I’m driving home from a long ways off late at night. I’m tired, strung out on too much coffee, and I seem to be catching my kids’ cold (either that or Swine Flu). I tune around the AM dial and I pick up station after station from the greater NYC-ish area, all bemoaning the 5th straight loss by the Yankees, while at the same time the Mets hot streak is being widely praised. Lots and lots of comments from callers.

There are plenty of questions. How can they leave so many runners stranded? Why aren’t their hitters coming through in the clutch? When they do get run support, why is the bullpen underperforming? Is the manager overplaying some pitchers? Underplaying others? On the other side of town – solid team play. Good starting pitching, consistent bats. Feels good.

Next week, of course, it could all be a different story. Strong feelings from people who feel very invested in the success of their teams.

And I’m thinking to myself – this is what we do here, isn’t it?

Fairpoint executives in a conference call with investors recently put a brave face on their situation according to newspaper reports;

FairPoint lost fewer customers in the first three months of 2009 than Verizon did while operating the same system in the first three months of 2008.

The attitude that “it is not as bad as we thought” or “it could have been worse” is fast becoming the corporate catch all excuse for poor performance. Fairpoint Communication’s switchover of services from Verizon began in January after some delays. For months FairPoint has been plagued by service, billing and equipment troubles .In late January they reneged on an a union job agreement .The states of Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire have talked of imposing performance related fines on the company.

FairPoint executives also said Wednesday they expect to receive a large chunk of the stimulus money slated for rural broadband deployment. FairPoint has not only pledged to expand broadband to rural areas, but is obligated to do so by regulatory agreements with all three states. Many of the projects are “shovel ready,” the company said. “We are kind of the poster child for the stimulus funds and what they’re intended to do,” CEO Eugene Johnson said. “And we’re ready to go.”

This company lost nine million dollars in three months and gives out more than $100,000 in performance -based [!] bonuses. Poor customer service delays and outages for three months, and they will be getting a big chunk of stimulus money for broadband  .It is an impressive three month premiere of how the company that may  run the backbone of Vermont’s broadband infrastructure operates.

News of  the performance- based bonuses and a 30% raise were not mentioned along with the investor conference call story

The two top executives at troubled FairPoint Communications customers received performance-based bonuses recently at roughly the same time that the company was being lambasted over its poorly-executed system cutover in New England. Fair Point’s poor response to cutover problems related to the operational transition of former Verizon landline properties drew the ire of customers and regulators alike, but two company execs were still given more than $100,000 in bonuses.

FairPoint Chairman and CEO Gene Johnson received an $83,862 bonus and a 30 percent raise in 2008, according to an SEC filing, while FairPoint President Peter Nixon accepted a $50,000 bonus. Other executives also were reported to have received

raises.  

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com…

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/s…

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

That’s what Morgan Brown AKA norsehorse calls the argument that Vermont does not want a functional social safety net because it would attract people from other states who want to mooch off the government. We’ve all heard the claim that quality social services act as a “deadbeat magnet,” as if folks struggling in other states have spreadsheets of social services offerings in our 50 states and move where the largesse is. After discussing the proposed cut of the Housing Specialist position in the Human Services Department, Morgan quite effectively decimates that myth, and then adds some of the real reasons people are drawn to our state.

As if to make Morgan’s point for him, recent headlines show that our Vermont State Hospital still fails to meet federal certification requirements, because of a failure to provide a safe environment, which results in ineligibility to receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement.

This segment closes out with an explanation of state-level mental health reform efforts, which apparently have resulted in change: a change in the name of reform efforts from “The Futures Project” to “The Transformation Council.”

So as we see the budget battle move into its final stages, let’s remember that the quality of mental health services are a shame at present levels of funding, and that if we invest to make our services certifiable (pun intended), we can access federal reimbursement funds. That’s why they are called investments; they result in a pay-off.

