I can go ahead and attach the tag “Socialist” to Bernie Sanders without fear or favor, seeing as he’s a self-proclaimed socialist.  None of this does or should change the narrative though when someone pops up with an idea: It should be judged on the merits.

Bernie gets a number of things right when it comes to the analysis part of the job, but then like so many politicians he is incapable of resolving the problem because doing so means putting an end to the games in DC — and that would mean ending his own personal power.

In that he’s exactly identical to the far-right Republican wing.

Let’s analyze.

As a result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street, the American people have experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, homes, life savings, and ability to send their kids to college. Small businesses have been unable to get the credit they need to expand their businesses, and credit is still extremely tight. Wages as a share of national income are now at the lowest level since the Great Depression, and the number of Americans living in poverty is at an all-time high.

Here I agree, but in some cases those Americans lost everything through fault of their own.  Being a starry-eyed speculator with your house counts — and unlike most in the commentary space I’m not afraid to say it, even though I know it will piss off a substantial number of readers.

Meanwhile, when small-business owners were being turned down for loans at private banks and millions of Americans were being kicked out of their homes, the Federal Reserve provided the largest taxpayer-financed bailout in the history of the world to Wall Street and too-big-to-fail institutions, with virtually no strings attached.

Small businesses should not, in the general sense, be taking loans.  This does not mean there isn’t legitimate purpose for borrowing money in business; there is.  But the real problem we face as a nation when it comes to the economy is entirely-centered around the replacement of capital formation with leverage (that is, debt) — two fungible things that despite the screaming from the finance industry and popular culture are not identical.

The American people are finally getting answers to these questions thanks to an amendment I included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill which required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit and investigate conflicts of interest at the Fed. Those answers raise grave questions about the Federal Reserve and how it operates — and whose interests it serves.

Grave questions?  Oh hell Bernie, you got a copy of the document I published in the form of an expose’ during the 2008 time frame when despite telling Congress he was providing “unprecedented liquidity” to the financial markets Bernanke in fact pulled systemic liquidity.  Now I cannot tell you why he did that, because that requires getting inside someone’s head.  But the result of that act was clear to everyone — the stock market collapsed.

So where were your questions to Ben at that time?  I do seem to remember several appearances on The Hill and your opportunity to grill him with this fact (from the NY Fed’s own SOMA information) but neither you or any other Senator (or House Member, including the “illustrious” Ron Paul) has taken this on.

Why not Bernie?

Oh, I know why: You want to push an agenda just like the people on the right, and none of you are honest.  We’ll continue.

1. How can we structurally reform the Fed to make our nation’s central bank a more democratic institution responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans, end conflicts of interest, and increase transparency? What are the best practices that central banks in other countries have developed that we can learn from? Compared with central banks in Europe, Canada, and Australia, the GAO found that the Federal Reserve does not do a good job in disclosing potential conflicts of interest and other essential elements of transparency.

You make people at The Fed (and in Congress!) subject to the same insider-trading laws that everyone else is.  Then you start indicting people when they break the law.  That was easy.

2. At a time when 16.5 percent of our people are unemployed or under-employed, how can we strengthen the Federal Reserve’s full-employment mandate and ensure that the Fed conducts monetary policy to achieve maximum employment? When Wall Street was on the verge of collapse, the Federal Reserve acted with a fierce sense of urgency to save the financial system. We need the Fed to act with the same boldness to combat the unemployment crisis.

The Fed cannot “fix” unemployment.  The so-called “Dual Mandate” is a scam.  The reason we have a misaligned economy is because of the so-called “dual mandate” and the blatant lawlessness within both Congress and The Fed — the latter through its refusal to honor the actual mandate of price stability over more than 100 years and by Congress through its refusal to insert an “or else” into the law and then enforce it.

These failures are willful and intentional.  They belong to you and to every other person in Congress going back to 1913.  You’re a fraud Sanders, and so are the rest of the clowns in DC who bleat about this issue, because the solution is simple — but implementing it instantaneously cuts off the charade that government can spend more than it takes in via taxes without the market immediately punishing the government with higher interest rates.

