Marcy Kaptur owes us an explanation for voting against an audit of the Federal Reserve

I rarely agree with Marcy Kaptur. She first appeared on the ballot the first year I was able to vote and she's been my representative in Congress for all of my adult life.

She's a Democrat - and one of the most liberal ones - so it's no surprise that I disagree with her positions, policies and votes.

But I agreed with her support of a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. She co-sponsored legislation in 2009 to authorize an audit, though that bill was never brought before the House for a vote.

So it was a welcome relief when she co-sponsored H.R. 459 - a bill to 'audit the Fed' - that is essentially the same as the 2009 bill.

Last week, the House voted on H.R. 459 and it passed by a vote of 327-98. The 98 against the bill included one Republican and 97 Democrats.

Imagine my surprise when I learned that Kaptur - a sponsor - voted AGAINST the bill.

She's railed against the lack of transparency and the collusion of the Federal Reserve with the 'evil banksters' for years now. Why in the world would she vote against a bill she's supported for at least three years?!?

She wasn't alone - seven other Democrats, also sponsors, voted no as well. Dennis Kucinich, the primary opponent she defeated, remained consistent and supported the bill. I can only wonder what his supporters will say about this.

None of the eight flip-floppers have provided a statement.

Regardless of our political affiliation, one thing constituents should be able to count on is consistency in the positions of those we elect - even when we disagree.

Marcy Kaptur owes all of us an explanation and we should demand it now.

Here is a link to her contact page. Her Washington telephone number is (202) 225-4146. Her Toledo telephone number is (419) 259-7500. She also has a toll-free number (800) 964-4699.

If you find out why she flipped on this issue, be sure to let us know.

Should the Federal Reserve be abolished?

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is asking that question - and more - and giving you a chance to express yourself. Additionally, they're awarding a $2,000 prize for the winning entry.

2011 Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Competition

FEE invites writers to address the following:

"Should the Federal Reserve be abolished? What monetary system should replace it?"

The deadline is midnight on Dec. 31st. There is a maximum length of 2,000 words and entries (only one per person) can be emailed to essaycontest@fee.org

They will also publish the winning essay in their magazine, The Freeman.

Of course, there are eligibility rules with the traditional exclusions:

The Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Competition is open to writers from around the world, including students, freelance writers, teachers and professors, and business professionals. There is no minimum or maximum age for entrants. FEE employees (and their immediate family members), trustees, and Freeman editors and columnists are not eligible.

Also, if you decide to submit an entry, I'd be happy to publish it here as a guest post.

So for all those who've been railing against the Fed and its unaccountability, here's your chance! Good Luck!

Was Charles Lindbergh Sr. a prophet?

On December 22, 1913, the day before President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, in a speech before the House of Representatives, Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., (R-MN) said:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress... The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government."

Was he a prophet? Or just wise enough to understand the long-term implications of the decision?