Courtesy of www.themoneymasters.com
MONETARY REFORM ACT
An Act
Note: Portions in blue are the most important.
To restore confidence in and governmental control over money and credit, to stabilize the money supply and price level, to establish full reserve banking, to prohibit fractional reserve banking, to retire the national debt, to repeal conflicting Acts, to withdraw from international banks, to restore political accountability for monetary policy, and to remove the causes of economic depressions, without additional taxation, inflation or deflation, and for other purposes.1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that:
Section 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Monetary Reform Act.
Sec. 2. IMPLEMENTATION. This Act shall be implemented over a one-year transition period, beginning thirty days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 3. DEFINITIONS. The definitions of terms shall be those set forth in the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, as amended. United States Notes as used herein shall mean Treasury issue United Stated currency notes (as defined in 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5115) not bearing any interest, being lawful money and legal tender for all debts, public and private, and which term as used herein shall include Treasury Department Deposits (a.k.a. Treasury Deposits or Treasury book entries) convertible to United States Notes, which may be substituted therefor at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. During the transition period, Treasury Deposits as used herein shall include Federal Reserve Deposits.
Sec. 4. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) RESERVE REQUIREMENT. Section 19(b)(2)(A-D) of the Federal Reserve Act is hereby amended to raise the Reserve Requirement ratio for financial institutions, in equal monthly increments of eight and one-half percent (8.5%), to one hundred percent (100%), during the said transition period. No existing reserve requirements shall be reduced, but shall be increased as the overall Reserve Requirement ratio incremental increase surpasses them. The initial minimum overall Reserve Requirement ratio shall be fixed at eight and one-half percent (8.5%) for all accounts, effective in one month. United States Notes, Federal Reserve Notes, Treasury Deposits and Federal Reserve Deposits shall be included in Reserve calculations in the transition period. No waivers or exemptions to this section may be granted, and any in existence are hereby repealed.2
Sec. 5. RETIRING THE NATIONAL DEBT. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to purchase, in open market operations or otherwise, all outstanding Federal Debt held by the public, with United States Notes; thereby the net National Debt is to be completely retired and replaced with United States Notes.3 Treasury Deposits are to be created for intra-U.S. government debt in quantity sufficient to extinguish the remaining National Debt.
Sec. 6. STABLE MONEY SUPPLY. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to time and apportion the purchase of United States Bonds and other federal debt securities held by the public, and the issuance of United States Notes and the creation of Treasury Deposits to the rate of the Reserve Requirement ratio increases made pursuant to this Act, in order to keep the money supply (calculated including the monetary substitutions provided for herein) constantly stable, except as is provided in section 7, infra. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to purchase such outstanding United States Savings Bonds/Notes during the transition period as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this section.4
Sec. 7. FUTURE MONETARY GROWTH. Beginning with the transition year period, and thereafter on an annual basis, the total dollar amount of United States Notes (as defined supra: i.e. the sum of outstanding currency plus Treasury Deposits) outstanding (calculated to include the total amount of outstanding Federal Reserve Notes, i.e. not yet replaced with U.S. Notes) shall be increased by the Treasury Department, steadily, by three per cent (3%) per annum5, which amount shall be paid into the economy by the Treasury Department, first to retire (or purchase) any future war bonds (issued pursuant to section 8. hereof), then any remaining non-marketable federal debt (e.g. Saving Bonds/Notes and fully guaranteed obligations of the government), then, pursuant to appropriation by Congress, to pay for goods, services, or interest. Any such new money not appropriated (i.e. allocated for expenditure) by Congress during any such year, shall be rebated by the Secretary of the Treasury to individual, personal income taxpayers on a fixed percentage basis within thirty (30)days of the close of such year. Except in time of war, no United States government bonds, bills, savings bonds/notes, or other debt obligations may be sold by the government, except as is provided for in this Act. No federal agency or federally-chartered bureau, board or instrumentality may engage in any further lending or borrowing, nor guarantee same, after the date this Act becomes law.
Sec. 8. WAR EXCEPTION. In the case of a formal Congressional declaration of war with a foreign nation, the three percent (3%) monetary growth provided for in section 7., supra, may be exceeded and United States government bonds may be sold or purchased in open market operations by the Treasury Department, pursuant to Congressional authorization. The suspension of the fixed three per cent (3%) monetary growth, and United States government bond sales, shall terminate annually unless renewed by Congress, or upon the cessation of hostilities, or by formal proclamation of the President declaring the war ended, or upon the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace. The provisions of this Act shall supersede the provisions of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., Titles I-V, as amended), and any declaration of emergency by any member of the Executive Branch.