The Legislature has set aside $150,000 in the capital project bill to address problems found at the Waterbury facility last Fall, the last time certification was denied.  The bill also included $750,000 to get the ball rolling on securing better facilities.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services denial of certification and recommendations can be found here

Add Diane Lanpher (Add-3) to the growing list of lawmakers on the left indicating she likely won’t support the budget emerging from the legislature. It’s becoming clear that, not only will this budget not pass with a veto-proof majority, it won’t pass with many from the progressive end of the caucus.

Listening to reactions to this budget have been like watching a new film release’s tomatometer ratings drop as the reviews come in. So much of the growing frustration among the left and the constituency groups has been about the pointless political posturing/packaging of an income tax cut (particularly the cuts on the top tier) that – lets face it – is going to come at the cost of jobs. The legislature has done an exemplary job finding revenues and making careful cuts, but coming out with the income tax cut against the backdrop of the growing revenue hole strikes me as an act of self-sabotage.

The question is why. The last legislature seemed to live in terror of the political power of the governor, while this one has gotten over that terror in a resounding way (for the latest example, read about the VY decommissioning bill here). Why, then, are they negotiating on the Governor’s behalf, given that he keeps refusing to negotiate in good faith? Senator Shumlin has said “We have tried to strike a balance between what we hate and what they hate,”.

Dude – why make a point of looking out for his interests if he won’t give you the time of day?

Dunno. There is a strong, free floating fiscal conservative streak among the triumverate that seems to call so many of the shots in the Senate (Shumlin, Campbell and Republican Illuzzi). It’s a streak that seems to buy into much of the right wing line about taxes without having a clearly articulated ideology behind that buy in. As such, it feels far more to come from a simple fear of being outflanked politically. And that fear feeds a gamesmanship.

Fair enough. There is gamesmanship here, and it may well be that the weakness in the House (and to some extent, the Senate), is an honest desire not to play games with the people’s business. A desire to try and create a genuine compromise that people dealing in good faith who disagree can meet halfway on. The problem, again, is that assumption that they’re being dealt with in good faith by the Governor. They’re not. As such, going for a split-the-difference compromise at the expense of the serious concerns of members of their own caucus is a big loser. All you do is end up inadvertently sticking it to your own team – and where do you fall back to next after the Governor throws it back in your face?

So I respect the impulse to nobility, but its the wrong impulse in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And for god’s sake, if I hear one more time the “well, why aren’t you riding the Governor about this – it’s all his fault cop out one more time, I’m gonna turn large, green and dangerous. Open your eyes folks – we beat up on this Governor every day. But the colossal shortcomings of our chief executive do not translate to a get out of criticism free card. Criticism and scrutiny come with the job, just as praise does (and I haven’t seen anyone asking us to take back the significant amount of that we’ve been handing out this session – this aint a cafeteria, folks – this is politics).

In the Senate, Shumlin and company seem to recognize the game of it all, but not only are they working from a completely ungrounded and uncoordinated fiscal conservative narrative, they’re playing the wrong game. I get the feeling that Shumlin is playing chess, working out clever feints and subtleties of positioning, while the Governor is playing football. You can play some misdirection in football, but generally nothing more nuanced than a draw play. If you play it all as chess, by the time you’ve set up your Lasker-Bauer combination, Douglas has just run his fullback right over the board.

(It’s worth noting as well, that playing football would mean moving to a team sport, rather than one player moving pawns based on a secret plan, but I digress.)

In any event, its clear that – with the insistence of this cut of the most progressive of revenue sources in play against the painful program cuts and job losses – the legislature has opted for an approach to get the Governor on board, rather than to try and keep the whole caucus on board – or at least keep the left on board. And it kinda sucks, after all the great stuff this session, to feel planted right back in captive constituency land again. It may well be that this caucus simply can’t be held together, so working with the Governor is the only option (I’m not convinced of that, as this approach of half of what we hate vs. half of what the other team hates could just as easily be applied within the caucus across the progressive/blue dog divide, where at least you have a much better chance of having all parties play honestly).

