Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for June, 2010

>Yankees Come Back In 10th, Defeat Dodgers


Sun, Jun 27, 2010 – 8:05 PM ET
FINAL in 10th 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R H E
Yankees 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 2
Dodgers 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0

Cano a hero for the Yankees in 10th

 Dodgers manager Joe Torre argues with umpire Chris Guccione after Garret Anderson was ejected.
Dodgers manager Joe Torre argues with umpire Chris Guccione after Garret Anderson was ejected…
Updated Jun 28, 2010 8:01 AM ET


Just when the Los Angeles Dodgers thought their lead was safe in the hands of one of the game’s best closers, the mighty Yankees snatched away a win.
MLB's best rivalries


Which traditional and modern feuds make the cut in our top 10 baseball rivalries?

Robinson Cano hit a two-run homer in the 10th inning after the Yankees rallied with four runs in the ninth offJonathan Broxton and New York beat Los Angeles 8-6 in 10 innings Sunday night in a stunning ending to manager Joe Torre’s first series against his old team.
“What a game!” Alex Rodriguez said. “That’s as good a win as we’ve had in a long, long time.”
Mark Teixeira led off the 10th with a single offRamon Troncoso (1-2) and Alex Rodriguez grounded into a force play. Torre brought in left-hander George Sherrill, whose second pitch was driven into the left-field pavilion by Cano for his 15th homer.
“I was just looking for a pitch to hit,” said Cano, a lefty who didn’t know he was 0 for 11 against Sherrill. “I came through at the right time.”
Rodriguez added, “It looked like a right-handed power hitter hit that.”


Celebrites enjoy going to games as much as regular folks do. They just get better seats. Check out our gallery of stars at the ballpark.

Mariano Rivera (2-1) pitched two scoreless innings to get the victory.
“He’s the greatest,” A-Rod said. “He never seems to disappoint.”
The AL East-leading Yankees took two of three from the Dodgers, the opposite result of when the teams last met in the 2004 regular season at Dodger Stadium. The Yankees won Friday’s opener 2-1, then lost 9-4 Saturday, giving Torre his first victory against the team he managed to four World Series titles before leaving in 2007.
“A great comeback,” Yankees starter Andy Pettitte said. “It was fun to watch and guys were fired up. It was almost like a playoff atmosphere the way they were locked in.”
The Dodgers have lost eight of their last 10 games.
“They’re dangerous and they keep coming at you,” Torre said about his old team. “There’s no soft spot in that lineup, so you don’t count your chickens until you can get ’em all in the barn. Unfortunately, we came up a little short.”
Broxton entered the game in a non-save situation with a 6-2 lead, but faced nine batters and threw 48 pitches. He began the inning by striking out Teixeira, but the next five Yankees reached base.
“It feels like it’s our first come-from-behind win we’ve had all year,” Yankees manager JoeGirardi said. “It’s a big win for us.”

Cano is greeted by teammates after his two-run homer in the 10th. Jae C. Hong
Cano hit an RBI double and Chad Huffman had a two-run single with the bases loaded to bring New York within a run. Colin Curtis followed with a grounder to first and James Loneystepped on the bag before firing home too late to get Curtis Granderson with the tying run.
“It’s upsetting. I didn’t get the job done. I let the team down,” Broxton said. “They hit some balls that found holes. We had a four-run lead and I just couldn’t hold on.”
Torre said Loney could have done two things with the grounder that scored the tying run.
“He could have gone straight to the plate or he could have gone for the double play,” he said. “Unfortunately, once he stepped back, he lost his momentum to the plate. It was just one of those things.”
Ronnie Belliard hit a solo homer in the fourth for Los Angeles.
The Dodgers capitalized on two botched bunt plays by Pettitte in the third, when they batted around. They bunted three consecutive times and Pettitte made errant throws on two of them.
“I feel like I gave the game to them with the bad throws I made,” he said.
Johnson doubled to lead off before Pettitte misplayed Clayton Kershaw‘s sacrifice bunt. The veteran pitcher’s throw to third got past Rodriguez, allowing Johnson to score the Dodgers’ first run.
Rafael Furcal reached on a bunt single and Belliard laid down another bunt that Pettitte fielded with a quick glance at third, and then made a throw to first that went into the runner and got past second baseman Cano, who was covering at first.
Kershaw scored on the play and Andre Ethier‘s sacrifice fly made it 3-0.
Kershaw allowed a two-run homer to A-Rod and four hits in seven innings, struck out five and didn’t walk anyone for the first time in his career.


