"the Fed’s shadowy pay scheme ..."

[WhiskeyGirl]

This is the bank currently lobbying against congressional oversight by arguing it must preserve its “independence”—the same institution whose regional board members are elected by the private banks they regulate and whose chairman, Ben Bernanke, quietly cavorts with the bank CEOs he’s supposed to be independent from. Even worse, the Fed is paying many of the ostensibly objective economists who sculpt the debate about Congress’s Fed policy.

Huffington Post ace reporter Ryan Grim found that the Fed today doles out roughly $400 million a year for “research”—much of it to outside economists who then advocate for the Fed’s agenda without disclosing their Fed ties. For instance, seven of the eight economists on a recent anti-oversight letter to Congress failed to note they are or were on the Fed’s payroll.

That blatant chicanery, though, is not the worst of it. The real subterfuge is how the Fed’s shadowy pay scheme bakes an invisible pro-Fed consensus into our public discourse. Through its academic largesse, Grim notes the Fed “so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession.”

Ronald Reagan, of course, warned us to “trust, but verify.” It was good advice, except for one hitch: What happens when the verifiers are the ones who can no longer be trusted?

http://inthesetimes.com/article/5362/what_happens_when_we_cant_trust_the_verifiers/

How much do Federal Reserve employees make?  How much profit does this private bank dispense to shareholders? 

What does the budget look like?  the checking account?

[WhiskeyGirl]

from the comments -

We cannot trust the labels because we cannot trust the verifiers.  AAA rated crap is choking our financial system, the SEC stalled on the Madoff scheme for eight years,  Goldman Sachs alums did away with the Glass-Steagall Act, gained 100:1 margin deals from Congress, lent up to $billions on mortgages to unqualified buyers through Fannie and Freddie, tainted food is imported while the FDA checks less than one percent…

Many if not all of us, have ulterior motives which may distort testimony, opinions and actions.  In my view nothing should be taken as gospel — perhaps “Listen, but verify” is a better approach.

I managed to run my own, one-man business for over forty years and collected all bills owed to me save a little over $600.  I did it by being careful, skeptical and persistent in checking before doing the job.

However, most of the important issues which affect us are decided by elected officials who then appoint others to carry them out. 

In the US the Congress is the true “decider” and is well beyond our ability to control or even influence them individually.  A Health Care Bill which is opposed by 60% of the people has made “Government by the People,” a sick joke.

Unless we amend the Constitution to limit Congressional power, we freedoms are doomed.

How we manage that is the issue.

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 25, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I keep hearing about investigators checking millions of 'emails'.

After the first criminal got caught and sent to prison, why would anyone email details of their fraud?  Theft?  Abuse of power?

Why didn't these folks do a better job of managing the public money?  Shareholder money?

Did they rely on 'verbal' instruction to staff?  Create a culture where anything goes, as long as it's verbal and doesn't leave a paper trail?

The spank is the lowest employee on the rung?  Maybe one that isn't so smart or well educated?

A trusting soul?

Why would anyone look at the email trail?