There is one longshot scenario, though, that wouldn’t be so bad. If (when) the Governor rejects this budget, rather than go back and bend to his desires further, the legislature says fine, we tried this in an equatable way, but you wouldn’t play in good faith – now we’re doing it our way, and work – as I suggested in a previous diary – to craft a generally progressive budget to keep the left on board, with a couple big ticket gimmes to the blue dogs that they can hang their hats on. In fact, that’s the only reason I can see to continue to do the Governor’s negotiating for him after he’s picked up his toys and gone home. And actually, such a strategy would probably play quite well in the media and the public – and would certainly recapture the position of strength this legislature seems to be walking away from (as well as re-energize its traditional allies and constituency groups).

But that’s probably wishful thinking.

Sorry. I’d really like to feel less cynical about this. Maybe I will tomorrow. If I’m wrong and the Governor plays honorably and signs this pre-packaged compromise, I promise I’ll eat my computer. Figuratively, at least.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, working with a number of progressive organizations and blogs including Senate Guru, has put out a poll to gauge netroots interest – in Vermont and all across the country – in supporting an effort to draft Congressman Joe Sestak to challenge recently-Republican Arlen Specter in the PA-Sen Democratic primary next year.  The poll will be open for the next four days, and provided are both pro and con arguments regarding a draft effort.  To read the arguments and vote in the poll, click the below link:

(I’m not even going to link to these two stories.)

So I send the Times Argus good subscription money and in today’s edition on page three I find two stories:

1) Joe “the dumber” Plumber telling me god hasn’t called for him to run for political office yet, and

2) Bristol “poster child for birth control” Palin explaining how not to get pregnant.

Really? Is this what I thought I was getting for my money?

I write this with the clear understanding that I don’t know what I’m talking about.  I will therefore keep this fairly simple:

I read today about how the unemployment fund may run dry next year.

While I read this, I know that there is stimulus money available for unemployment support, especially for those whose hours have been cut (one friend of mine just got laid off & two others just had their hours reduced, so this is fairly fresh information for me at the moment).

So… when we talk about the unemployment fund, and its status in terms of how much money is in it, is stimulus money even entering the discussion?

I don’t have any insight here, but I have questions, and I know this is a good place to ask this sort of question.

I was just treated to an interesting and unexpected phone call from the Citizens for Fire Safety, a well-known industry front group for bromine flame retardant manufacturers. It was an automated invitation to a conference call in progress, hosted by an individual whose name I didn’t catch (but who seemed to have a Vermont accent) as well as a fellow by the name of Thomas Brace. Brace was identified as a founder of the “National Association of State Fire Marshals” (more on them below), and identified himself as a former state Fire Marshal (the state of Minnesota, as it turns out).

The call concerned S.109, which passed the Senate unanimously. The House couldn’t get to it in the scramble, but it will likely find its way onto health legislation in conference committee. The bill would ban bromine as a flame retardant in furniture and textiles, as has been done already in Maine, Washington and Europe. The treatment includes chemicals known as PBDEs which build up in the environment. The class of PBDE’s of particular concern are called Decas. They accumulate in the body and can act as an outright toxin, as well as impact the endrocrine system not unlike PCBs, which are similar. It’s bad stuff:

“They can affect the developing brain and they can affect the developing reproductive system,” said EPA senior toxicologist Linda Birbaum…

…”I am very concerned for the human population,” Birnbaum said.

The call was an interesting strategy for a persuasion attempt. It must have cost an awful lot, and I can’t imagine that many people followed through and participated in the conference call. I did because I was curious, and what I was treated to was an extraordinary barrage of deceptions from an organization with close ties to bromine manufacturers – and which has previously spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against similar legislation in other states.

The thrust of the call was to scare people and get them riled up against what the lead speaker called “the environmental lobby” which was getting “too strong” by virtue of this bill. Brace, acting as an expert, implied that fire fighters were united against this bill (until asked directly, when they got a little vague and changed the subject). The argument was that this was the only proven, effective such additive and banning it would cost lives.

