The Federal Reserve and Government Oversight

¶ … special interest groups have too much power in politics today? Why or why not? Do you think we should allow these interest groups to continue to function as they currently do? Why or why not? What do you think would happen to our nation if we did not allow interest groups to continue to operate?

I do feel that special interest groups have too much power in politics today and I feel that this is a big part of the appeal for "outsiders" like Sanders and Trump in the race today. Special interest groups like AIPAC for example can make or break political careers, which is why when Netanyahu visits Congress to speak, nearly every member bows and bends at the knee: AIPAC is a big donor to campaigns. Likewise, Wall Street interest groups and corporate interest groups are also big donors to campaigns and Establishment politicians like Hillary benefit from them that the status quo might continue into the foreseeable future if she is elected. If our nation did not allow interest groups to operate, politics would be a very different animal. There would be fewer career politicians because that off which they feed would be gone; the main incentive for acting as a political representative would be the good of the country -- but of course what that actually means would have to be clarified too. Are the current trade deals good for the country, for example? Establishment politicians say they are -- but that is probably because they are bought by the special interest groups who stand to benefit from them. So banning interest groups from the political process would likely change the way legislators vote for/against bills.

2. How has the news media evolved from the nation's founding to what it is today? Discuss the various functions the news media has in American society. How well do you feel the media carries out these functions.

The news media has evolved to become a propaganda arm of the Establishment. With overlapping boards of directorates among the MIC, media companies, government special interest groups, agencies, etc., it is not difficult to see how Big Business and the MSM (mainstream media) work together to promote a view that is corporatist and statist. In the nation's founding, media was slower: print information did not circulate quite as fast as digital media today; therefore, while the power of media was still persuasive and used by those government and business (Hamilton's Federalist Papers for instance were an example of propaganda for a federal, centralized government), it was not as pervasive. Today, digital media is everywhere and the MSM is loud and triumphant (and exultant) in its deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Politicians that the Establishment wants out of the way are targeted by the media and harassed or ignored (such as Ron Paul, Donald Trump). This is of course a generalization -- and some media outlets still manage to inform the public.

Alternative media outlets, however, are providing perspectives that are not presented by the MSM and that go against the narrative proffered by Establishment politicians. From alternative media outlets like Global Research, RT, or ZeroHedge, one can read various perspectives on geopolitical, economic and social issues that impact the world today. Thus media are still presenting viewpoints on the world, and there are different viewpoints that can be accessed -- it just depends on where one looks: the MSM is essentially establishmentarian in general, while alternative media is essentially anti-establishmentarian in views in general. Thus, media still performs the function of providing information to the public; interpreting that information is still just as tough, however, as it ever was.

3. Thesis statement: The thesis of this paper is to examine how the federal government can improve oversight of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is an independent entity that reports to Congress upon request; however, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has limited ability to assess the Fed's actual records, which are "annually audited by private-sector auditors" such as Deloitte (Labonte, 2016, p. i; Federal Reserve, 2015). Following the 2008 global economic crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act signed by Obama in 2010 resulted in a fresh "audit of the Fed's emergency activities during the financial crisis and an audit of Fed governance" (Labonte, 2016, p. i). This was a singular opportunity to examine the role of the Fed in the bank bailouts not just in the U.S. but also around the world. As reported, the audit showed that the Fed had leant out $16 trillion to banks both foreign and domestic, prompting Bernie Sanders to state that "no agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president" (Greenstein, 2011). The catch is, however, that the Fed is not really a government agency: it is a cadre of independent banking firms working together with the government but independent from it. The government is meant to provide oversight but in terms of how much information Congress can actually get out of the Fed, there is little transparency and less accountability.

This paper will use information gathered from both the mainstream media and alternative/independent media in order to provide a full-spectrum assessment of how the federal government could achieve a better policy of overseeing decisions made by the Federal Reserve.

The main questions I have that I aim to address are: What is the history of the Fed? Who supported its founding? Who objected? And why?

What is the Fed's mandate officially speaking? What is the Fed's mandate, as judged by commentators, critics, and opponents? (Comparing the official mandate with the opinions of commentators can help to give depth to the discussion and show whether people view the Fed as fulfilling its mandate, deviating from it, helping the economy or impairing it).