Federal Reserve Transparency.

Thanks to Pro for elaborating on the nature of his proposal so that I can better understand it. I will assume from this point on that it was not literally to be implied that Congress 'shall' pass this legislation, but merely that it should. C1: I agree that government money comes from taxes. However that money does not, as my opponent proposes, belong to the people. Once the money has been taxed it has ceased to be in the ownership of the people and it is now in the ownership of the state. Though it is commonly believed that public money is 'owned by everyone', this statement is largely metaphorical. In reality the state is an entity that is separate from individual citizens and literally speaking is not nearly as closely connected to them as is commonly believed. My opponent goes on to say that the America wants and needs transparency. Once again, neither the people nor 'America' can be recognized as an entity that possesses wants and needs universally throughout. C2-1: My opponent's line of reasoning here is that if the American public is made aware of Federal Reserve spending, this spending will become less wasteful. This is based on the assumption that if more people can see what money is being spent on, the money will therefore be spend more effectively. I contend instead that this will only create massive controversy over spending, even minor expenditures. The American media can have a profound influence over the beliefs of common people. The massive conservative protest over health care reform serves as a testimony to this. Whether or not the bill was good to begin with, the public involvement and transparency resulted in its gutting and the bill and effectively no significant legislation is being based. I dread to know what would happen if it was possible for this sort of controversy to arise whenever the Fed tried to spend money. There are no shortage of political commentators from both parties that would incite huge disagreements over even the most minor of issues. Though it is possible that some of the money is being wasted, in fact I believe some of it is, transparency may not be the answer to this. C2-2: Though I have offered reasons why transparency maybe be harmful, it is also a distinct possibility that it would o nothing at all. The American people already have access to what bills Congress passes. Many of them are useless; a complete waste of time and money. There are bills passed honoring sports teams, bills passed honoring the Pope, and bills passed created a myriad of useless holidays (1). This is completely useless and yet it continues to go on; Americans have not done anything about it. Americans are also well aware of earmark spending that goes on constantly, but nothing is done about that either. Even if the Federal Reserve were made transparent, it may ultimately have no effect on how money is spent. Responses to my opponent's rebuttals. C3: The link provided by my opponent provides an example of transparency, yes, but not total transparency. To quote from the pdf in his link, "The fiscal 2010 base budget will include an increase of $500 million to field and sustain more helicopters, a capability that is in urgent demand in Afghanistan." Now, this does tell us what money is being spent on helicopters, but it does not represent complete transparency and it is not the type of spending I was referring to. We do not know how money money is being paid to workers, how much money is being spent on materials, what parts are involved and how much they cost, or anything of the sort. This is also contrasted from secret CIA missions that are best not even mentioned on paper, let alone released to the public, when it can be avoided. The amount of transparency that my opponent claims the military has does not reduce wasteful spending anyway. There is evidence that in the past the military has spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars on tools such as wrenches and pliers. If the transparency you describe here has not prevented this wasteful spending, why would it when applied elsewhere? C4: I understand that my opponent did not mean to imply that private spending should also be transparent, but my interpretation of his point about AIG was that money AIG spent that it received from the government would be transparent. I do not believe the government should be bailing out any of these companies in the first place, but if the Fed must give money to the private sector than it must understand it will no longer have control over that money. My opponent also proposes that Americans have the right to know where this money is going. As I have stated before, it is no longer their money so though it may be considered 'public' money, this is entirely an arbitrary designation. Nowhere is it stated that the people of a nation have the right to know how money owned by the state (not owned by them) is spent. Unless my opponent provides evidence for why this right should be acknowledged, I see no reason to support Federal Reserve Transparency on the basis of civil liberties. C5: I understand this. The argument over semantics is now withdrawn. I would like to note that my opponent is correct the money is wasted by the Federal Reserve and that this should be reduced; I merely hold that Federal Reserve Transparency is not an appropriate way to achieve these ends. As such I would like to offer a few ideas of my own that I believe would be a more effective way to curb wasteful spending. C6: A constitutional amendment should be created to give the President the line-item veto power. Congress previously passed legislation granting this power in 1996, but it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (2). This would enable to President to block wasteful spending in bills without having to prevent an otherwise good bill from being passed. Money being spent could thus only be wasted if two-thirds of Congress agreed on it, an impossibility in today's political climate. C7: Make all lobbying illegal. There are tens of thousands of lobbyists in Washington and several billion dollars is spent on lobbying each year (3). It is hard to believe that these special interest groups wouldn't be influencing government spending in a profoundly negative way. Even with Federal Reserve transparency it would be impossible for the American people to exert more influence over government spending than these lobbyists do. Conclusion: The best way to prevent money from being wasted by the government is not to increase public involvement in spending. The common American people will not be able to influence government spending except through protests that can effectively be used to create controversy over all spending. Meanwhile, this would also greatly increase the ability of private businesses to exert influence over the government. Large corporations have more money and influences than the American people could hope to wield. Instead I believe that decreasing all outside interference in the government will allow it to function better. The government is run by politicians after all and politicians are notorious for letting external pressures overcome their better judgement. Sources: (1) http://centerforsanity.blogspot.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.opensecrets.org...