Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul come together on “audit the Fed” amendment in Senate

Independent Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders (who is also closely associated with the Vermont Progressive Party, used to be a member of various third parties, and calls himself a democratic socialist) has been working with Republican Representative Ron Paul, who ran as a Libertarian for president in 1988 and endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin in 2008, to pass some sort of amendment to a financial regulation bill to “audit the fed.”  At first, Paul criticized the compromise Sanders had worked out, but now Paul is saying that it’s worth voting for, meaning that two men who are perhaps the most third-party-friendly out of all of Congress are working together.  More information on this, and other related amendments, can be found here.

20 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul come together on “audit the Fed” amendment in Senate

  1. John

    Ron Paul is not on board with Bernie Sanders with the gutted audit bill. Senator Vitter is bringing back Pauls bill to the floor Tuesday morning for renewed discussion. Sanders switched out the bills at the last minute last Thursday without any communication to Ron Paul and that’s just plain wrong. We’ll see how it goes.

  2. Trent Hill

    They actually have split on this issue. Sanders gutted the bill in order to get the White House and Chairman Dodd behind his version. Senator Vitter has re-introduced the regular language–that is the version now supported by Ron Paul and most Audit the Fed activists, be they libertarian or progressive.

  3. Steven Wilson

    Ron Paul behaves the most like a founding father in comparison to the rest of congress. But to audit the fed would be the end.

    IF the american people ever found out what was really going on, they would lose all faith in the federal government.

    IF you audit the Fed and your purpose is to end the empire, then go on. But to audit the Fed and still maintain a empire is foolish.

  4. Ross

    The Huffpost piece said that Paul has since said that what Sanders got passed is decent, although he wouldn’t call it an “audit.” He supports passing both bills.

  5. Oh come on .......... Lake

    Steven Wilson // May 11, 2010:

    “………. IF the american people ever found out what was really going on, they would lose all faith in the federal government …….”

    and a whole bunch of us haven’t already ??????

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Senator Vitter has re-introduced the regular language–that is the version now supported by Ron Paul and most Audit the Fed activists, be they libertarian or progressive.”

    That tells the story right there. There’s no way an establishment Repugnican hack like Vitter would introduce the language if he thought it had a chance in hell of passing.

    Sanders managed to get some kind of Fed audit through the Senate, and for that he’ll be vilified by those who claim to want a Fed audit.

    Vitter made a meaningless gesture that he knew would fail, and for that he’ll get votes and campaign contributions from people he’s pissed on his entire career and will resume pissing on at the next opportunity.

  7. Darryl W. Perry

    The House and Senate bills will now go to the conference committee which will attempt to reconcile the differences between the two bills (and their amendments).

    We can only hope the conference committee decides on some good wording.

  8. Darryl W. Perry

    PS
    I’m not giving Vitter any “credit” for introducing what he knew would fail, nor will I vilify Sanders for this – although I’m not going to support Sanders, either.

    Ron Paul said, “the passage of the Sanders Amendment is a victory for taxpayers, who will finally know who received $2 trillion of their money. The Fed is no longer an untouchable monolith. It can no longer take for granted its absolute power to create and give away public money at will, with no true accountability. With strong support in the Senate, the House, and especially among the public, more victories for full transparency lie ahead.”

  9. Trent Hill

    “That tells the story right there. There’s no way an establishment Repugnican hack like Vitter would introduce the language if he thought it had a chance in hell of passing.”

    I don’t think he cared if it passed or failed–he was just pandering to libertarians, tea parties, and good government advocates. I don’t mind being pandered to when it involves lawmakers introducing the right bills or amendments. Whether Vitter wanted it to pass or not (and I think he did, if only to bolster his own career), he gave us a useful record of who was for the original language and who wasn’t.

  10. Trent Hill

    “Vitter made a meaningless gesture that he knew would fail, and for that he’ll get votes and campaign contributions from people he’s pissed on his entire career and will resume pissing on at the next opportunity.”

    I’m not going to give him any money–but he just earned my vote. Why? Because my options are him, an equally crappy Democratic candidate, and a “Libertarian Party” candidate who was recently a conservative, before that an independent, and mostly just a kook. Of the three, only Vitter has pandered to me (through this move).

  11. Steven Wilson

    @8

    conspiracy theories are one thing, but proof is another. Watch the sequence of the events play out. In Scott Brown came what?

    In Utah came what?

    Both major parties know their power is fading. They need a boost. In this election cycle, they will use the language persona of…”tighten the belt”, “family core values”, and “fiscal responsibility”.

    Ron Paul will use it as a victory lap and when nothing comes of it, Paul will look like a nut. The donkey and the elephant will kill two birds with one stone. No more talk of the Fed and deception, and Paul will be disavowed.

    Just because it looks like accountability, doesn’t mean that it is. Bernie is prepared to costume.

    In game theory, if you don’t have any faith, you don’t have a game. You won’t find a smoking ledger.

  12. paulie

    If he really is a member of the LP and has their trust, then why are they running a candidate against him by the name of Eugene Flynn?

    “They” are not. Eugene Flynn is an immigration attorney and considers migration freedom to be a very important issue. Ron Paul is a “border control” advocate. Flynn has not been nominated by the LP, he is seeking the nomination – something that any party member (or maybe even anyone else) can do. In the past, he has sought the nomination and lost to NOTA. As far as I know, he has never been nominated to run against Ron Paul; not sure how many times he has tried.

    Also, “they” are not unanimous about Ron Paul. It’s true that he is a life member, which just means he made a large enough donation many years ago. It’s also true that most LP members do like/admire Ron Paul. But there are also some who don’t. Some of us like/admire many things about him, but not others – his immigration views, for instance.

    “TPR” (actually, one individual who presumes to speak for the group without polling their agreement) goes by listings such as Politics1 which include candidates seeking the nomination of political parties who have little or no chance of getting the nomination, and/or those who have little or no chance of having their person/party appearing on the ballot due to ballot access laws, and thinks that they are all on the ballot. More times than not, this is a mistake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *