Letters to the Editor

May 21, 2010

Sorting out politics and monetary policy

To the editor:

I've heard a lot of talk lately about how a full audit of the Federal Reserve would "politicize" monetary policy. I have, however, yet to hear anyone give an adequate explanation of what they mean by that.

Are they implying that monetary policy is somehow not politicized when Congress isn't involved in it? Are they really saying that keeping Congress out of the loop somehow prevents monetary policy from being manipulated for the benefit of special interests?

Monetary policy is already as politicized as it can possibly get, and maybe it should be. The question is, in whose favor is it politicized? American taxpayers or the international bankers who are now in the process of bailing out European banks with our tax dollars?


I would argue that monetary policy would be more likely to be politicized in favor of the majority of American citizens if it were controlled by the people's (admittedly erstwhile) representatives in Congress than by a global cartel of private bankers who are completely motivated by personal profit at the expense of the economic well-being of the nation.

Apparently, the framers of the U.S. Constitution felt the same way when they placed the responsibility for creating currency and setting monetary policy in the hands of the U.S. House of Representatives.

If America wants to change the Constitution to give private corporations a blank check in formulating monetary policy, then let's do it. Until then, we're violating the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and are thus operating under a system of anarchy, engineered for the benefit of a wealthy few.

Regan Straley
Mercersburg, Pa.

Why pick on Sarah Palin?

To the editor:

Sarah Palin burst onto the scene after being named as the vice presidential candidate alongside John McCain.

Why has this accomplished woman caused such a stir? She has been adored and vilified from the outset.

Talking heads such as Joy Behar and Rachel Maddow are nearly obsessed with calling her unkind names at every opportunity. Other politically connected liberal females constantly refer to her as being unqualified to seek higher office.

The truth remains that she was an extremely popular governor of the state with the largest land mass in America. Yes, she came on the scene somewhat unprepared for the liberal press and its decision to marginalize her as a candidate for the second highest office in our country, but that national interview with Katie Couric appeared to be designed to put her down.

Women dislike her for several reasons. She is a straight talker and represents an unsophisticated political perspective. She is the mother of a mentally challenged child and is against abortion on demand. She is not afraid to express her religious beliefs. And she can do what most women never could - use a firearm to hunt large game. They are jealous of her because she is so accomplished.

This country needs all of the conservative-minded women in public life that are available to direct America's destiny. There are many that I could mention, but the list is quite long. You already know their names. And I applaud their outspoken rhetoric on radio and cable TV.

Ned A. Garrett

The Herald-Mail Articles