Sec. 9. FULL RESERVE BANKS. After the transition period, institutions using the word bank in their name or title, may not engage in lending, except that the capital of the owners may be invested or loaned on the open market, but may charge fees for their services and may invest deposits in Treasury Department Deposit accounts. These: full reserve; one hundred percent (100%) reserve; deposit; check or narrow; banks, as they, exclusively, may also be titled, must treat deposits received as trust-funds of money held for depositors. By the end of the transition period, for every dollar deposited, banks must have a dollar of United States Notes on hand or invested in a Treasury Department Deposit account. All bank deposits shall be in demand accounts. Banks shall be free to pay any rate of interest on accounts. Only bank deposits may be transferable by check, credit card, electronic transfer or any substitute therefor. At the beginning of the transition period, entry into such one hundred percent (100%) reserve banking shall be open to all persons having no criminal record, subject to minimal bonding requirements to be established by the Secretary of the Treasury.6
Sec. 10. TREASURY DEPOSITS. Funds placed in Treasury Department Deposits shall be utilized by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to appropriation by Congress, to pay for goods, services, or interest needed by the federal government. Any such funds received by the government in excess of federal expenditures not funded by tax revenues shall be rebated to individual, personal income taxpayers on a fixed percentage basis within thirty (30) days of the close of that year. Withdrawals of Treasury Deposits in excess of receipts in any given year shall be funded by future monetary growth as provided in section 7., supra, or should the withdrawals ever exceed monetary growth, by tax increases; in this latter, unlikely event, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized, in the absence of any other, specific authority, to add a fixed percentage surcharge to income taxes for that period, equal to the sum of excess withdrawals.
Sec. 11. INTEREST. The initial rate of interest payable on Treasury Department Deposits shall be equal to the average yield on three-month Treasury bills during the preceding quarter. Thereafter, it shall be adjusted quarterly in accordance with changes in the average yield of ninety-day commercial paper over the preceding quarter.7
Sec. 12. LENDING INSTITUTIONS. Banks or any other persons may establish separate associations, with or without joint ownership or management, not to be titled banks, such as investment trusts, mutual funds, brokerage or lending houses, to sell stock, to receive, borrow, lend or invest money at interest, but by the end of the transition period only from existing funds (i.e. United States Notes and Treasury Deposits). Contractual provisions must be made by such institutions upon the receipt of any funds with their owners, investors or depositors, that at no time may more funds be subject to demand than are presently idle and one hundred per cent (100%) available on demand. For any funds deposited with such associations payable on demand there must be a dollar of United States Notes on hand or deposited in a Treasury Deposit. No such association may denominate any account a demand account, nor promise immediate availability of any funds which may be invested, deposited or otherwise placed by such association without notice in any instrument or account other than Treasury Deposits. No funds deposited or invested with such associations may be transferred by check, credit card, electronic transfer or any substitute therefor. Owners, investors, lenders and depositors must be advised of the use of their funds, fairly appraised of the risks including the risk of total loss, of the maximum term of the use and of the potential and actual lack of availability of their funds, and the agreed or expected interest rate or the rate of return.