Is there an athlete less popular than A-Rod? Check out Forbes’ list of the top 10 most disliked sports figures.

Pettitte gave up five runs and six hits in five innings, equaling his shortest outing of the season. The 38-year-old left-hander struck out five and walked three.
“I want to go seven, eight innings, so I’m kicking myself for sure,” he said. “I’m kicking myself on the throws and a few pitch selections.”
Rodriguez hit a two-out, two-run homer in the sixth — his 11th of the season and 594th of his career — that left the Yankees trailing 5-2.
Manny Ramirez had to duck out of the way of a pitch thrown over his head by Damaso Marte in the seventh, then Derek Jeter got buzzed byRonald Belisario as he was squaring to bunt in the eighth.
NOTES: The Dodgers optioned RHP Jon Link to Triple-A Albuquerque to make room for RHPChad Billingsley, who is slated to start Monday at San Francisco. … Dodgers pinch-hitterGarret Anderson got ejected for arguing balls and strikes in the ninth by plate umpire Chris Guccione. Russell Martin took a called third strike in the 10th, slammed his bat and got ejected, the third L.A. player booted in the series. … Yankees LF Brett Gardner left the game with a bruised right forearm in the fourth. No X-rays were necessary and he’s day-to-day. … Torre and Rodriguez finally met up, greeting each other with a hug behind the batting cage. “I wanted to be a gentleman and do the right thing,” A-Rod said. “It was important to not let things linger.” … Yankees manager Joe Girardi said pitching coach Dave Eiland will return to the club on Tuesday after a personal leave of absence that began June 4.
Play Baseball Hot Streak – Build a Streak, Win Cash Prizes

>Civility Customs Be Damned!

>Today on the Dennis Miller radio show, hosted by Tucker Carlson, the question came up about the recently deceased Senator Robert Bird (92). Should we be able to criticize his past, or is that covered in the unwritten civility rules?

Tucker decided to criticize him on grounds that 1. he had criticized him heavily during his life for being a deep racist, a member of the Klu Klux Clan, KKK. Indeed he was, and he was one of the biggest racists this country has ever known.Throughout his long political career the liberal press has always given him a pass because he’s a progressive. There is an unwritten rule about criticizing liberals in the liberal press. Baloney – it shouldn’t be that way!

I believe it is right and proper to discuss both sides of a person’s past, living or dead, if they are public officials. There is no law against it, but in the past some liver-lillied Republicans refused to say anything about such people as Ted Kennedy who as you recall was responsible for the drowning death of Mary Jo Kapecnick, a girl he was driving home from Nantucket Sound and a party at his Kennedy Family compound.
If you recall, Kennedy was married at this time to his first wife.

That was a case of Kennedy being drunk, or partially so. He caused his car to go into the water and refused to try to rescue the girl. He didn’t even call 911 for emergency help because he didn’t want to get thrown into the slammer for drunk driving. Hey, what about murder charges? He was, in essence, responsible for the murder of that girl. He could have gotten 20 years for aggravated manslaughter. I think Massachusetts has a law that if you kill someone while intoxicated, you go down for a murder charge – maybe not murder one or even murder two, but manslaughter. Wouldn’t that have changed everything had he been charged as he should have been and been made to pay for that life he took like normal folks have to pay for their crimes. But being a Kennedy, the County Sheriff let him off, didn’t charge him.

I think people like Orin Hatch, (R-Utah) who was very friendly to Kennedy are partly responsibile for this kind of thing. Why would a non-drinker countenance Kennedy’s behavior by being buddy-buddy with him, co-sponsor liberal laws with him, and generally make himself look like a liberal ass for the rest of his political career, hanging onto him in a personal relationship that didn’t warrant it in my view.

