Tweet
A vote to audit the Fed could come as early as today. It seems likely that Senate leadership, eager to avoid angering Rahm Emanuel, the Fed, and the big banks, will require 60 votes to pass Bernie Sanders’ amendment, which currently has 18 co-sponsors.
As Jane and David both noted in the last 24 hours, 67 senators have supported an audit of the Federal Reserve in the last year. The imminent vote on Bernie Sanders’ amendment to audit the Fed will show which of the 67 switch sides to magically wind up with a number just short of what’s needed to pass.
Rahm Emanuel is working the phones for the Fed to flip enough votes to stop an audit. Now it’s up to us to work the phones just as hard to help pass the amendment to audit the Fed.
Call the Senate at (202) 224-3121, and then click here to report what happened when you called. We’re monitoring the call reports to help inform where votes are in the Senate.
8 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
[self moderating my planned response to Rahm Emanuel to save the Mods from extra work]
Dianne Fineswine is my Senator. I’ll call anyway.
Lets just be good lemmings and follow Dodd’s bill like Obama is asking. It’s not like Dodd hasn’t been known his whole career for supporting low-income and average Americans. He has a record of taking on Wall Street,
to ask them for more donations.
Also Call Your Senators Today To Tell Them To Say “I Object” To Any Unanimous Consent Request That Would Require 60 Votes To Pass This Amendment.
[Because that's all it would take to retain the Senate's regular order and normal rules for simple-majority passage of this and all of the many floor amendments being offered. Because, again, the "Senate leadership" cannot "require 60 votes" to pass this, or any, amendment, on the floor by waiving the rules and regular order on its own, in order to impose a supermajority vote threshold on the Senate: it needs the unanimous consent of all Senators to waive the rules and impose that 60-vote supermajority.]
More here.
I called and spoke to Boxer’s aide, who assured me that Babs was in favor of auditing the Fed. Of course, until the actual vote, I take that with a grain of salt.
IMO, it’s all pretty much immaterial, as BO will simply issue a signing statement preventing the government from carrying out any audit. And somehow I just know that Congress will not find the guts to have the audit performed by its own committee staff or some special commission. (Wouldn’t giving it to Elizabeth Warren as part of the TARP supervision be poetic justice?! OMFG!)
Sen Murray’s office: I was told that Sen Murray is still reading SB 604, and that a statement should be out soon. No other info.
Sen Cantwell’s office: still unclear; legislative aide not available, will try back later. I did, however, have the sense from the aide that I spoke with that they’re getting calls re: ‘Why on earth isn’t the Fed being audited?’
I just finished writing to those senators asking that very question. The federal government has all sorts of audit requirements for its own operations, yet it seems completely unconcerned with how the regulator of our money supply does its job.
S 604 is 2-1/2 freakin pages!!! How long does it take to read that? The question is whether Murray’s waffling because she’s going to vote NO or if she’s waffling because she considers herself part of the leadership? I suspect the former.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s604is.txt.pdf