Sec. 13. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ACTS. The National Banking Act of 1864 and amendments, and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and amendments, are hereby repealed,8effective at the end of the transition period. All Federal Reserve System monetary authority and Federal Reserve Deposits shall be transferred to the Treasury Department at the end of the transition period. From the effective date of this Act, and during the transition period, the Federal Reserve System and its District Banks shall not engage in open market transactions, nor change the Federal Funds Discount Rate, nor alter any Reserve Requirements, nor otherwise alter any money aggregate, nor transfer, dispose of, nor move any gold or silver in either their physical or legal possession, except as provided for in this Act, contrary provisions of the Federal Reserve Act or other statutes notwithstanding. The paid-in capital of Federal Reserve System member banks shall be credited to their Federal Reserve Deposit accounts at the beginning of the transition period, and the Federal Reserve Banks, employees, assets and liabilities transferred to the jurisdiction and control of the Treasury Department and employed for the purposes of this Act, including continuation of check-clearing and other services not prohibited by this Act. The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to replace gradually all outstanding Federal Reserve Notes with United States Notes, as soon as is practicable. Outstanding Federal Reserve Notes shall remain legal tender for all debts, public and private. Section 602(g)(14) of the Riegle Act of 1994 amending U.S.C. Title 32, insofar as it removed the requirement of reissuing United States currency notes upon redemption, is hereby repealed. Title 31 U.S.C. Section (a)2(b) limiting United States Notes to a total of $300 million and prohibiting their use as reserves, is hereby repealed. Existing legislation in conflict with this Act, whether in whole or in part, is hereby repealed in whole or in part as may be necessary to resolve any conflict with this Act.9
Sec. 14. PENALTIES. After the transition period, no person may loan, create credit or liabilities payable on demand or transferable by check, credit card or electronic transfer, without having one hundred percent (100%) reserves of United States Notes, dollar for dollar, for any such amounts. Violation of this provision will subject the violator to civil penalties for fraud, and to criminal penalties. 18 U.S.C. Crimes and Criminal Procedure §1344. Bank fraud: is hereby amended to include a new subsection (3) as follows: Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice — (3) to engage in fractional reserve banking practices as described and prohibited by the Monetary Reform Act, Section 14, shall be fined not more than three times the total dollar amount of the violation(s), or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; but if the amount of the violation does not exceed $1,000, the violator(s) shall be fined treble damages or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Sec. 15. WITHDRAWAL FROM INTERNATIONAL BANKS. It is hereby declared as a matter of federal statutory law that membership and/or participation of the United States government, or its agencies, or of the Federal Reserve Board or Reserve Banks or any officer or employee thereof, with the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and all other international banks, is inconsistent with and in direct conflict with the purposes of this Act of Congress. The President is hereby authorized and directed to take such steps as may be necessary to withdraw the United States from all participation, and membership, in the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and all other international banks, in any orderly manner, but in a period not to exceed one year from the effective date of this Act, and to recover the original and any subsequent United States subscriptions, contributions and quotas to such organizations, not already fully and lawfully expended, whether in the form of gold, deposits, currency or otherwise; and to enter into negotiations to establish new exchange facilities consistent with the purposes of this Act having no authority to create money or credit in any form, and having no independent authority to establish laws or regulations binding upon the United States or its banks, financial institutions or citizens, and subject to the ongoing, annual budgetary authority and approval of Congress.10
Sec. 16. FOREIGN EXCHANGE. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to enact regulations allowing the external rate of exchange freely to fluctuate, as foreign price levels fluctuate (i.e. in accordance with their respective purchasing power), while utilizing the exchange stabilization fund and foreign currency reserves to counterbalance fluctuations in the exchange rate. The Secretary of the Treasury shall enact such regulations in order to: 1. keep the stable, internal domestic price level established by this Act unaffected by foreign exchange rate fluctuations; 2. maintain imports and exports of capital, in equilibrium. In no event shall foreign exchange rates be allowed to alter the fixed rate of monetary growth set forth in section 7., above.11‘
In any period in which the exchange stabilization fund and foreign currency reserves are inadequate to maintain equilibrium in capital flow, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed: to restrict any imbalanced inflow of dollars to an amount equal to the monetary growth rate for such period (as set forth in Section 7.,supra), which monetary growth shall be thus funded; and, to prohibit any imbalanced outflow of dollars. Imbalances in excess of such amounts must first be chronologically booked for subsequent exchange as soon as the free markets restore the equilibrium necessary for the exchange(s) to occur.