I believe that Orin Hatch is a very good and humble man. Not too smart, but apparently so far the Utah voters don’t seem to care about that. They all look at him as a conservative. In a way he is. However, he countenanced, did not criticize until late in the game, the TARP money and Obama’s stimulus to banks. I believe that kind of stimulus was over the top and shouldn’t have been allowed. Being as experienced as he was, Hatch should have seen it coming and at the get-go been on top of this issue and criticized it.

In summary, I side with Tucker Carlson. Go ahead and criticize public figures after death. We need more decency in public office and less looking the other way, even after death. Bird’s and Kennedy’s behavior during their lives have been largely overlooked and forgiven. But should it be forgiven?

>Sign Amnesty Reg, Obama, And Get Impeached!


Vision to America exists to help America return to our Founding Father’s vision for a Christian Republic. It is our Vision to see Americans once again recognize that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights and that this Creator is the God of the Bible. Read More About Us »
Join the 170,000 people following Vision to America

O’Reilly: Obama Could Face Impeachment If He Pardons Illegals

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is warning that if President Barack Obama ever bypasses Congress and uses his pardon power to make millions of illegal aliens citizens, he could face serious calls for his impeachment.

“If President Obama were to sign an executive order giving illegal aliens amnesty, his career would be over and an impeachment movement would explode,” O’Reilly said Friday night on his “Talking Points” segment during his top-rated Fox show.

>Guns Approved By Supreme Court 5-4


Vision to America News & Special Offers

June 28, 2010

Members of Congress had better get their resumes together and start looking for jobs. 2010 will be The Second American Revolution.
  • 5-PACK
  • SIZE: 4″ x 8″
  • Weatherproof/UV protection
  • Non-residue

“Experience the miraculous story of America’s book… the story your children will never hear in government schools.”

AMERICA: The Untold StoryDVD
RETAIL $19.95 • YOUR PRICE: $17.95 • ORDER NOW!
The information on this DVD may change your perspective about what it means to be an American…
Winner of the coveted Angel Award, America: The Untold Story is now available as a DVD presentation. The talented video team at American Vision has transformed this best-selling audio drama into a visually-stunning video for the whole family. Based on documented historical facts, this fully-dramatized video is designed to open the eyes of American citizens so that they can see the miraculous and providential hand of God in our nation’s history.
The illustrations, musical score, narration and acting are first class. A companion booklet is included that provides a time-line of historical events, the historical documents included in this video, selected books for further study, and information on what you can do to help restore the American Vision. DVD Running Time: 35 Minutes
RETAIL $19.95 • YOUR PRICE: $17.95 • ORDER NOW!
Arizona Sheriff Stands up to Federal Gov. and Wins…
The County Sheriff: America’s Last HopeBy Sheriff Richard Mack


Sheriff Mack’s newest book covers decades of research to prove once and for all that the sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law authority in their respective jurisdictions. The sheriff absolutely has the power and responsiblity to defend his citizens against all enemies, including those from our own Federal Government. History, case law, common law and common sense all show clear evidence that the sheriff is the people’s protector in all issues of injustice and is responsible for keeping the peace in all matters. He is the last line of defense for his constituents; he is America’s last hope to regain our forgotten freedom. This short but powerful book is a must read for all citizens, sheriffs, and government officials that we may all work to return America to the constitutional republic she was meant to be. Amazing as it might be, the sheriff can make this happen! Paperback, 50 Pages.

Retail: $10.95 • ONLY $8.95, 
Arizona Sheriff Says, “Guns Required to Preserve Liberty.”
From My Cold Dead Fingers By Sheriff Richard Mack

“Every American home should have this book in it.” 
– G. Gordon Liddy


Sheriff Mack clearly outlines why the unrestricted right of the people as individuals “to keep and bear arms” is essential to the preservation of both individual liberty and domestic tranquility. Mack reminds us of facts that were self-evident to earlier generations of Americans, but which are all but forgotten in today’s climate of incessant cries for more gun control. Concise and compelling, this book is an indispensable resource for any lover of freedom. This is one of the most essential books ever written on the Second Amendment. Paperback, 224 pages.

