In your considerations, you be aware that an unnamed system of checks and balances placed
on the politicians is nothing new. The Federal Reserve Board founded in 1913 serves as a check
and balance upon the politicians.
If the politicians were in charge of the country’s creation and printing of money, it would be possible
for the politicians a few months before elections to order the creation of more money. The politicians
might create an inflation of surplus money before elections or er-elections, and by doing so create
a cash boom of prosperity that would help elect them.
Creating a seeming boom of prosperity would facilitate the politician’s election or re-election. A sense
of “Prosperity” creates votes since many people, unfortunately tend to vote their pocketbook. If they do
not vote their pocket book, the economic situation still influences their voting.
Instead of allowing this to happen regularly, as I suggest it might, The Federal Reserve Board was put
in charge of the amount of money created as well as its printing. The politicians can then not create a
false economic boom to look good at election time.
Please note that the Federal Reserve Board is a true check on politicians within the meaning of the term
“checks and balances”. This power to create money was taken away from them. Here we might face the
fact too much money or financial power is a temptation for politicians that they should not be subjected to.
It is really unfair to them.
As the Federal Reserve Board took creation of money out of the hands of politicians, I suggest a similar
check on financial power should be voted on by the people in the spending, budgeting and borrowing of
money by politicians.
As the creation of money and printing of it was moved to the Federal Reserve Board, the spending and
borrowing of money should be moved to the direct vote by the people on big financial issues. How can
we allow the creation of money to be taken out of the hands of politicians, but not allow the spending of
it, which is more important, not be left to the politicians?
While the Federal Reserve Board was created to take away the power of the politicians to create money,
why then should the people not have a similar means to limit the spending and borrowing of politicians.
To have one without the other is illogical and inconsistent and fiscally not sane. We need to complete
the total picture of fiscally responsible conduct! (We have one financial faucet off while the other runs wild.)
This is senseless conduct.
The Federal Reserve Board bars any wrong moves by politicians in trying to create cash. Why then may
the people not use or find another check and balance, like the direct vote of the people on big issues like
national finance: borrowing, debt, and spending.
The British historian, Lord Acton, commented to the effect that power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts
absolutely. That is the thinking behind the theory of checks and balances! If we check the politician’s
power on creation of money. We must plug all the rat holes, not just one.
If the rat holes are to be plugged, that should be done by direct vote by the people. It is not fair to the
Federal Reserve Board to subject it to the ravenous attacks of money hungry jackal politicians out to buy
voters, and the politicians dutiful following of bureaucratic hyenas.
Only the people in voting will dare safely say, “No,” to the wolf-hungry Washington politicians crazed by
a desire for government money to be used to influence voters. Only the people may be relied upon to dare
stand up to the Washington fiasco, the play within the play. And it is they. The people who will dare stand
up to be counted, we should salute and place our hopes for democracy in.