The Secretary shall issue regulations to establish an advance foreign exchange book, open for public inspection, of all contracted, future foreign exchange transactions and obligations, in order to facilitate such exchanges. Such exchanges must be assigned by the Secretary on a first-come, first-served basis, in order to guarantee foreign exchange availability, for a one quarter per cent (0.25%) fee. 12
Sec. 17. APPROPRIATIONS. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to establish Treasury Department Deposits, convertible to United States Notes on demand, sufficient to accomplish the provisions of this Act. The Federal Reserve Act is hereby amended to add this section: that the Governors of the Federal Reserve System are authorized and directed to establish Federal Reserve Deposits sufficient to accomplish the purposes of this Act, in amounts to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Director of the Bureau of Engraving is hereby authorized and directed to print a sufficient quantity of United States Notes to accomplish the provisions of this Act. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any funds not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.13
Sec. 18. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall be held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
* * *
END NOTES
1. A draft in 17 sections; last revised 5/22/2006, Copyright 1996, 1997. All rights reserved. For a free copy of the latest revision of the Act, send a SASE to: Monetary Reform Act, P.O. Box 4605, Rolling Bay, WA 98061 - 0684, or call 1-888-THE PLOT to order the video The Money Masters which has the Act as an insert, or visit http://www.themoneymasters.com. Minor revision is an ongoing process in response to suggestions received. Return to main article
2. The principal point of this section and of the entire Act is to replace private creation of money by debt-based, bank-book-entry creation (i.e. by bank loans), based on fractional reserves (i.e. high-powered money) which is inherently unstable and unjust, with government creation of money by credit-based Treasury deposits and U.S. Notes (i.e. for government payments or purchases) which are based on full reserves (i.e. not high-powered money), by definition for the benefit of all the people, not just for bankers. Return to main article
3. The net National Debt (i.e. net of what the government owes itself) is c. $3.7 trillion. c. $400 billion is held by the Fed, and c. $300 billion by financial institutions; paying off these amounts would consist of little more than a Treasury Department book entry, and the balance of merely surrendering and substituting one form of government obligation for another (e.g. interest bearing U.S. bonds for non-interest bearing U.S. currency Notes.). See section 3., supra. [note: national debt figures are constantly changing, hence these figures will need updating.]
Alternatively, in a less comprehensive but arguably easier reform, full-reserve banks could be required to keep their reserves in either the form of cash or federal debt securities. This would be equivalent to keeping their reserves in interest-bearing Treasury Deposits. Both methods would effectively require banks to substitute existing bank liabilities for the entire marketable government debt in one form or another. Free markets to facilitate this substitution would very rapidly arise and should be allowed to so function. Similarly, Federal Reserve Notes and/or Deposits could be used instead of U.S. Notes and Treasury Deposits, PROVIDED one hundred percent (100%) reserve banking (section 4.) is enacted. The form of the new reserves required for the transition to full-reserve banking is immaterial provided they result in the substitution of government securities for existing bank liabilities, and provided fractional reserve banking is terminated as the reserve requirement is increased to one hundred percent (100%), scheduled concurrently to avoid any inflationary/deflationary effect. Return to main article
4. As the net U.S. Debt less Savings Bonds/Notes is c. $3.6 trillion, and commercial bank liabilities, less net assets total c. $3.6 trillion, retiring the National Debt with U.S. Notes or their equivalent would not change the total of the money supply and would provide sufficient funds for the transition to one hundred percent (100%) reserve banking with neither inflation nor deflation. Section 6. also provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the flexibility to purchase the c. $184 billion of Savings Bonds/Notes with U.S. Notes during the transition period as well, should this prove advisable to provide additional funds for reserves; otherwise, this relatively minor debt facility shall be retired out of future monetary growth (see section 7.). Return to main article
5. The three percent (3%) figure represents the low end of the three-to-five percent (3-5%) range proposed by Prof. Friedman and Mrs. Friedman, for a Constitutional Amendment limiting monetary growth, which we completely support (see endnote 14. for text). However, this draft Act takes the practically-easier legislative approach and adds the critical prohibition of fractional reserve banking as well as other related issues. With population growth and productivity increases averaging approximately one percent (1%) each per year for the last thirty years, a three percent (3%) growth figure will insure stable prices within a vary narrow range and would allow for price-level or cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in contracts with a predictable effect to address any slight variation in economic activity from the three percent (3%) monetary growth rate. Further, as perfect fine-turning of monetary growth in a complex economy is not possible, to err on the side of a very slight inflation would at least relieve those burdened by debt of some of the effects of the prior inequity caused by private money creation, whereas to err on the side of deflation would exacerbate such inequity. A fixed rate of growth will provide the needed stability so long lacking m monetary policy, which instability has caused every economic depression in United States history. In 1931, Sweden established a mixed commodity krona by setting up an oflicial C.P.I., and succeeded in keeping it stable (within 1.75%) for several years, until she had to give up the system under pressure from international bankers to stabilize foreign exchange rates. This example demonstrates both empirical proof of the validity of this ideal approach, and of its susceptibility to failure by political manipulation
Periodic, non-discretionary, fine-tuned adjustments based on widespread indexation of prices, by a Monetary Commission of some sort would be the ideal, but lack the stability and predictability of a fixed growth rate and are subject to corruption and to manipulation indirectly (e.g. such as by alteration of index definitions, components or base years as has repeatedly occurred with the Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index [CPI]).