Retail: $15.95 • ONLY $12.95, 
The Bible the ACLU does NOT want you to read
Back in print after 400 years!
1599 Geneva Bible: Patriot’s Edition

“The Bible of The Second American Revolution”

This Special Edition Includes:

• 1599 Geneva Bible Text
• 300,000 Study Notes
• Prayer of George Washington
• The Magna Carta
• The Mayflower Compact
• The Declaration of Independence
• The Articles of Confederation
• The Constitution of the United States
• Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
• Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior

Between 1560 and 1599, The Geneva Bible was providentially unleashed upon a dark, discouraged, downtrodden English speaking world. Just when it looked as if the Machiavellian, Divine Right kings, such as the Tudors of England, were about to drive Christendom back to the days of Caesar worship, a Bible appeared that set the stage for a Christian Reformation of life and culture the likes of which the world had never seen. By the time of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, just 28 years after the first printing of the Geneva Bible, it was already being said of the English that they were becoming a “people of the Book.” The results of a people reading and obeying the Word of God were the explosion of faith, character, the first missionary movement in history, literature, economic blessing, and political and religious freedom.

The Pilgrims brought the 1599 Geneva Bible with them when they arrived in the New World in 1620. All but forgotten in our day, this version of the Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A superb translation, it was the product of the best Protestant scholars of the day and became the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers and thinkers of that time. Men such as William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and John Milton used the Geneva Bible in their writings. William Bradford also cited the Geneva Bible in his famous book Of Plymouth Plantation.

The Geneva Bible is unique among all other Bibles. It was the first Bible to use chapters and numbered verses and became the most popular version of its time because of the extensive marginal notes. These more than 300,000 notes were included to explain and interpret the scriptures for the common people.

Tolle Lege Press has partnered with White Hall Press to release of a beautiful new edition of the historic 1599 Geneva Bible – Patriot’s Edition!

The Patriot’s Edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible is the same Scripture, word for word, that the Pilgrims brought to America nearly 400 years ago. This new edition, however, features a prayer by George Washington, which begins…

“O eternal and everlasting God, i presume to present myself this morning before thy divine majesty, beseeching thee to accept of my humble and hearty thanks, that it hath pleased thy great goodness to keep and preserve me the night past from all the dangers poor mortals are subject to, and has given me sweet and pleasant sleep, whereby i find my body refreshed and comforted for performing the duties of this day, in which i beseech thee to defend me from all perils of body and soul…”

This edition also includes the following historical documents, which are based upon Biblical principles:

  • The Magna Carta
  • The Mayflower Compact
  • The Declaration of Independence
  • The Articles of Confederation
  • The Constitution of the United States
  • Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
  • Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior

“The publication and promulgation of the 1599 Geneva Bible will help restore America’s rich Christian heritage and reclaim the culture for Christ.” – Dr. D. James Kennedy, Senior Pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church

Retail: $35.95 • ORDER FOR ONLY $24.95 • ORDER ONLINE!
© 2010 Vision To America ™ — A Division of Christian Worldview Communications, LLC
457 Nathan Dean BLVD • Suite 105-373 • Dallas, GA 30132

>Are Jewish Bankers Behind New World Order and Deaths of Lincoln, Kennedy, and Other Patriots


 Henry Makow Ph.D.  | February 12, 2005

Let’s begin by defining the “New World Order.”

The mainspring of the New World Order is the desire on the part of the world’s central bankers to translate their vast economic power into permanent global institutions of political and social control.

Their power is based on their monopoly over credit. They use the government’s credit to print money, and require the taxpayer to fork over billions in interest to them.

Central banks like the Federal Reserve pretend to be government institutions. They are not. They are privately owned by perhaps 300 families. It is significant that the majority of these families are Jewish, how significant I am not yet sure. If they were Lutherans or Zulus, certainly our objections would be the same.

I am a non-observant Jew who believes this situation is lethal for humanity and Jews alike. We have already seen the tragic consequences of it in World War II.

