John Maynard Keynes wrote that "by a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some."
A dollar in 2012 has lost more than 95 percent of its value against a dollar from 1913, when the Federal Reserve was brought into existence. It may be worthwhile to ask who has profited from such a decrease in the purchasing power of our money.
In the past century we have seen lengthy and costly wars, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've also witnessed unprecedented growth in the size of the federal government. Could spendthrift politicians have accomplished these things if they were forced to either borrow or tax to make up the difference and didn't have a Fed and Treasury willing to print the money? That may be another worthwhile question.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has stated that a full audit of the Federal Reserve, which has already passed the House with bipartisan support, will not even be allowed a vote in the Senate. Why oppose more transparency? Is it possible that we would find answers to the above questions, and understand why Rep. Charles A. Lindbergh called the Federal Reserve Act the "worst legislative crime of the ages?"
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- David Blankenhorn: Berlin boasts a wise use...
- Letter: Police not the problem
- Charles Krauthammer: Battle must be fought...
- In our opinion: Utah sees improvement in...
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 57
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 38
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 34
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30