The zero (0%) monetary growth proposal, particularly if tied to freezing high-powered money, lacks the essential feature of abolishing fractional reserve banking. This is particularly important in light of all the exceptions to maintaining any reserve ratio. However, if combined with such an abolition (and allowing for COLAs to address the inevitable deflationary effects), would be acceptable and arguably easier to advance politically due to the Schelling point effect of a figure such as zero, as Prof. Friedman has pointed out. But, as Paul A. Samuelson noted, the gyrations in the futures markets tend to belie the notion that monetary stability can be found in that direction Return to main article
6. Absent massive fraud or theft, full reserve banks cannot fail, rendering insurance such as F.D.I.C. and F.S.L.I.C. unnecessary. Only a minimal cost to insure against fraud or theft would be necessary. Had full reserve banking been in place before the S & L collapse, this one reform would have saved the U.S. taxpayers over $600 billion. Return to main article
7. As now, no interest would be paid on currency in circulation - the government benefitting from the seigniorage. However, as Prof. Friedman and George Tolley warn, if the government pays no (0%) interest on reserves, which is the theoretical ideal (or charges banks interest on Treasury-assumed bank liabilities [e.g. on so-called Commercial Bank Conversion Bonds] - a variation of a one-time government take-over of existing reserveless [i.e. factional-reserve-based loans] bank liabilities), this would create a high incentive for private near-monies of various kinds (e.g. new forms of negotiable debt, equity or derivative instruments) to proliferate, particularly in advanced economies such as the U.S.
This would threaten many of the benefits of monetary reform including the stability of the money supply and the prohibition of private fractional reserve money creation. The interest may be viewed as a social cost for the benefits of a stable national money. The private trading (circulation) of futures based on widespread price indices as money offers only speculative, though intriguing, reform possibilities at this time. Return to main article
8. While it would theoretically be easier simply to reform the Federal Reserve System than to abolish it, the experience of the last 300 years in Europe and the last 200 in the U.S. has proven time and again that private banking interests invariably utilize any independence afforded a central bank from government control as an opportunity to exert undue influence over it, often by acquiring outright ownership interests in it, and/or to gain control of it through placement of their employees and experts (schooled in protecting and promoting their private interests who often “retire” to very well-paid positions in private banking) in its key positions at the expense of the public good. This is one reason for the seeming anomaly that private banking interests champion the “independence” of central banks from any effective oversight by politicians generally controlled by them. It simply exposes central banks to even greater private manipulation with less interference from and explaining to have to do to “unreliable” politicians. Independent central banks concentrate national economic control in a body too removed from accountability and therefor from responsibility to the body politic, at least in the often critical short-term.
The so-called independence or autonomy of central banks from governmental control, such as the Federal Reserve System has in the United States, to whatever degree granted, has in practice meant increased private influence and control to that same degree.
The avowed purpose of central bank independence or autonomy - to reduce political (i.e. private special interest) influence over its functions - something the present independent central banking system utterly fails to achieve but rather enhances, can be accomplished without this danger, by establishing a fixed rate of monetary growth not subject to any discretionary authority or manipulation, as is set forth in section 7. Of course, this too could be a reform within the present Federal Reserve System, but absent direct accountability to Congress (including for annual budget appropriations - a power now uniquely delegated to the Fed which funds its operations without Congressional budget authorization or audit, from interest it receives on the U.S. bonds it purchases for the cost of the paper) the Fed would remain the powerful, effectively independent and dangerous, entrenched banking lobby with virtually unlimited and unaudited funds, constantly working to resist, obstruct and repeal reforms, just as it did during the Great Contraction (i.e. Depression) which it caused. Further, the current division of responsibility for monetary policy between the Fed and the Treasury has allowed both bodies to shift responsibility to the other for harmful actions. This can only be solved by ending this division. Return to main article
9. Other conflicting, or partially conflicting Acts, such as the Banking Acts of 1933 and 1935; Federal Securities Act of 1933; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Margin Requirements Act of 1934; Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935; Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 1944; Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950; Bank Holding Company Act of 1956; Bank Merger Acts of 1960 and 1966; Emergency Loan Guarantee Act of 1971; Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978; International Banking Act of 1978; Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978; Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980; Bank Export Services Act of 1982; Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982; Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, and subsequent amendments, would be repealed in whole or in part where in conflict with this Act. Return to main article
10. The U.S. Supreme Court, in an increasingly important decision, held that an Act of Congress is on full parity with a treaty (or any lesser agreement), and that when a federal statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute, to the extent of the conflict, renders the treaty null. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888); et aliacf. Reid v. convert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)Return to main article
11. It is estimated that $200-250 billion in U.S. currency is held outside the U.S. This is high-powered money that would cause hyper inflation if repatriated in large amounts in a short period of time. Additionally, the U.S. presently has a high trade deficit, which has been roughly balanced by U.S. bond sales to foreigners, which total approximately $1 trillion at present. Further, currency speculators manipulate and exacerbate temporary exchange fluctuations, which can radically affect internal price stability, as has been recently demonstrated in several of the Southeast Asian nations.
Whoever originates and controls the volume of money, controls every single economic operation. Therefore, it is essential to monetary stability, and so to reform, as well as to maintaining national sovereignty, that the import and export of capital be kept in balance, so that the domestic money supply be not subject to manipulation nor to fluctuation in quantity, beyond the rule fixed in section 7., above.
Stability of the internal quantity of money is the only basis on which to obtain a stable price level, and foreign exchange rates must not be allowed to disrupt internal price stability. This can be accomplished, there being no theoretical difficulty. For example, the government of China simply forbids banks from handling large foreign transactions other than those for the purchase of Chinese goods, and also maintains a large exchange stabilization fund to defend the yuan. Chile requires that 30% of capital inflows stay in the country a minimum of one year. Return to main article
12. i. e. the so-called Tobin tax, designed to discourage speculative trading in small differentials in interest on exchange rates. Return to main article
13. Prior inequitable and usurious profits accumulated by banks from fractional reserve banking practices are not addressed in this draft Act, which therefor leaves the banks in possession of prior profits of some $360 billion (1996 commercial bank net worth), most of it from such unjust practices. Likewise, prior distribution of profits to bank owners is not addressed. This vast wealth and the economic and political influence it represents, particularly through the control of the media it has purchased, constitutes a standing danger to the Republic and should be addressed, perhaps by some effective form of anti-trust legislation and/or Court action breaking-up the giant banks (and media) into small localized units with separate ownership, or more aggressively by a bank nationalization, break-up into smaller units, and immediate reprivatization by public stock sale pursuant to rules insuring widespread ownership.
But any nationalization Act without an immediate reprivatization clause would create a new and unnecessary danger, as the power to loan does not properly rest with the government, is most effectively handled at the local free market level, and is easily abused for political purposes as was the case with pre-war Germany’s Reichbank which granted loans to whomever the government chose for political reasons, as do government banks in communist command economies.
The goal is not nationalization of banks, but of money. By contrast, and by definition, creation of a national currency/money supply can only be effectively and properly handled by a national government, not by local governments or private persons, as reason and experience abundantly prove.
It is primarily for these reasons that we disagree with that portion of the monetary reforms advanced by Messrs. Peter Cook, Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Warner, insofar as they advance the notion that the Treasury ought to become a lender to banks and local governments, while we are in general agreement with their reform proposals otherwise (including their rejection of a return to a gold standard). Rather, consistent with the sound reform principle of subsidiarity, the private sector alone ought to engage in the various legitimate forms of lending, as set forth in section 12. herein, with free market supply and demand setting the interest rates.
Government selection of lending proposals for “creditworthiness” or “profound societal impact” etc., or any criteria imaginable, and their evaluation, is inevitably subjective and therefor open to grave abuse by a monolithic lender. As Ms. G. M. Coogan wrote in Money Creators (p. 333-334), for the government to create money as loans is even more vicious than for private banks to create money as loans, carrying with it the power to aid (by granting loans) or destroy (by denying loans) whomever it chooses.
Decentralized, private lending agencies generally tend to loan to any creditworthy applicant, their primary motive being profit (or profit-derived power) which is maximized by making more loans; whereas governments replace this profit priority with political ends such as rewarding their supporters, the political value of which is maximized by restricting loans. So government lending tends to arbitrary discrimination for political motives, an abuse generally avoided in a truly free market lending situation.
Thus, perhaps the most dangerous error of any monetary reform proposal would be to place the lending of money in the hands of the government, which is the essence of communist economics, carrying with it the power to destroy. Indeed, Lenin recommended government origination and control of lending for the political control it affords. That money-lending ought to be carried out by private legal persons rather than the government is a major principle of sound monetary policy. The lending of money ought to be completely divorced from its origination, for as Ms. Coogan pointed out, it is fundamental that money ought not to come into existence as loans or in response to loan applications, but only as the total stock of available goods increases (or a reasonable approximation thereof, such as three percent [3%] in the U.S.). Further, there is simply no need for the government to get involved in lending, and risk the dangers mentioned, in order to reform the present system and achieve all of the ends set forth in the preamble hereof. Return to main article
14.Prof. Milton Friedman on his proposed Constitutional Amendment
“When the Constitution was enacted, the power given to Congress ‘to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin’ referred to a commodity money: specifying that the dollar shall mean a definite weight in grams of silver or gold. The paper money inflation during the Revolution, as well as earlier in various colonies, led the framers to deny states the power to ‘coin money; emit bills of credit [i.e., paper money]; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.’ The Constitution is silent on Congress’s power to authorize the government to issue paper money. It was widely believed that the Tenth Amendment, providing that the ‘powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,’ made the issuance of paper money unconstitutional.
During the Civil War, Congress authorized greenbacks and made them a legal tender for all debts public and private. After the Civil War, in the first of the famous greenback cases, the Supreme Court declared the issuance of greenbacks unconstitutional. One ‘fascinating aspect of this decision is that it was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who had been Secretary of the Treasury when the first greenbacks were issued. Not only did he not disqualify himself, but in his capacity as Chief Justice convicted himself of having been responsible for an unconstitutional action in his capacity as Secretary of the Treasury.’
Subsequently an enlarged and reconstituted Court reversed the first decision by a majority of five to four, affirming that making greenbacks a legal tender was constitutional, with Chief Justice Chase as one of the dissenting justices.
It is neither feasible nor desirable to restore a gold-or-silver coin standard, but we do need a commitment to sound money. The best arrangement currently would be to require the monetary authorities to keep the percentage rate of growth of the monetary base within a fixed range. This is a particularly difficult amendment to draft because it is so closely linked to the particular institutional structure. One version would be:
Congress shall have the power to authorize non-interest-bearing obligations of the government in the form of currency or book entries, provided that the total dollar amount outstanding increases by no more than 5 percent per year and no less than 3 percent.
It might be desirable to include a provision that two-thirds of each House of Congress, or some similar qualified majority, can waive the requirement in case of a declaration of war, the suspension to terminate annually unless renewed.
A Constitutional Amendment would be the most effective way to establish confidence in the stability of the rule. However, it is clearly not the only way to impose the rule. Congress could equally well legislate it.”
Quoted from: A Program for Monetary Stability, by. Dr. Milton Friedman, Fordham University Press (N.Y. 1960, 1992), pgs. X, 66-76, 100-101; and, Free to Choose by Dr. Milton & Rose Friedman, Harcourt Brace & Co. (San Diego 1980, 1990), pgs. 307-308.
<
Hi all? This is an article by editorial member illseed from allhiphop.com. He basically talks about how racism is hidden and masked by high profile political and news media figures. They use certain ways to inject racism on folks and their peers, through cleverly positioned, well written,snide remarks. Also he compared this act to the movie “They Live” in 1988 that starred WWE Legend Rowdy Roddy Piper.
Basically the movie was about aliens who invaded earth and were high powered people who replicated humans. But if you put on a special pair of sunglasses and could see what they really were, “Aliens”. Same goes for high powered political and new media figures who are mostly “white” and don’t like the fact that Barack Obama who is black may win the presidency.
So they say things in a subliminal matter, almost like the ad and billboards that have secret messages like “obey” in them that you wouldn’t see unless you had the proper equipment or some very special eyes. Anyways heres illseeds article about the matter in his own words and views. Link provided as well.
http://allhiphop.com/stories/editorial/archive/2008/04/09/19620211.aspx
By illseed
You see them on the street.
You watch them on TV.
You might even vote for one this fall.
You think they’re people just like you.
You’re wrong. Dead wrong.
- The tag line for “They Live”
It gives be great pleasure in saying that THEY LIVE.
In 1988, a campy, classic movie arose called “They Live.” The premise of the movie surrounded a clandestine alien invasion where the intruders actually appeared to be normal humans. Rebelling humans were able to uncover the alien insurrection after donning special sunglasses or contact lenses that pierced the alien’s human mask, revealing a boney alien exterior.
In the real world, we have begun to unearth the new alien [alleged] racists and bigots through their own words.