I checked with the Chair of the Senate Natural Resources, Chittenden Senator Ginny Lyons, who knew exactly who these folks were and didn’t take them too seriously.  

For one thing, their argument is completely phony as there are non-toxic alternatives, such as RDP and polystyrene. Also, the unanimous vote in the Senate underscores the virtual unanimity among the players in this debate, including Robert Howe, the Vermont Fire Marshall, who testified during hearings on the bill. According to Lyons, these chemicals are 100 times more prevalent in breast milk in this country than in Europe, where they have been banned for some time, and its presence in the environment is increasing by 100 times a year in light of an industry working hard to expand their use. In her words, CFFS is “not citizens for fire safety, it’s citizens for more deca.”

In fact, the “star” of the call (Brace – who avoided a question about where he gets his own paycheck, saying that he did “consulting”), is a particular star of the industry effort, and was singled out by Friends of the Earth in a letter sent to state Governors last May.

From the letter:

CBS Evening News also reports that NASFM (National Association of State Fire Marshals) receives direct funding and pro bono services from the bromine fire retardant industry, raising further concerns about the credibility of the NASFM’s positions on a variety of fire safety issues.

These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that, for many years, the NASFM has shown an unwillingness to discriminate between funding sources, as evidenced by Maryland State Fire Marshal, Rocco J Gabriele, who as NASFM president in 1999, acknowledged to the Baltimore Sun, “Quite frankly, I don’t care where we get the money. I’m not proud. I’ll take money from whoever wants to give it to us.”

Inadequate internal policies against conflicts of interest are also apparent with respect to lobbying by former NASFM members, such as co-founder and Minnesota State Fire Marshal, Thomas Brace. Over the past year, Brace, while consulting to fire retardant manufacturers, testified in legislative hearings in both California and Washington State against restrictions on toxic fire retardants. Unfortunately, his testimpny contradicted that of state fire associations and officials who support fire retardant restrictions due to serious toxicity concerns.

The call specifically targeted Shap Smith, was crude, ham-handed, and probably won’t get too far. If you want to call them and tell them to keep their noses out of Vermont, here’s a phone number:

In the meantime, here’s a few greatest hits from the call. Sorry the quality is poor (and Chrome doesn’t seem to run the embedded audio script – here’s a link)…

First up, the evils of the environmental lobby:

Next up, entertaining stammering after a question about who they represent, and whether or not it includes any Vermonters or Vermont fire authorities (link):

Finally, a caller asks what the concerns are. Brace “wants to answer that question as clearly as he can” before completely avoiding the question and claiming that no recognized studies suggest any problem at all (link).

Simply put, these guys are pretty scummy. After sitting on that call, I felt like I needed a shower.

(Many thanks to one of our li’l community’s representatives from the fourth estate (Mike), here… ooo, I’m getting media vertigo… – promoted by odum)

Updated on Friday, May 8:

It appears that Maine’s same sex marriage law, signed by Governor Baldacci on May 6, will be challenged through a “people’s veto,” essentially a referendum on the bill.  

Accordng to the Maine Secretary of State’s Web site, any Maine voter can circulate a petition for a “people’s veto” by submitting a written application to the secretary of state with the names of five co-petitioners.

As required by law, the Maine Secretary of State has received notice and has provided an “approved petition form” to be circulated.

It appears likely that the petitioners will find enough signatures to get a statewide referendum.  The signature requirement is 10% of the number of votes cast for governor in 2006, or 55,087 signatures, to be exact.  If they can’t find 55,000 registered voters to sign their petition by the deadline in September, I would be surprised.

The next question, of course, is how much support is there to overturn the law?  My experience, living in Maine for many years, is that there may be a conservative, religious groundswell of support. Worse, it could bring in a lot of well-funded, out-of-state opposition. But things have changed in Maine, and I could be surprised.  

