Here we go again. Is that “Sweet Georgia Brown” I’m hearing?
Posted on 07/17/2025 4:05:08 PM PDT by bitt
Here we go again. Is that “Sweet Georgia Brown” I’m hearing?
No,....this is the Fed’s DC Headquarters...
We are going to have to put on waders pretty soon. It’s getting hip deep.
“BREAKING: Jerome Powell Criminally Referred For Alleged Perjury About $2.5 Billion Building Renovation”
Typical GP clickbait.
Artical, first sentence: “ ... may be ... “
Looks pretty bad compiled in that way.
He wants Powell out and here’s the perfect reason. Screw the WSJ and their nervousness.
It must be fun to be a Liberal. It’s just so easy to get Conservatives fighting themselves. I may not be a big fan of Bondi but you can’t deny the long list of big Supreme Court wins that the Justice Department has racked up against teaming hordes of Liberals. But here we are. We have not gotten everything we want, exactly the way we think that it should be done right now. So we are putting Trump through hell because he done us wrong. Give them a little time for crying out loud! Look at all of the wins. The list is long.
This is really rich. 😉
The Federal Reserve is a unique hybrid institution blending public oversight with private ownership. It serves as the U.S. central bank, managing monetary policy, regulating banks, and ensuring financial stability. Its independent yet accountable structure supports economic growth and stability
Despite its public connections, the Federal Reserve isn’t fully a government entity. The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are owned by private member banks in their districts. These banks are required to purchase stock in their regional Federal Reserve Bank as part of their membership.
However, this ownership doesn’t give them the same rights as shareholders in a private company. Member banks receive a fixed dividend on their shares and have no say in the Fed’s policy decisions. They also cannot sell or trade their stock, making their ownership more symbolic than controlling.
This unique structure blends public oversight with private involvement, ensuring that the Fed operates independently while being connected to the financial system it oversees.
The ownership of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks is perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of the Federal Reserve System. These banks are owned by the member banks in their respective districts, which are required by law to buy stock in their regional Federal Reserve Bank.
This arrangement ensures that the regional banks are financially stable and invested in the success of the overall system. However, this ownership doesn’t grant the member banks control over the Federal Reserve’s policies. They can’t dictate decisions or profit in the traditional sense.
In 2019, the NY Fed owned/controlled just about 52% of the Federal Reserve's total assets.
Article from 2019:
The largest shareowners of the New York Fed are the following five Wall Street banks: JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of New York Mellon. Those five banks represent two-thirds of the eight Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) in the United States. The other three G-SIBs are Bank of America, a shareowner in the Richmond Fed; Wells Fargo, a shareowner of the San Francisco Fed; and State Street, a shareowner in the Boston Fed.
I have read that the federal reserve is a Quango, or quasi autonomous non-governmental organization , a term which ostensibly comes from the british
The Federal Reserve Bank exists for precisely the same reason that the Bill of Rights exists, to shield us from our democratic impulses.
The Constitution protects freedom of speech from the mob, which is to say from the will of a Democratic majority, precisely because that is not a matter to be decided by counting noses. So it is when it comes to exercising judgment about interest rates that makes or breaks an economy. We have intentionally created an institution in the Federal Reserve that is to a great degree immune from the Democratic process.
In one sense at least, the Supreme Court is an analogous institution. To shield it from popular control, the framers installed Justices with lifetime appointments. We have passed statutes creating felonies for intimidating Justices. Similarly, we have installed Fed governors with seven-year tenures to insulate them from political pressure by the very president who appoints them. Indeed, the power of the president to fire Powell is not clear and would probably have to be litigated in the Supreme Court, no doubt for the same reason: to insulate the institution from political pressure, and from the will of the people.
As a chorus singing in unison, we conservatives deplored the lawfare that was mounted against Donald Trump because it was a means to circumvent our constitutional system. It sought to substitute (corrupt) judicial process for a Democratic process. There is a constitutional process to be brought against the president, impeachment, or elections if brought against a candidate for president, but lawfare was corruptly used against Donald Trump to evade the Constitution and the will of the people.
It now appears that criminal action might be brought against duly elected US Senator Schiff for, ironically, the same infractions that were corruptly brought against Donald Trump in New York. Is this a legitimate exercise of police powers, or is it illegitimate lawfare? Much would depend on the actual motivation of the prosecutors and on the facts of the case.
More, we can at least say that a United States Senator is not in the same class as a Justice of the Supreme Court or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. A Senator is a political actor by definition, whereas the other two individuals have been intentionally immunized to some degree from political pressure. Honest prosecutions against political players like senators or even presidential candidates should proceed if and when the facts warrant.
