Spellchek

"If a word in the dictionary were misspelled,how would we know?"-Stephen Wright

Do we need the NEED Act?

Posted by 5etester on December 2, 2011

Rep. Dennis Kucinich D-OH has introduced H.R. 2990 – National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011 (NEED Act). Kucinich has been a vocal supporter along with Ron Paul in the need for a complete and thorough audit of the Federal Reserve. With the introduction of the NEED Act, it would appear that Kucinich has even gotten on-board with Paul’s call to end the Fed altogether.

To create a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure; to provide for reducing the cost of public investment; to retire public debt; to stabilize the Social Security retirement system; to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States; and for other public purposes.

Is this the Holy Grail for end the Fed supporters, as I am? Do we finally have legislation proposed that would end the era of fiat money? The end of money printing? The end of the boom/bust cycles created by Fed manipulation? The end of the banking cartel in which America’s wealth is being plundered?

In a word, no. Not from what I’ve seen of the bill. This looks like a massive power grab for Congress. I would caution those who seem to have jumped at the chance to get on any bandwagon that promotes ending the Fed. As we always ask of our members of Congress, read the bill!

For starters, one of the main problems with the Federal Reserve is the dual mandate. Price stabilization and full employment. Attempting to influence full employment through monetary policy has been an abysmal failure. This goes right along with the reasoning that the best way for government to assist in creating jobs is to get out-of-the-way. Instead, we see the opposite and the NEED Act does nothing to address this. In fact, as the title suggests, it promotes it.

The Monetary Authority shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

As you’ll find throughout much of the bill, the intent here is merely to transfer ‘ownership’ of the Federal Reserve into the U.S. Treasury, and by extension, direct control of the Congress. However, look at some of the other purposes of this bill.

to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure

Where have we heard this before? Investment equates to spending taxpayer dollars. Capital infrastructure is a broad-based scope that could include a plethora of public works projects  or green energy or anything Congress determines is necessary for our well-being. What a potential boondoggle here! Or just business as usual up on the Hill. Lobbyists and special interests still calling the shots on where our elected officials should ‘invest’ our tax dollars.

Here is a scary section.

SEC. 504. MONETARY GRANTS TO STATES.

(a) In General- Each year, the Monetary Authority shall instruct the Secretary to disperse grants over a 12-month period to the States equal to 25 percent of the money created under this title in the prior year. In the first year the amount of such grants shall be 25 percent of the anticipated money creation in that first year.

(b) Use of Grants for Broad-Based Purposes- The States may use such funds in broadly designated areas of public infrastructure, education, health care and rehabilitation, pensions, and paying for unfunded Federal mandates.

Are you kidding me? Grants? Yeah, grants meaning they don’t have to be paid back. Gifts from the Federal Government. And they can use the funds virtually anyway they wish. But Kucinich is just getting warmed up. Look at the list of goodies he wants to achieve.

  • education funding
  • cover any deficits of the SS trust fund
  • provide a Citizens dividend as a tax-free grant
  • universal health-care funding
  • further meddling in the housing crisis

When you start going through this bill, you’ll quickly find it is a complete disaster by any measure. Just a massive power grab to empower our Congress and Federal Government with control over every aspect of our lives. Run for the hills from this behemoth! Suffice it to say that I’ll be beyond shocked if Ron Paul throws his support behind it.

Here’s his video promoting it which makes it all sound so good.

Don’t get caught up as so many likely will with the headline and think this bill is the way to get back at the Fed. The devil is definitely in the details here. You can read the entire bill here.

About these ads

5 Responses to “Do we need the NEED Act?”

  1. LD Jackson said

    I haven’t read the entire bill, but it sounds like it is just another way to increase the size and scope of the federal government. It would clearly expand the power it holds over the states. It’s not much of a stretch to believe the grants would be used to force the states into following the lead of whatever agenda Washington might have at the moment.

    There’s not a chance Ron Paul would get behind something like this. Not if he follows the same, consistent path he has been on for years.

  2. 5etester said

    Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich go back together for years due to consistent views about war and monetary policy. There has been discussion of the two of them as running mates for years now so I don’t know that I would just dismiss it out of hand that Paul would support his friend.

  3. LD Jackson said

    Be that as it may, I am not so sure Ron Paul would be so eager to jump on the bandwagon the NEED Act would require. It seems to me that it would be a major bump up for the power of the federal government and Paul has been against that for years.

  4. 5etester said

    You’ll note I said I would be beyond shocked if he did. We’ll see how it plays out. This is still a new story and the bill likely won’t get any traction anyway as Paul and Kucinich are pretty much lone wolves on the issue of the Fed. I would just be very interested to hear his comments on it.

  5. [...] Spellchek: Do we need the NEED Act?   [...]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers

%d bloggers like this: