part of the larger regulatory reform bill, in an attempt to poison Paul’s legislation to the point that Paul could not vote for it. However, like many of Paul’s votes, the effort may backfire. Frank’s regulatory reform bill is likely to pass with or without Paul’s vote. Ron Paul could vote against Frank’s bill, keeping his constitutional integrity, and the bill could still pass the House. The question then becomes how will it get through the Senate? And if it makes it through the Senate intact, will Obama sign the bill?

Jim DeMint and Bernie Sanders will work to get the bill through the Senate, but Judd Gregg promises to filibuster the bill if it includes Paul’s amendment. Much like all the others critical of a Fed audit, Gregg argues that the amendment will end the Fed’s independence. A day after Paul appeared on CNBC, Former Fed Governor, Ric Mishkin attempts to argue Gregg’s point. Much like those interviewing him, I’m not convinced.

If the bill should happen to make it through the Senate with Paul’s amendment attached it seems likely Obama would sign the bill. After all he wants regulatory reform and he has shown he won’t veto legislation just because it has a bit of poison in it. For instance, he signed a credit card company regulatory bill that had an amendment attached to it that allows concealed carry in National Parks earlier this year. Of course, allowing a complete audit of the Federal Reserve may be too much for Obama to swallow.

That is, if the Fed and it’s former Enron lobbyist, Linda Robertson, have any say in the matter. Incidentally, you can get an internal look at some of the tactics/arm-pulling she does as part of her career choice by reading the email correspondence she had when she was working at Enron during its final year in business. The emails were released in 2003 and are available for searching at EnronExplorer.com. Of note is an email about her suggesting she be congratulated for winning the Treasury Department’s “Alexander Hamilton” award. How appropriate, now that defending the central bank is her primary job duty.

After perusing her emails it seems quite obvious she is behind the many editorials from former Fed officials and advisors arguing against Paul’s effort at an audit. What isn’t clear is why Judd Gregg is coming out against it. Perhaps, he was targeted by Robertson as someone who is not planning on running for re-election so he can safely speak out against something 75% of Americans say they want. He doesn’t exactly have a squeaky clean record when it comes to conflicts of interest.

Instead of the audit being attached to the larger bill being a poison pill for Paul it could end up being a poison pill for Obama in the long run, but a lot must happen before that becomes a reality.