The American inventor Thomas Edison described this colossal scam, which the New World Order is designed to perpetuate, as follows:

“It is absurd to say our country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the people.”

Central banks also control the supply of credit to businesses and individuals. Robert Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta describes this untenable situation.

“This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is… It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.” “

When the Federal Reserve was inaugurated in 1913, a London banker acknowledged that it is a scam.

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class… The great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending, will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (contrary) to their interests.”


Obviously printing money should be in the public sphere as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. This anomalous situation is thesource of humanity’s woes. It pits the people who control the economy against society as a whole. It is in their interest to destabilize society, foster immorality, internal division (like gay marriage) and war in order to increase debt and distract and control the masses.

The bankers are responsible for social engineering programs such as the (homo) sexual revolution, feminism and multiculturalism, which undermine family and social cohesion. This fundamental antagonism also supports a vast criminal underworld actually run by the elites.

The bankers are responsible for the assassinations of presidents like Lincoln and JFK, and for the attack on the World Trade Center. They own or control the mass media, which legitimizes George W. Bush, the war in Iraq and the impending attack on Iran. War provides an excuse to introduce the draft and a repressive police state.

Success today is based on a person’s willingness to become an accomplice, witting or unwitting, to the banker fraud. Even rich entrepreneurs are dependent on credit and are unwilling to support genuine change.

As a result of the bankers’ scam, Western society and culture are based on a fraud. We do not have genuine democracy or equal access to the mass media or open and truthful education. Western society is a fraud, run by cowards who know they’re frauds.


The New World Order is a hydra-headed monster. The bankers work through many fronts such as Communism, socialism, liberalism, feminism, Zionism, neo conservatism and Freemasonry. Unknown to most members, these “progressive” movements are all secretly devoted to “world revolution” which is a euphemism for banker hegemony. (See my “Rothschild Conducts Red Symphony”)

The bankers control the world’s major corporations, media, intelligence agencies, think tanks, foundations and universities. They are responsible for suppressing the truth. Jews figure prominently in all of this, a cause of anti Semitism. Of course many other people are pursuing “success” as well.

The bankers also work through countries. They are largely responsible for British and American imperialism, whose aim is to monopolize the world’s wealth. In his book “The Jews” (1922) British social critic Hilaire Belloc writes that the British Empire represented a partnership between Jewish finance and the British aristocracy.

“After Waterloo [1815] London became the money market and the clearing house of the world. The interests of the Jew as a financial dealer and the interests of this great commercial polity approximated more and more. One may say that by the last third of the nineteenth century, they had become virtually identical.”

The confluence of Jewish and British interest extended to marriage.

“Marriages began to take place, wholesale, between what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this country and the Jewish commercial fortunes. After two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century, those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood was the exception.

In nearly all of them was the strain more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still an English name and the traditions those of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish…”

If the marriage of Al Gore’s daughter with Jacob Schiff’s grandson is any indication, this mingling of Jewish and Gentile elites extends to America as well. John Forbes Kerry is another example.

Belloc continues to say that the British and Jewish goal of world domination was synonymous and used Freemasonry as an instrument.

“Specifically Jewish institutions, such as Freemasonry (which the Jews had inaugurated as a sort of bridge between themselves and their hosts in the seventeenth century) were particularly strong in Britain, and there arose a political tradition, active, and ultimately to prove of great importance, whereby the British state was tacitly accepted by foreign governments as the official protector of the Jews in other countries.

It was Britain which was expected to intervene [wherever Jewish persecution took place and] to support the Jewish financial energies throughout the world, and to receive in return the benefit of that connection.”

If Belloc is right, you could say the New World Order is an extension of the British Empire, in which elite British, American and Jewish interests are indistinguishable. See also my “The Jewish Conspiracy is British Imperialism.”


The majority of Jews would want no part of the New World Order a.k.a. “globalization” if they understood its undemocratic character and how they are being used.

The true Jewish spirit holds that truth and morality are absolute and cannot be trimmed to fit one’s perceived self interest. G.J. Nueberger expresses this spirit in his essay “The Great Gulf Between Zionism and Judaism.”