On Friday March 7, 2007, McCain mouthpiece and Rebublican pollster Kelly Ann Conway (also spelled Kellyanne Conway) made a racially charged, shocking comment to CNN’s Larry King and a group of political talking heads:
”John McCain is in New Orleans tonight addressing the Council on National Policy. It’s been reported these are just the cream of the crop conservatives. This is what he’s doing behind the scenes now while Hillary and Obama argue about whether she should let him sit on the back of the bus of her presidential ticket, or he argues whether or not she lied us into war in 2002.”
I saw this with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears, as did Jamal Simmons, Democratic strategist and Barack Obama supporter, who was also in the Larry King conversation. He also happens to be African American. Simmons took offense to the blatantly racist “back of the bus” remark and intelligently chided Conway, calling her “out of line.”
Of course Conway conned her way our of serious live scolding by trying to make it seem like she just happened to put her words together and nothing should be misconstrued as racially prejudiced.
The modern racist is not a hood wearing, skin-headed monster, They live a very different life with a diverse strategy. They are penetrating the mainstream, acting very much like terror cells or the aliens in “They Live.” They pose as supporters of a candidate or cause with genuine, heartfelt passion and logical reasons.
If we put on our “sunglasses”…or really listen, their true heart emerges. We see right past the thin epidermis to see the cunning of a fork-tongued serpent and devilish desires.
Sound dramatic? You think?
In response to a comment by Michelle Obama where she said she was finally a proud American, Bill O’Reilly responded with:
“And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.”
Now, let’s not even get into a long, drawn out brouhaha about America’s legacy of racism (not just towards African Americans), genocidal treatment of the Native Americans, stereotypic images of Asians and a lengthy history of blatant sexism. I think that’s what Obama’s former pastor was attempting to say, before the media mob got him.
But let us address the notion of a so-called “lynching party” that O’Reilly wanted to launch if Mrs. Obama wasn’t a super patriot. Although he eventually issued a very feeble apology, these aren’t casual slip of the tongues…
These are simply the racists showing themselves to us or us unveiling them. A newscaster says young golfers should, “lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley.” Lou Dobbs objected to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice saying racism was an American “birth defect” by nearly calling her and other Black leaders “cotton pickers.” All sorts of goodies come out of the mouths of these “things”…
Geraldine Ferraro, the first female major party nominee for the vice-presidency, found herself defending herself from accusations that she was an old, cranky bigot.
Of Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, she told the Daily Breeze, “If Obama was a White man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
She is entitled to her opinion, which Obama brushed off as “patently absurd.” I’m entitled to my opinion. Ferraro is a racist invader that Hill allowed to inject ethnicity into the presidential race without merit!
This isn’t about Barack Obama, but it is about a nation really speaking volumes about its ability to move on, as Ferraro insisted the nation do in the aftermath of her headline-grabbing comments.
The nation is drained and fed up by these antiquated, decades old aliens.
Interestingly enough, the space invaders in “They Live” constituted the minority ruling class of the United States. This means all of those in power were actually extraterrestrials. Efficiently, these aliens controlled the media, populated billboards and obvious commercial advertising with hidden messages such as “Obey” in an effort to control the masses in subtle ways. Those special glasses eventually allowed a crass blue collar carpenter (played by WWF legend Rowdy Roddy Piper) to upset the powers that be.
Does this scenario sound even remotely familiar?
Bill O’Reilly, Geraldine Ferraro, Sean Hannity (who really is alien) and the cronies of the old guard are like aliens these days supporting a legacy backed by pseudo-intellectual facts. Sometimes, they recruit African American looking-people to do their bidding as well. These things cater to fear, they cater to discrimination and they tap into a prejudiced past that goes back some 400 years. But also, it exists more recently that that. Hate killed Martin Luther King, Jr. a mere 40 years ago. Rodney King was whipped by LAPD over 17 years ago. Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent lack of reaction by the Bush administration are approaching its third anniversary (remember what GW Bush did and what Barabara Bush said)? It seems like yesterday when there was a noose popping up everywhere from police precincts to college campuses.
I feel proud to be among the human race that is much more interested in collective progress than those special interests with business as usual on the mind. We are going to make this change and that’s regardless of Obama getting into office. Work together or go down together – there are no other options.
The glasses are on and the veil is up.
They live, but we see them.
Well one of my favorite WWE stars and wrestlers of all time retired this past Monday. On WWE Monday Night Raw. He lost to WWE Superstar Shawn Michaels in a retirement match at Wrestlemania 24. I’m going to dedicate the good ol’ Ric Flair days with adding an addition to my blog. The original Four Horseman Theme song. Farewell Ric Flair. One of the best ever to grace a wrestling ring period!