I for one will savor all the schadenfreude about Schiff without the slightest qualms of guilt or hypocrisy. Donald Trump was quoted yesterday as saying words to the effect that the office of Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank does not require intelligence. That is just a silly statement equivalent to saying the Chief Justice's role requires no intelligence.
The Federal Reserve Bank was and is created as an effort to pry decision-making away from politicians because they are stupid and because they are whores. It is bad enough that our fiscal destiny is determined by a Parliament of whores, God save us from a monetary destiny determined by politicians.
That is not to say that we would be better ruled by experts and elites; that is to say that expertise must be balanced by checks and balances and a commitment to the Democratic will. It means that our institutions, whether the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve Bank, or the United States Army, must be accountable to the people, even though the people are represented by a Parliament of whores.
Economics is not called the dismal science for nothing; it is opaque, plagued by lags and buffeted by forces that are as difficult to anticipate as a black Swan. There is virtually no economic issue upon which we are unanimous. That's why we have stock markets. A decision made today about raising or lowering interest rates will probably not show its effect for six months. Get it wrong and we can't get a mortgage, buy a car, or keep our jobs. So every hiccup in interest rates convulses the markets.
The temptation for politicians to monkey with interest rates is irresistible. Yet, the decisions are about matters coming months or years ahead, the tea leaves are difficult to read, the fog of uncertainty hangs over every decision. But politicians' horizons stop at the next election, yet they never want for confident opinions about what to do.
So we pass the buck to the Federal Reserve Bank just as we pass the buck to the Supreme Court, because we have to.
Attempts by the president to influence decisions of the Fed, almost always in favor of lowering interest rates, is nothing new. Jimmy Carter and Paul Volcker are clear examples. Historically, presidents jawbone and even threaten Fed chairman. So Trump has threatened to fire Powell, but without much conviction, he has already said that he will now wait until the expiry of Powell's term next May.
Likely, beyond earnestly wanting interest rates to drop to boost the economy to further his plan of growing our way out of our fiscal crisis, Trump wants to set up a scapegoat in case the economy goes south and his plan fails. So, jawboning and threatening to fire is well within the historic norm of presidents clashing with Fed Chairmen.
But Trump has done something more, he has threatened the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank with criminal prosecution, and that over a preposterous complaint, alleged overspending on an office building for the bank. A billion-dollar overrun in a $7 trillion federal budget and a $30 trillion national economy. Do we really want the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank to be forced to divert attention away from the economy to monitor the construction of a building?
Now, perfectly on cue, members of Congress picked up the cry and demanded criminal implications of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. Quite expectedly, the very conservatives who decried lawfare against President Trump now formed a vigilante committee on this thread to persecute Chairman Powell. That is to be expected as the normal an all-too-familiar routine reflex by too many of us.
Do we want to sacrifice the independence of the Federal Reserve Bank over this bagatelle? Do we want to open the door for sore-headed presidents to wage lawfare against the Federal Reserve Bank?
How will we get uniquely competent men who have risen in the private sector on merit to the point where they are making hundreds of millions of dollars to sacrifice that income and submit themselves and their fortunes to petulant criminal charges brought over differences of policy?
Is that what we should wish for?
Anna Paulina Luna is a STAR!!! SHE HAS GUTS!
They could have built a NEW PALACE FOR A LOT LESS!
No Problem. I tip my hat to Capitalism, the system that can generate huge surpluses for the Dems to squander.
The original plans were approved in 2017. Who was president in 2017?
The cost was projected as $1.9 billion in 2019. Who was president in 2019?
The cost increases since 2019 are driven by the general inflation of building costs and (per the story) unanticipated additional complications, e.g. more asbestosis and a higher water table.
I know, I know ... Trump feels free to disclaim responsibility for anything before the last twitter feed -- including whatever he himself said yesterday, last week or last year -- but the buck stops on his desk and he was in charge when the project was approved. Maybe there has been mismanagement of the project -- it's a big government construction project and would proceed under Davis-Bacon requirements, which can add up to 40 percent right there -- but I'm pretty sure Jerome Powell isn't acting as the general contractor. (Nor was Donald Trump, who had plenty of other things on his plate in 2017 and 2019.) Powell might be guilty of lax oversight, but I have difficulty imagining how he would have an incentive to perjure himself.
If Trump wants to fire Powell because he disagrees with him on Fed policy, especially higher interest rates, do so and state the reason.
1913, a year that will live in infamy (Federal Reserve Act of 1913 & 16th Amendment).
I don't believe the President has any authority over Federal Reserve spending. They are "self funded".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.