“The Jewish people are chosen not for domination over others, not for conquest or warfare, but to serve G-d and thus to serve mankind…Thus physical violence is not a tradition or a value of the Jews. The task for which the Jewish people were chosen is not to set an example of military superiority or technical achievements, but to seek perfection in moral behaviour and spiritual purity.

Of all the crimes of political Zionism, the worst and most basic, and which explains all its other misdeeds, is that from its beginning Zionism has sought to separate the Jewish people from their G-d, to render the divine covenant null and void, and to substitute a “modern” statehood and fraudulent sovereignty for the lofty ideals of the Jewish people.”

The bankers obviously aren’t concerned about true Judaism or racial purity and were quite willing to sacrifice millions of Jews to achieve their design by backing Hitler. They are sacrificing thousands more Jewish, American and Muslim lives in the Middle East in their Orwellian “perpetual war for perpetual peace.”

Does the New World Order serve a “Jewish” agenda or a banker elite agenda?

I would venture that it serves the latter, and the Jewish people are an instrument of this agenda like so many other people.By giving private individuals the ability to create money out of nothing, we have created a monster which threatens to devour the planet and with it the human race.

>Fantastic Picture of Doctored Plant Life


These are  not dyed or doctored, they have been bred to grow this way. They are  gorgeous !!!!   Each petal is a different color!

You are 1 of my  11, don’t open until you can respond.  

Hi – I am picking 11 people who have touched  my life and who I think would want to receive this. Please send it back to  me (You’ll see why).    

In case you are not aware! ,  Saint Theresa is known as the Saint of the Little Ways, meaning she believed  in doing the little things in life well and with great love.     

She is represented by roses.. May everyone who  receives this message be blessed.    

Theresa ‘s  Prayer cannot be deleted.    

REMEMBER to make a wish  before you read the prayer. That’s all you have to do. There is nothing  attached. Just share this with people and see what happens on the fourth  day…    

Sorry you have to forward the message, but  try not to break this, please.    

Prayer is one of  the best free gifts we receive. Rea d the prayer below.     

Saint Theresa ‘s Prayer  
May today there be peace within.    
May you  trust God that you are exactly where you are meant to be.  
May you  not forget the infinite possibilities that are born of faith.     
May you use those gifts that you have received, and  pass on the love that has been given to you.    
May you  be confident knowing  you are a child of God. Let this presence settle  into your bones, and allow your soul the freedom to sing, dance, praise and  love.    
It is there for each and every one of us.     

Now, send this to 11 people within the next 5 minutes. And remember to send this back… I count as 1….you’ll see why. 

>G-20 Rules The World And Obama Bows

>You can read about the pressure each nation is putting on the other. America’s Barak Obama’s desire to keep on spending were overridden by Canada’s Stephen Harper who got backing from Germany and Britain, and the rest of the world, thank goodness, to have every nation stop spending and start reducing their deficits.

The target date that Obama blatantly announced was cutting the deficit in half by 2013.

Nothing like putting the pressure on taxpayers of a beleagured nation still feeling the effects of an 18-month recession that Obama made worse by his spending. But he wants popularity more than anything. Especially approval of the member states and their leaders, those in G-20. So he will come back and put a massive tax on Americans – possibly the Value Added Tax (VAT) and will suffocate business and increase joblessness in America so we’ll really need a bailout from China, a country with plenty of cash.

Here is the NY Times story. G-20 is suggesting an international bank tax. So now we have  G-20 ruling the world, just what Obama wanted, folks. What happened to the U.S. Constitution in all of this? Taxation without representation is illegal. It’s what caused the war between the Colonies and Great Britain. The people will revolt when the above tax is levied – at least Americans will. This is too much at a time when we should be repealing authorization for the progressive’s income tax and the Federal Reserve System which was the motivation for the income tax. After all, how can you give the Fed money to stabalize banks if you don’t have a method of collecting money from citizens? Both of these should go. We should cut our deficit in half as soon as possible, but with a new administration. The progressives – Democrats and Republicans – must GO back home and do something else with their time. They’ve miserably failed, let’s face it.