But that’s an unsustainable ponzi scheme.  You know it and the rest of Congress knows it.  You have to know it, because I refuse to believe you are too mentally challenged to use Excel for 2 minutes and prove it to yourself.  You’ve also received enough faxes from me that you cannot duck the fact that you’ve had the truth laid in front of you — it’s obvious, however, that you routed said truth straight into the shredder so you can parade around saying “la la la la la la” while lying through your teeth about what you and the rest in Washington have done and intend to continue to attempt with your raw refusal to face fundamental mathematical facts.

In short the issue isn’t as you claim — it’s that all 535 of you are busy under the desk servicing The Fed so you can pursue unsustainable fiscal policies.  This is as it has been since the founding of The Fed and proof is found in the fact that over 100 years there has been no law introduced by anyone to insert an “or else” into The Fed’s charter mandating actual stable prices and real honest-to-god punishment if they don’t comply.

3. The Federal Reserve has a responsibility to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions and to contain systemic risks in financial markets. Given that the top six financial institutions in the country now have assets equivalent to 65 percent of our GDP, more than $9 trillion, is there any reason why this extraordinary concentration of ownership should not be broken up? Should a bank that is “too big to fail” be allowed to exist?

No, it should not.  I seem to remember that Congress is the one with the authority to do something about that though.  Isn’t extortion a crime?  Well, what do you call it when The Fed and Treasury come to Capital Hill in the wee hours of the evening and demand $700 billion via a blank check from Congress or the entire economy will collapse by 8:00 AM in the morning?

What do you call it when that plan is subsequently changed to “give ‘em money” prior to Congress passing it and Congress is not informed before it votes?  That happened, incidentally, as Kashkari testified to under oath before Congress.

4. The Federal Reserve has the responsibility to protect the credit rights of consumers. At a time when credit card issuers are charging millions of Americans interest rates of 25 percent or more, should policy options be established to ensure that the Federal Reserve and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau protect consumers against predatory lending, usury, and exorbitant fees in the financial services industry?

Oh, yeah, let’s not forget who was doing the suing to block enforcement of state anti-predatory lending laws during the 2000s.  That would be the OCC, a Federal agency.  Let’s also not forget who passed the Branch Banking Act that voided state usury laws.  And let’s not forget who hasn’t exercised any oversight or its prerogative to legislate to reverse either of these acts — that would you Bernie, along with the rest of Congress.  Never mind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

5. At a time when the dream of homeownership has turned into the nightmare of foreclosure for too many Americans, what role should the Federal Reserve be playing in providing relief to homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages, combating the foreclosure crisis, and making housing more affordable?

None.  The problem is that prices are too high.  First you have industries that in “cooperation” with cities, states and towns make the old style of constructing and adding to homes a criminal offense (that is, you build a couple of rooms, then as time goes on you add to them) through various zoning, permitting and other restrictive laws, making such an impossible task.  This in turn makes houses nearly impossible to buy as they turn into “financial assets”; oh, but we’ll “loan you the money” and you just have to pay “a little interest.”  It doesn’t hurt that you stoke the idea that the average middle-class family “should” have a 3,500 square foot granite-laced palace, never mind that I and millions of others grew up in a middle-class home that measured about 1,000 square feet in the 1960s and 70s and was bereft of all of these allegedly “deserved” amenities.

If you would quit performing indecent acts on the banks in Congress and instead demand that they mark their bloated balance sheets to the market they would collapse and borrowing money would get damned expensive.  That’s good, not bad.  It would force a collapse in prices of a lot of things, including houses.  Yes, I personally would get reamed by this, as I “own” my house without a mortgage, but it’s good for the economy, not bad, when someone can save a year’s salary and buy a house.

Incidentally this is not impossible if you quit trying to do the wrong thing.  That is, if there is no inflation (because The FOMC goes to prison if they allow it to happen) and borrowing is expensive (as it should be) then house prices will collapse to about 1x incomes.  This means that the average person can save 10% of their income for ten years and then buy a house for cash!

So by the time that “average person or couple” is 30 they own – actually own in fee simple – their house.

Nobody with a mortgage owns their house.  The bank owns the house.

We all know why Congress won’t do this: It would also force a cessation of deficit spending by Congress!  We’d have to actually pay for that which we demand in Government services. 

But that’s good, not bad.

