3 ms·

Senate votes for toothless, meaningless lipservice. This one-time 'audit' isn't going to accomplish much, unfortunately. I'm glad that this step is being taken,

Senate votes for toothless, meaningless lipservice. This one-time 'audit' isn't going to accomplish much, unfortunately. I'm glad that this step is being taken, but I'd much rather see the original language restored.

aaronbrethorst 16y ago
Mind characterizing the differences between the original and the passed amendment?
- aaronsw 16y ago
  Surprised to see this on HN since I've actually been working on it. Basically, the original gave full, permanent audit authority to the Government Accountability Office. This one requires a one-time thorough audit of the bailout-type expenditures and not much else.
  - aaronbrethorst 16y ago
    I'm surprised Bernie Sanders still voted for it, then...thanks for the info, and also kudos on BP! :)
- presidentender 16y ago
  aaronsw hits it on the head. Under the original, Congress gets to perform a complete audit of all the Fed's activities. Under the passed version, Congress will perform a one-time audit of TARP. I'm less concerned with the ongoing audits (although I'd prefer they remained) and more concerned with the depth of the investigation that will be undertaken.
philwelch 16y ago
I think the one thing saving us from hyperinflation is the lack of political control and influence over the FED. You see hyperinflation in currencies where the ordinary government has control and influence over the central bank, because they just use the central bank's inflationary power to boost spending. The FED is independent from Congress for a reason, and an ongoing power to audit threatens that independence and, by extension, our currency. A one-time audit for the bailout will accomplish the main objective people have been asking for--accounting for all the bailout--without threatening the operational independence of the FED.
- presidentender 16y ago
  So why not have a one-time audit of the rest of the Fed's activities?
  - philwelch 16y ago
    I don't know if that's a good idea or not. People are mostly worried about the bailout, so auditing the rest of the FED's activities is out of scope. I think the relevant boundary is between accounting for a (legitimately questionable, expressly Congressionally-authorized) bailout and going on a general crusade against the FED.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  The one thing separating us from hyperinflation is about 20 years.
jeffreyg 16y ago
"Senate votes for toothless, meaningless lipservice." ... "I'm glad that this step is being taken,..." Can't say I agree with you at all there. Instead of addressing an issue, they voted 96-0 in favor of 'meaningless lipservice' so that they can say they voted in favor of something useful.

aaronbrethorst 16y ago

Mind characterizing the differences between the original and the passed amendment?

aaronsw 16y ago
Surprised to see this on HN since I've actually been working on it. Basically, the original gave full, permanent audit authority to the Government Accountability Office. This one requires a one-time thorough audit of the bailout-type expenditures and not much else.
- aaronbrethorst 16y ago
  I'm surprised Bernie Sanders still voted for it, then...thanks for the info, and also kudos on BP! :)
presidentender 16y ago
aaronsw hits it on the head. Under the original, Congress gets to perform a complete audit of all the Fed's activities. Under the passed version, Congress will perform a one-time audit of TARP. I'm less concerned with the ongoing audits (although I'd prefer they remained) and more concerned with the depth of the investigation that will be undertaken.

philwelch 16y ago

I think the one thing saving us from hyperinflation is the lack of political control and influence over the FED. You see hyperinflation in currencies where the ordinary government has control and influence over the central bank, because they just use the central bank's inflationary power to boost spending. The FED is independent from Congress for a reason, and an ongoing power to audit threatens that independence and, by extension, our currency. A one-time audit for the bailout will accomplish the main objective people have been asking for--accounting for all the bailout--without threatening the operational independence of the FED.

presidentender 16y ago
So why not have a one-time audit of the rest of the Fed's activities?
- philwelch 16y ago
  I don't know if that's a good idea or not. People are mostly worried about the bailout, so auditing the rest of the FED's activities is out of scope. I think the relevant boundary is between accounting for a (legitimately questionable, expressly Congressionally-authorized) bailout and going on a general crusade against the FED.
jacoblyles 16y ago
The one thing separating us from hyperinflation is about 20 years.

jeffreyg 16y ago

"Senate votes for toothless, meaningless lipservice." ... "I'm glad that this step is being taken,..." Can't say I agree with you at all there. Instead of addressing an issue, they voted 96-0 in favor of 'meaningless lipservice' so that they can say they voted in favor of something useful.