Fingers crossed.

http://www.google.com/hostedne…

http://lezgetreal.com/?p=12344

I didn’t comment on these, but they’re worth a read for the laughs, particularly the pro-polygamy page.

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/ar…

http://worldnetdaily.com/index…

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Te…

**Update** The New Hampshire House just passed H.B. 436, 178-167! Now goes to Governor John Lynch’s desk!!! – Christian

Gov. John Baldacci signed a same-sex marriage bill into law at about 12:30 today.  Maine will be the fifth state to recognize same-sex marriage, and apparently Gov. Baldacci is the first governor in the nation to sign a same-sex marriage bill into law that was not the result of litigation.  

This is from an MPBN story:

“I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”  Baldacci said his views on the issue have evolved over time.  “In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” he said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

http://www.mpbn.net/News/Maine…

Some background: In August of 2007 I was trying to understand what I saw as some troubling signs in the economy and my grandmother gave me a book. I began The Creature From Jekyll Island by Ed Griffin and I realized that there was something fundamentally wrong with our monetary policy and this book, placed in my hands by one of the most progressive, thoughtful and intelligent people I know, proved my inkling. When I was about halfway through the book I saw a hand-stenciled sign that said “Ron Paul ’08” in New Hampshire. I knew I had heard that name before  and when I looked at the back of the book I saw a quote from Paul. I googled him and have been a die-hard supporter ever since.

Since then I’ve been paying attention to the Federal Reserve and I am convinced that this institution is unconstitutional and a threat to all American people. They have the power to expand and contract the money supply as they see fit, in effect taxing us via inflation. The president wants war with no way to pay for it? “Print” more money. The Treasury wants Congress to bail out banks? No problem, print more money. Borrow money from the Fed, pay interest on that money and it’s full steam ahead.

I’ve been harping on the issue with various radio hosts, lawmakers, friends and family. If you’re not familiar with the Federal Reserve you may pick up some tidbits in the exchange to follow. I’m not an expert by any means but I’ll do my best to answer questions if anyone has one (or two or five). I’ve posted much of this information in other places which are frequented by folks who are already familiar with HR1207 but the text of the bill is in the 3rd quote below.

On April 24 I called Peter Welch’s office about HR1207. I told the aide that I planned to call every single day until Welch signed on to the bill or he explained why he would not. On Monday I called again, asking for a timely response. Later that afternoon I got one of these:

   Dear Ms. Bernier.

   Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

   Introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, H.R. 1207 would eliminate restrictions on General Accounting Office (GAO) audits of the Federal Reserve to open up the Federal Reserve operations to enhanced scrutiny. H.R. 1207 was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind the next opportunity Congress has to address this issue. Please continue to be in touch and I hope to see you in Vermont soon.

   Sincerely,

   PETER WELCH

To which I replied:

   Dear Mr. Welch,

   Thank you for your timely response to my inquiry about your position on HR 1207. Unfortunately you gave no indication of whether or not you intend to co-sponsor this bill which was my primary concern in contacting you.

   It is apparent to me that the Federal Reserve needs to have some sort of oversight. HR 1207 puts in place an audit of the Fed. This is essential for transparency. At a time when Congress is approving hundreds of billions of dollars to shore up the financial sector the taxpayers deserve to the assurance that the Federal Reserve is acting in their best interest.

   I find it interesting that you sit on the Government Operations and Reform Committee, yet you are silent on this issue. I am sure that you know all about Reps. Kucinich and Towns’ call for an expanded investigation into the Fed’s role in the Bank of America acquisition of Merrill Lynch. It is clear to many that the Federal Reserve in cooperation with the Treasury and with the consent of Congress has exhibited behavior which is suspicious and potentially criminal.

   I’m also sure that you are aware of the two bills senator Sanders has introduced in the Senate which seek the same ends. If you are in doubt about whether this type of legislation is necessary I suggest contacting him.

   I urge you to take a position– the side of the people of Vermont and the US– on this issue and support HR 1207. This is a non-partisan issue. It is a straightforward bill which seeks to do one thing–audit the Federal Reserve.

   Most businesses and government institutions are audited at some point in their operation. After 96 years, I feel it’s about time for the Federal Reserve to open its books.

   Please co-sponsor HR 1207, which now has 91 other co-sponsors.

   Sincerely,

On April 28 (an official Campaign For Liberty action day) I made a last minute decision to pack up my 2yo and head for Burlington with some petitions. I only had a little over an hour to gather signatures but out of the 41 people I spoke with 35 signed. I headed over to Welch’s office and dropped them off.

Yesterday I called Welch’s office again and I was informed by a staffer that there are thousands of bills that the congress must look at and that Peter Welch didn’t have the time to consider this one which is “stuck in committee”. I explained to the young lady that the bill had gained over 30 co-sponsors in the last week and was gaining momentum. HR1207 now has 109 co-sponsors.

I again pointed out his committee position should give him additional insight as to the importance of the legislation. I again mentioned that his colleague in the Senate, Bernie Sanders had sponsored similar legislation there.  She politely informed me, again, that he was basically too busy to know about all the bills in Congress. So I asked her how Peter Welch justified co-sponsoring legislation that would honor the town of Pittsfield, MA for coining the term “baseball”.

Today when I called I asked if he had co-sponsored the bill yet. I was told he did not. So I made sure to ask her how co-sponsoring “legislation” to honor Arnold Palmer with a gold medal for exhibiting sportsmanship in the game of golf was more beneficial to the American people than co-sponsoring a bill that would provide transparency over the Federal Reserve.

I talked to Peter Welch’s policy guy Monday and we had an interesting conversation. He said that Monday was the first time that he looked at the bill and he pointed out something that I hadn’t seen and which he feels may be an issue.

The text of the bill states:

   (a) In General- Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after ‘shall audit an agency’ and inserting a period.

   (b) Audit- Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

   ‘(e) Audit and Report of the Federal Reserve System-

   ‘(1) IN GENERAL- The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.

   ‘(2) REPORT-

   ‘(A) REQUIRED- A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.

   ‘(B) CONTENTS- The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.’.

US code title 31 section 14 states:

   § 714. Audit of Financial Institutions Examination Council, Federal Reserve Board, Federal reserve banks, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Comptroller of the Currency

   (a) In this section, “agency” means the Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Federal Reserve Board, Federal reserve banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

   (b) Under regulations of the Comptroller General, the Comptroller General shall audit an agency, but may carry out an onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate agency has consented in writing. Audits of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal reserve banks may not include-

   (1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;

   (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

   (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

   (4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection.

   (c)

   (1) Except as provided in this subsection, an officer or employee of the Government Accountability Office may not disclose information identifying an open bank, an open bank holding company, or a customer of an open or closed bank or bank holding company. The Comptroller General may disclose information related to the affairs of a closed bank or closed bank holding company identifying a customer of the closed bank or closed bank holding company only if the Comptroller General believes the customer had a controlling influence in the management of the closed bank or closed bank holding company or was related to or affiliated with a person or group having a controlling influence.

   (2) An officer or employee of the Office may discuss a customer, bank, or bank holding company with an official of an agency and may report an apparent criminal violation to an appropriate law enforcement authority of the United States Government or a State.

   (3) This subsection does not authorize an officer or employee of an agency to withhold information from a committee of Congress authorized to have the information.

   (d)

   (1) To carry out this section, all records and property of or used by an agency, including samples of reports of examinations of a bank or bank holding company the Comptroller General considers statistically meaningful and workpapers and correspondence related to the reports shall be made available to the Comptroller General. The Comptroller General shall give an agency a current list of officers and employees to whom, with proper identification, records and property may be made available, and who may make notes or copies necessary to carry out an audit.