QUIT DOING INDECENT THINGS FOR BANKERS UNDER THE TABLE BERNIE – YOU’RE NO BETTER (AND IN FACT NO DIFFERENT IN THIS REGARD) THAN THE FAR RIGHT WING!

6. At a time when the United States has the most inequitable distribution of wealth and income of any major country, and the greatest gap between the very rich and everyone else since 1928, what policies can be established at the Federal Reserve which reduces income and wealth inequality in the U.S?

“One Dollar of Capital.”  Read about it here or in Leverage, implement it, return borrowing to what it should be — expensive, compared to capital formation — and the skimming operations go away to be replaced by industry.

Real industry.

And wealth is redefined as what it really is — economic surplus, not leverage.

Given the growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement and given the concerns of millions of Americans about Wall Street, we now have a unique opportunity to make significant changes to one of the most powerful and secretive agencies of the federal government. One thing is abundantly clear: Americans deserve a Federal Reserve that works for them, not just the CEOs on Wall Street.

They won’t get it with your so-called “solutions” as they’re just more dishonest knob-polishing.

Cut it out Bernie.  The truth is what it is, and the truth is that cloaking “reform” in a Socialist banner is no more correct than cloaking it in the banner of theft, which is what we’ve been doing.

There are many who call this “Crony Capitalism.”  That’s nonsense and the people need to start calling this what it actually is: It’s theft — otherwise known as stealing — and Congress is the chief ringleader and promoter of same.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) got us first glimpse inside the Federal Reserve, It was his amendment that yielded new information about the 18 Fed members bailing themselves out at the same time that they were at the Federal Reserve. He joined Dylan on the show today to discuss the new findings. The full GAO Report.  Here’s the show clip:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dylan Ratigan

From Senator Bernie Sanders:

The Fed Audit

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”

Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. “No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president,” Sanders said.

The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.

For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed’s board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed’s emergency lending programs.

In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. “No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed’s board of directors or be employed by the Fed,” he said.

The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans.

The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.

A more detailed GAO investigation into potential conflicts of interest at the Fed is due on Oct. 18, but Sanders said one thing already is abundantly clear. “The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street.”

The entire GAO report is here.

Don’t you think the mainstream media would be interested in talking about this?  Apparently not.  Just think about how far $16 Trillion would go towards solving our government debt/deficit problem.  Someone tell me why it is we are talking about ‘austerity’ programs when we can afford to bailout FOREIGN BANKS!  This is stealing from working, taxpaying middle class (Americans) to bailout the wealthy (foreign) bankers.   Meanwhile our Congress is in DC arguing over how much pain will be inflicted upon the American people because we’re broke.  How long will you stand for this America?

Perhaps now you understand our motto here at FedUpUSA:

STOP THE LOOTING AND START PROSECUTING!

Please let him know how you feel about this legislation but before you do, make sure you read the articles about the legislation posted below.

BERNIE SANDERS’ POLL

Some more from Dow Jones:

McCain joins at least two other Republicans who plan to oppose Bernanke’s renomination. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) has also said he opposes Bernanke’s renomination.Despite this, Bernanke is widely expected to be approved by the Senate for a second term. The Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to hold a confirmation vote on Bernanke Thursday morning.A spokeswoman for the panel said there is no way for a member to delay Thursday’s vote. Other Senate committees, like the Judiciary Committee, allow members to delay a vote by a week.

The logical political implications of this move are material: should Democrats be unable to maintain their majority hold after the upcoming mid-term elections, the populist tide against the Fed will be a substantial pent up force in 2011. How that would shape the org chart of the Fed subsequently is still unknown but it likely would not be in favor of the Man of the Year.

As Ben Bernanke’s confirmation hearing begins in the Senate Banking
Committee, a source tells FDL News that one Senate staffer and an
outside source confirmed to him that at least one Republican on the
committee will also place a hold on the Federal Reserve chairman,
throwing the process into potential turmoil and giving Chris Dodd a
difficult series of choices to make.

