> This is purely to eliminate the independence of the Fed and put monetary policy directly into the hands of politicians.
That is exactly the point. If the Fed is not a public office, it has no business playing the role in our monetary system that it does.
> These aren’t the kinds of things audits examine, and we don’t demand to see the internal deliberations of the SCOTUS or transcripts of all the meetings that take place in Trump’s, McConnell’s or Pelosi’s offices.
The Fed, unlike anything you mention here, is NOT a Constitutional office, it does NOT have Constitutional immunities. It is an organization allegedly dedicated to a public service.
Your instinct was spot on, though; for the privileges claimed by the Fed, enshrinement in the Constitution and no less is required. Yet such enshrinement has not occurred and will not occur. So it owes the public a full accounting of everything, not merely the parts it wishes to have public.
That's a perfectly legitimate argument to make. I disagree because we've seen the result of politicians making our fiscal policy. We've had whipsawing tax policies, a ridiculously complex tax code, huge deficits and a lot of debt all because they're looking at every decision in the light of an election no more than two years hence.
I don't want those forces dictating policy in an area they know even less about.
Regardless, an honest debate would be fine but what does it tell you when Fed opponents aren't willing to say what their real objective is and instead hide behind the audit BS?
It tells me they know their argument is a loser.