Archive for June, 2007

Should We Abolish the Federal Reserve?

Tuesday, June 19th, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul has introduced his bill to abolish the Federal Reserve. Every new Congress he introduces this legislation. It is H.R.2755 in this 110th Congress.

[click here] to read the language of the legislation.

To abolish the Federal Reserve raises the question, “what happens afterwards?” On the first day, there would likely be no change at all. Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, and your local credit union would keep on using the ACH to debit/credit dollars just as they have done for the last five decades. The stock market will still open tomorrow morning and people will buy and sell securities in “dollars.”

Even if the Federal Reserve were abolished, the 12 “member banks” of the Federal Reserve system are private corporations; they would still be in business, and the payments-clearing system they operate would still be in operation. They would still buy coins from the U.S. Mint to distribute to banks, and they would still provide currency services on behalf of the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

In other words, abolishing the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and the Federal Open Market Committee, would not be a large loss. Milton Friedman recommended doing this small step years ago. The monetary base does not need to increase or decrease, in the short run, and the interest rates do not need manipulation by Ben Bernanke.

The Problem is Monopoly

It is important to understand the basic problem with the Fed is mainly its monopoly role, which takes two forms.

The first is a collection of various laws that make Federal Reserve accounting unit dollars (F.R.A.U.D.) our official “legal tender,” and do not allow the same status to private paper money, such as American Express traveler’s cheques and the BerkShares used in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.

There is no essential need for anything to be “legal tender,” except to define what the government will accept in payment of taxes. As long as the government is going to collect taxes, it might be appropriate for legislation to define what the U.S. Treasury will accept.

The second “monopoly” question is, what should the government use as the digits with which to keep its own books of accounting, and what should it pay out as salaries and for purchases from the private sector? Whatever it adopts will overwhelmingly affect the private financial markets, although government does not need to mandate a unit of accounting for private use.

The classic coin, “dollar,” no longer exists, and the new substitutes, the pure silver troy ounce medals (e.g. “Liberty Dollar” and the U.S. Mint’s troy ounce coin, which even says “legal tender: one dollar”) are somewhat large in size/weight for pocket money. Nevertheless, the silver troy ounce (31.1035 grams of .9999 silver) could become the new bookkeeping unit, and private banks and individuals could issue demand deposit accounts, debit/credit cards, and paper banknotes to facilitate their use in commerce and finance.

I have always liked the gram of gold as a bookkeeping unit. Although nobody would manufacture a one gram coin, a 10g coin would be about the size of a U.S. quarter, assuming either 90% alloy (classical U.S. standard) or 92.5% (classical U.K. “sterling” standard = 22 carat). But in either case, debit/credit cards and EFT/ACH would be more common for transactions and the gram of gold would be worth about $30 in todays F.R.A.U.D.-value.

More Important: Government Bookkeeping

The second “monopoly” issue is more important: what should the government itself use for bookkeeping? I advocate the government should adopt a law saying that individuals themselves shall always have the right to keep their books of account and transactions in whatever form they select, without any government mandate. (The Tax Reform Act of 1986 [Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 985(b)(1)(A)] was the first enactment of Congress to require use of the U.S. dollar, i.e. the legal tender F.R.A.U.D. This was recommended by the I.R.S. because following the 1970s inflation, some people had adopted bullion units of weight for bookkeeping.) The law enacting this monopoly should be repealed.

Whatever the government itself adopted would become an “elephant in the chicken yard,” and would immediately become the most commonly adopted unit of account for private transactions and finance. It would be unfortunate if the silver troy ounce were adopted, since it would overshadow gold, which Mises has argued is a superior basis for a modern monetary system. Therefore, I would hope Congress would adopt the gram of pure gold as the basic unit of governmental bookkeeping.

The current paper dollar economy could continue on for decades after the Federal Reserve disappears, because the dollar-monetary base would simply remain as a frozen, fixed quantity of government liabilities. It would become a “parallel currency” (there is extensive literature in economics about parallel currencies) and could operate quite smoothly in the same manner as foreign exchange markets work today, with a competitive exchange rate quoted every few minutes on electronic financial exchanges.

And, then, in the alternative, there are the suggestions of Prof. Leland Yeager of Auburn University. (See his “An Evaluation of Freely-Fluctuating Exchange Rates,” PhD dissertation, Columbia University, 1952, and subsequent work.) He suggests the government should define its own new unit as a composite of several different commodities (oil, metal, grain, et al.) and having defined the new unit of account, should entirely leave the creation of the tangible exchange media/cards/ETF up to the private sector.

Time for the truth about the USS Liberty

Sunday, June 10th, 2007

by Ward Boston, Jr.

Forty years ago this week, I was asked to investigate the heaviest attack on an American ship since World War II. As senior legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry, it was my job to help uncover the truth regarding Israel’s June 8, 1967, bombing of the Navy intelligence ship Liberty.

On that sunny, clear day 40 years ago, Israel’s combined air and naval forces attacked the Liberty for two hours, inflicting 70 percent casualties. Thirty-four American sailors died, and 172 were injured. The Liberty remained afloat only by the crew’s heroic efforts.

Israel claimed it was an accident. Yet I know from personal conversations with the late Adm. Isaac C. Kidd – president of the Court of Inquiry – that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity.â€?

The ensuing cover-up has haunted us for 40 years. What does it imply for our national security, not to mention our ability to honestly broker peace in the Middle East, when we cannot question Israel’s actions – even when they kill Americans?

Today [June 8], survivors of Israel’s cruel attack will gather in Washington, D.C., to honor their dead shipmates as well as the mothers, sisters, widows and children they left behind. They will continue to ask for a fair and impartial congressional inquiry that, for the first time, would allow the survivors themselves to testify publicly.

For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man, and when orders come in from the secretary of defense and president of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to share the truth.

Adm. Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation, though we both estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry would take at least six months.

We boarded the crippled ship at sea and interviewed survivors. The evidence was clear. We both believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.

I am certain the Israeli pilots and commanders who had ordered the attack knew the ship was American. I saw the bullet-riddled American flag that had been raised by the crew after their first flag had been shot down completely. I heard testimony that made it clear the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did they attack with napalm, gunfire and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned at close range three life rafts that had been launched in an attempt to save the most seriously wounded.

I am outraged at the efforts of Israel’s apologists to claim this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.â€?

Adm. Kidd told me that after receiving the president’s cover-up orders, he was instructed to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Department of Defense and rewrite portions of the court’s findings. He said, “Ward, they’re not interested in the facts. It’s a political matter, and we cannot talk about it.â€? We were to “put a lid on itâ€? and caution everyone involved never to speak of it again.

I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent to Washington. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand-correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. In addition, the testimony of Lt. Lloyd Painter concerning the deliberate machine-gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and including in the original transcript, is now missing.

I join the survivors in their call for an honest inquiry. Why is there no room to question Israel – even when it kills Americans – in the halls of Congress?

Let the survivors testify. Let me testify. Let former intelligence officers testify that they received real-time Hebrew translations of Israeli commanders instructing their pilots to sink “the American ship.â€?

Surely uncovering the truth about what happened to American servicemen in a bloody attack is more important than protecting Israel. And surely 40 years is long enough to wait.

June 8, 2007

Ward Boston served as chief counsel to the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the attack on the U.S. Navy intelligence ship Liberty. He also served as a naval aviator in World War II on the carrier Yorktown and as an FBI agent prior to his assignment to the Navy’s Judge Advocates General Corps. He is a graduate of the the College of William and Mary School of Law and a resident of Coronado.