   (2) The Comptroller General shall prevent unauthorized access to records or property of or used by an agency that the Comptroller General obtains during an audit.

The policy guy is concerned that the power of the Comptroller General to audit or carry out an onsite investigation of any other banking institution would be limited, if not nullified by the new wording.

He also informed me that no matter how much steam this thing picks up the reality of the situation in Washington is that it will never make it out of committee. I told him that whether it makes it out or not if he and the congressman are satisfied (after researching the issue he brought up) that this bill would indeed support more transparency of the Federal Reserve and just who and where our money is going to I want him to co-sponsor it.

So I sent him this email:

   Hi Calvin,

   So I looked at the text of the code that HR1207 would change if it was adopted. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill would give more authority to the Comptroller by removing the “in writing” qualification from open insured banks and bank holding companies. An amendment could always be proposed to further clarify that those institutions be included in the definition of “agency” if the Congressman is still uncomfortable with it.

   Despite your knowledge of Washington culture I feel that this bill is vitally important for transparency in government. The very fact that we have a supranational agency controlling money creation and distribution should be enough for all congressmen and women to recognize the necessity of an audit. This is not about Ron Paul or his desire to end the Federal Reserve. This is about the people knowing what is happening to their money.

   As I mentioned before, HR 1207 now has 112 co-sponsors. Almost one-fourth of members of Congress agree that this is a very important piece of legislation. Last week senator Dick Durbin made a statement alleging that Congress is owned by banks. One could deduce that those 112 people who put their names to this bill are not owned by the banks. I would like to see Peter Welch’s name on this list as well.

   There is plenty of legislation that is neither here nor there to the American people. Arnold Palmer’s gold medal last week is just one of the many trivial bills that Peter Welch has put his name on. In the grand scheme of things that legislation and medal will be long forgotten by all but the recipient and his heirs. In contrast HR1207 will have lasting and profound implications which will prove to the people of this nation one of two things: a) the Federal Reserve has been carrying out its duties faithfully and honorably on behalf of the American people or b) we’ve been had.

    We deserve to know which it is.

As of this morning I haven’t heard back from him. The bill is now up to 129 co-sponsors. Will you folks help put some pressure on Peter Welch? His DC office number is 202-225-4115.

UPDATE:

I spoke with Mr. Garner again on Wednesday, May 6. and he informed me that he had further research to do on the bill before he could present a recommendation to Peter Welch.  He told me he didn’t have time to deal with it right away and when he was able he would get to it. He also told me that my requests would be dealt with in the order it came in and that I would hear back in writing when the Congressman had an answer for me. I explained to him that I have been calling about this since April 24, that I asked for a timely reply and was sent a generic email telling me what HR1207 was about. I informed him that I did not consider that a valid reply to my inquiry as my concerns were not addressed and I expected that my request for a reply be entered as April 24.

Garner reiterated that he was concerned that HR1207 would reduce the authority of the Comptroller General’s office. I respectfully disagreed and ended the conversation. Directly after this conversation I decided to find out whether or not his argument had any validity and called the General Accounting Office. I was put through to a lawyer who took the time to look up both HR1207 and the Code it would affect. He absolutely disagreed with Garner’s assertions, stating that the bill would provide a “significant expansion of the Comptroller’s authority in auditing monetary policy.” HR1207 “doesn’t restrict at all but gives more work” to the GAO.

The lawyer and I had a really good conversation. He explained to me that Section 714 exists solely to provide protection of the Federal Reserves international dealings from scrutiny by the GAO. He was also quite surprised to learn that the majority of co-sponsors of HR1207 are Republicans. The count as of Friday morning is 147 co-sponsors, 18 of which are Democrats.

Please join me in urging Peter Welch to co-sponsor this legislation. We deserve to know who’s benefiting from Federal Reserve monetary policy and where that money is going. The phone number for Peter Welch’s Washington DC office is (202) 225-4115.

SUPPORTING INFO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…