Alan Grayson. What a jerk. Or at least that's what I thought until today. I was reading some stuff about investigations into central banks' manipulation of gold prices (Whole different subject. Don't get me started). His name was mentioned in the list of link tags. I recognized the name, and I said to myself, "What's this clown got to do with investigations of central banks?" Well imagine my surprise when I discovered that this first term, progressive Democrat from Central Florida is a vocal critic of bailouts, bonuses to banksters, and shenanigans at the Federal Reserve. He is a co sponsor of Ron Paul's legislation to audit the Federal Reserve. People sure can surprise you. Now I know that I disagree with this guy on a lot of things, but we sure share some common ground on a few economic issues. As a Tea Party sympathizer, I'm quick to disparage the actions of both Democrats and Republicans when they exhibit a total absence of fiscal responsibility. But deep down inside, I always felt that our salvation in this country would come from a chastised and repentant Republican Party that had rediscovered its core principles. I never thought any politician with a D after his name could ever contribute anything but opposition to the true path to saving this country. I was wrong. And Alan Grayson is the reason I know I was wrong. First, look at the guy's bio.
From Wikipedia - Read the whole entry at this link:
Grayson was born in the Bronx, New York and grew up in the tenements. He graduated from Bronx High School of Science and worked his way through Harvard University graduating summa cum laude in three years. He was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He worked as an economist for two years and returned to Harvard for graduate studies. Within four years, he earned a law degree with honors from Harvard Law School, a masters in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government and completed the course work and passed the general exams for a Ph.D. in government.
Pretty impressive credentials right? But so what. Harvard credentials were never a guarantee of any kind of common sense. But listen to this pit bull go after these witnesses at a series of Congressional hearings. We may not agree on Health Care reform, but I'm sure glad to have this guy on our side in the battle to rein in the financial industry.
All I can say in summary is that we are fortunate to have someone with a sophisticated financial and economic background in a position to ask important questions of these officials and not be snowed by evasive answers. Can you imagine our predicament if instead of Alan Grayson on these panels, we had someone like Maxine Waters or Charlie Rangel asking questions?
Also, when we talk about "audit the fed", did you really understand what that meant before listening to the questions Grayson asked? It means, who did you lend money to, how much, and is the collateral upon which you lent it any good. In other words, will we ever see that money again? It means were there sound purposes for loaning the money, or did politics play a role? And to reference the comment I made in the first paragraph, how much gold is actually present in the vaults of the Federal Reserve, as compared to the amount we are told is there? I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about on that score. Maybe more on that later.