Dodd, who just announced his intention to vote for Bernanke’s
confirmation in the Banking Committee and on the floor of the Senate,
would be in charge of the decision to honor or ignore that hold. The
fact that Dodd tried to place a hold on the FISA Amendments Act in
2007-08, and was generally ignored by Harry Reid, just adds a layer of
irony to the process.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of his work
behind the scenes on the Bernanke confirmation, told me that two
separate sources assured him that the Republican hold would be made
public after today’s hearing. One staffer said that two Republicans
would place the hold, while the other said it would just be one. The
source said that the trans-partisan nature of opposition to Bernanke,
with a conservative Republican and a socialist independent uniting to
block the appointment, shows the intensity of the feelings on the
issue. “It’s great to see everyone come together – Democrats,
Republicans, progressives and libertarians, against this Federal
Reserve, which is not federal, and not a reserve, just a group printing
money and giving it to their buddies,” the source said.

While most people think that the multiple holds would delay the
process, it’s unclear whether or not it would succeed. Dodd would
probably have the discretion to roll over the hold in committee, though
he may be reluctant to do so, experts in Senate procedure said. Harry
Reid could also seek cloture on the motion to proceed on Bernanke’s
nomination on the floor, which would require 60 votes.

At the very least, this delay and the publicity surrounding
bipartisan opposition to Bernanke would bring attention to the issue of
the Federal Reserve and the desire for transparency, like the movement
to audit the Fed. That provision has already passed in the large
financial reform bill in the House Financial Services Committee, and Barney Frank said yesterday
that he didn’t expect any changes to the bill as it passed the House,
citing the public anger over the issue of transparency. There is
language on Fed audits in the draft financial reform bill written by
Sen. Dodd, which also strips the Fed of some of its power, but it is
not the same as Bernie Sanders’ audit the Fed bill, which has as many
as 30 cosponsors.

The source, who has been working on the Federal Reserve issue for
five years, marveled at how the issue has gained so much new attention
during the financial crisis. “Up until last year, nobody knew what the
Fed was. Ron Paul got 5 co-sponsors on his audit bill when he first
introduced it, and now we have 300.”

Sen. Dodd’s office has not yet responded with a comment.

More from the NYT:

Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, said Wednesday that he would try to block the Senate from confirming Ben S. Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The move is unlikely to derail Mr. Bernanke’s reappointment, but it
could slow the confirmation process and give the Fed’s critics
additional opportunity to press their case. As a practical matter, it
means Senate Democratic leaders will have to line up 60 votes in favor
of Mr. Bernanke rather than a simple majority at a time when the
Federal Reserve is under increasing populist attacks from lawmakers on
both the right and the left.

Mr. Sanders, an independent, is not a member of the Senate Banking
Committee, but he has frequently accused the Federal Reserve of bailing
out Wall Street firms and the banking industry at the expense of
ordinary citizens.

“In this country, there is profound disgust
at what happened on Wall Street,” Mr. Sanders said in a telephone
interview. “People want a new direction and people are asking, where
was the Fed? How did the Fed allow this to happen, when one of their
mandates to oversee the safety and soundness of the banking system?”

Mr.
Sanders said he would place a “hold” on Mr. Bernanke’s nomination when
it reaches the Senate floor. Under Senate rules, lawmakers would need
to amass 60 votes to override Mr. Sanders and proceed with a vote on
the nomination.

As pointed out previously, Bernanke is a Bush legacy, yet is somehow supposed to represent Obama’s “change” agenda:

The Fed chairman was originally appointed by President George W. Bush
and took over the central bank in February 2006. Despite his Republican
ties, Mr. Bernanke forged a close working relationship with President Obama and his top economic advisers during the financial crisis.

And some more potential wild cards in tomorrow’s historing hearing:

Senator Christopher J. Dodd,
Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, has said
Mr. Bernanke was “probably” the best person to lead the Fed because he
responded valiantly to the financial crisis when it began two years ago.

But
Mr. Dodd has also proposed stripping the Federal Reserve of virtually
all its powers as a banking regulator, and consolidating all the
federal government’s bank regulatory efforts in a new agency. In an
Op-Ed article last Sunday in The Washington Post, Mr. Bernanke sharply
criticized Mr. Dodd’s proposal.

Senator Richard C. Shelby
of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, has
also been sharply critical of the Federal Reserve but has not yet said
how he would vote on Mr. Bernanke’s nomination.

Even with Zero Hedge polling indicates a mere 11% of our readers would support Bernanke’s reconfirmation, a different poll by Rasmussen finds a comparable result: only 21% favor Bernanke as Chairman.

And here is a reminder of the confirmation whip count in the Senate Banking Committee:

Definite no: 2
Lean no: 3
No indication: 6
Lean yes: 7
Definite yes: 5
Definite no: 2

Bernie Sanders (I-VT):

Senator Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who isn’t on the banking committee, said Nov. 29 on ABC television’s “This Week” that he will “absolutely not vote for Mr. Bernanke” and that the Fed chief is “part of the problem.”

Jim Bunning (R-KY):

Jim Bunning, the Kentucky Republican who was the only senator to oppose Bernanke’s first nomination in 2005, hasn’t changed his views.

‘His job rating would be zero minus F,’ Bunning said in an interview yesterday. ‘He has catered to the big banks, to the Wall Street elitists, to every major money concern in the country and in the world.’

It is possible that one or both of these Senators will place a “hold” on the nomination.  Such a procedural move would at least delay a vote on Bernake, which would provide opponents of his reconfirmation time to organize.  For more details on what a “hold” is, check Tom Coburn’s website (no one places more holds than Coburn).

Lean no: 3
Jim DeMint (R-SC):

“He’s [Bernanke's] going to face some tough questions because he’s got a lot to answer for,” leading Fed critic Sen. Jim DeMint said through a spokesman. “The Fed’s mission is to guard the value of the dollar and to focus on employment, and right now their track record is looking very poor.”

Richard Shelby (R-AL):

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Banking committee, would not say how he would vote on Bernanke’s nomination, only encouraging reporters to stay tuned for the chairman’s hearing this week.

“I used to be a big defender of the Fed,” he said, adding he believes the institution has “utterly failed” in its role for regulating financial institutions.”

David Vitter (R-LA): As a support of auditing the Fed, everything I have heard is that Vitter is a no–and is even possibly willing to put a hold on Bernake.  Still, lacking a public statement to that effect, I won’t put him in the “definite no” category.

No indication:  6
Michael Bennet (D-CO):  No word for Bennet one way or the other.  His primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff, might be an interesting way to move Bennet on this one.

Mike Crapo (R-ID): Praised Bernanke’s nomination in 2005, but no word on where he stands now.

Herb Kohl (D-WI)

Three said they’re undecided, including Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl, Jon Tester of Montana and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

Kay Baily Hutchinson (R-TX): I can’t find any indication on Hutchison, one way or the other.

Jeff Merkley:

Three said they’re undecided, including Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl, Jon Tester of Montana and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

Jon Tester:

Three said they’re undecided, including Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl, Jon Tester of Montana and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

Lean Yes:  7
Robert Bennett (R-UT)

Utah’s Robert Bennett said he’ll probably vote in favor

Sherrod Brown (D-OH):

“He’s been far from perfect,” Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said in an interview yesterday. “He was not quick enough responding last year to many of these issues that we care about, particularly in housing. I want him to focus on jobs. But I think he’s generally done a decent job.”

Tom Carper (D-DE):

“Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) all said they’d wait until hearing from Bernanke.”

Bob Corker (R-TN)

Corker noted that he leans toward supporting a second term for the Fed chairman, who was nominated in August to a second term by President Barack Obama, but acknowledged gripes toward the Fed chairman on the left and the right.”

Chris Dodd (D-CT, chair):

I’m inclined to be supportive. I think he’s done a far better job in the last couple of years than he did initially.

Charles Schumer (D-NY):

Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) all said they’d wait until hearing from Bernanke.

Mark Warner (D-VA): Over email, a spokesman for Mark Warner told me “Senator Warner is inclined to be supportive of Bernanke’s reappointment, but he’s certainly not a fan of expanding the role or the power of the Fed as part of financial re-reg.”

Definite Yes: 5
Daniel Akaka (D-HI):  Bloomberg reports Akaka is a yes.

Evan Bayh (D-IN):  Bayh was the first prominent Democrat to support Bernanke in 2005.  According to Bloomberg, also support him in 2009.

Judd Gregg (R-NH):

Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, said Nov. 20 he will “absolutely” vote for Bernanke.

Mike Johanns (R-NE):

Among Republicans, Nebraska’s Mike Johanns said Bernanke “will have my support.

Tim Johnson (D-SD):

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) — a favorite of Wall Street — told HuffPost that he has decided to vote to confirm Bernanke.