World Leaders Agree on Timetable for Cutting Deficits

TORONTO — Leaders of the world’s biggest economies agreed Sunday on a timetable for cutting deficits and halting the growth of their debt, but also acknowledged the need to move carefully so that reductions in spending did not set back the fragile global recovery.
Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
President Obama cautioned that “our fiscal health tomorrow will rest in no small measure on our ability to create jobs today.”
Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
President Obama and other world leaders at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Toronto on Sunday.
The action at the Group of 20 summit meeting here signaled the determination of many of the wealthiest countries, after enacting spending programs to counter the worldwide financial crisis, to now emphasize debt reduction. And it underscored the conviction of European nations in particular that deficits represented the biggest threat to their economic stability.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had consistently advocated a measured approach to debt reduction that would not stymie growth and lead to a double-dip recession.
The United States, however, joined other countries at the summit meeting, which was met by protests and several hundred arrests, by endorsing a goal of cutting government deficits in half by 2013 and stabilizing the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product by 2016. Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, had proposed the targets, backed by Germany and Britain.
To assuage objections from the United States, Japan, India and some other countries, the timetable was couched as an expectation, rather than a firm deadline. The G-20 joint statement explicitly stated that Japan, which is heavily dependent on domestic borrowing, was not expected to meet the targets.
The divisions were in contrast to the unity that characterized the previous three G-20 leaders’ summits, when the urgency of a potential global collapse produced solidarity and a unified economic approach. Although Mr. Obama insisted emphatically that there was “violent agreement” on the need to reduce debt over time, the final communiqué included a delicately worded call for deficit reduction “tailored to national circumstances.” In essence, the leaders were blessing their decision to go their own ways.
The joint statement acknowledged both sides of the debate. “There is a risk that synchronized fiscal adjustment across several major economies could adversely impact the recovery,” the statement said. “There is also a risk that the failure to implement consolidation where necessary would undermine confidence and hamper growth.”
In a news conference at the conclusion of the summit meeting, Mr. Obama referred only indirectly to the disagreement with Europe, saying, “We must recognize that our fiscal health tomorrow will rest in no small measure on our ability to create jobs today.”
His concern about stimulus was echoed by some economists who viewed the pledge on deficits as imperiling the prospects for growth.
“China’s growth, specifically, is not seen as sustainable at current rates,” Ronald A. Kurtz, professor of global economics and management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in an e-mail message. “The G-20 declaration therefore amounts to saying ‘assume a miracle’ for global growth.” He said Europe’s fiscal austerity plans would also slow growth.
But Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, said he thought the risks of a new downturn were minimal.
“We don’t forecast any double dip,” he said. “Double dip was not discussed at the meeting.”
It is the first time the G-20 has set dates for deficit reduction, but the timetable, which is not binding, will probably not require new policy actions. Most of the governments, including the United States, have already put forward budget proposals in line with the targets.
The leaders also discussed banking regulations, but could not agree on a proposal for a global bank tax, supported by the United States, Britain and the European Union, but opposed by Canada and Australia.
And while the G-20 reaffirmed a deadline — their next meeting, in November in Seoul, South Korea — for agreeing on new capital standards for banks, they signaled that several countries might not implement the standards by 2012, as initially planned.
“While the illusion of progress is good, I don’t see real action to alter the imbalances that brought us to this crisis,” said Raghuram G. Rajan, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund who is now a professor in the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago.
The United States, he said, continues to run large trade deficits financed by Germany, China and Japan. “The U.S. has been the world’s consumer of first resort,” he added, “and because it has been unable to persuade other countries to spend more or to reform quickly, it is likely to take up that position once again.”
Though Mr. Obama did not prevail in his emphasis on stimulus, he did arrive in Canada with three victories under his belt.
European leaders had agreed to conduct stress tests on their big banks, an exercise successfully undertaken in the United States last year, in an effort to restore market confidence. China had announced that it would allow a gradual appreciation of its currency. And Congressional negotiators had agreed on a far-reaching overhaul offinancial regulations.
But those accomplishments did not alter the mix of lagging growth, heavy debts and anxious voters that pushed European leaders to press for austerity.
“The U.S. may be concentrated on premature fiscal tightening, but most other countries are looking with a nervous eye to the sovereign debt mess in Europe,” said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a Harvard economist and former I.M.F. chief economist. “Aiming for a gradually improving debt-to-G.D.P. ratio by 2016 is hardly wild-eyed fiscal conservatism.”
In that light, the G-20 outcome was a victory for Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who argued that without actions to rein in spending, investors would drive up governments’ borrowing costs, as they did in Greece.
Mr. Obama said, “We helped to draft this communiqué, which reflects our policies,” and added, “Keep in mind that we had already proposed a long time ago that we were going to cut our deficits in half by 2013.”
He continued, “We can’t all rush to the exits at the same time.” But he also said that for all the talk of German austerity, it was actually reducing its spending gradually, and not any more quickly than the United States.
While aides to Mr. Obama said that the G-20 statement was in line with budget plans he had already announced, others said it was a move toward austerity.
“The best thing that countries with fiscal challenges can do is to show that they can live within their means,” George Osborne, Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer, said. “Barack Obama has recognized that.”
The mood here was far less anxious than in November 2008, when the G-20 leaders converged for the first time, in Washington, to battle a still-raging financial crisis. But it was hardly cheery.
While China did not make any new commitments, the G-20 statement appealed to China to increase spending on infrastructure, let its currency fluctuate and strengthen social protections.
Those actions are part of what economists call rebalancing — a reorientation of the world economy to be less reliant on debt-financed spending by North American and Western European consumers. China is the largest growth engine but its workers save too much and spend too little, some economists say.
At China’s urging, the G-20 leaders removed from their joint statement a proposed clause that would have praised China for agreeing to greater exchange-rate flexibility. Mr. Harper said he understood China’s wish not to be singled out, for either criticism or praise, but added, “When you make commitments on the world stage, you will be held accountable for them.”

>Creators of Federal Reserve System: Paul Warburg and Henry Wallich


ers of the Federal Reserve Board.

Michael A. Whitehouse
May 1989

Whitehouse is staff assistant in the Office of the Secretary at the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C. He has written and lectured extensively on the early history of the Federal Reserve System and U.S. banking.
In paying tribute recently to Henry Wallich, late member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Bankers Magazine noted that Wallich was a successor, in more than one respect, to Paul Warburg. Both of these board members were emigrants from Germany—and from the higher circles of German and European finance. Warburg, a member of the first Federal Reserve Board, like Wallich, was a staunch advocate of sound finance. Both, having witnessed the strengths and weaknesses of the European banking system during economic debacles as younger men, brought their experience to the United States committed to putting those lessons to use.
It’s been said that Governor Wallich’s speeches and essays represent one of the best financial histories of our time. The same can certainly be said of Warburg’s writings, speeches and testimony for the period after the turn of the century. His life’s work constitutes perhaps the best history of the development of central banking in the United States and mirrors its controversies, struggles and the final accomplishment.
It’s seems fitting then, in this 75th anniversary year of the Federal Reserve System, to look at the life of Warburg, one of the System’s architects and staunchest proponents.

Warburg’s Early Banking Experience

Paul Warburg was born in Hamburg in 1868. The offspring of a prominent German banking family, he had been trained in banking in the European financial capitals. After attending the university, at age 18 he began his career in London where for two years he worked for a banking and discounting firm, followed by a short stint with a London stockbroker. After that he moved to France and gained additional experience at the Russian bank for foreign trade, which had an agency in Paris. He then traveled to India, China and Japan before returning to Hamburg to become a partner in M.M. Warburg & Co., the family banking firm.
Warburg’s father had fully expected that Paul would take charge of his family’s banking business along with his brothers Aby and Max, but in 1895 Warburg married an American citizen, Nina Loeb, an accomplished violinist, and began to live part of the year in New York. Six years later, at age 34, he left Germany, took up permanent residency in the United States, and accepted a position as a partner at his father-in-law’s firm, Kuhn, Loeb and Co.—one of Wall Street’s most important and respected banking houses. While adapting quickly to his new business, he still viewed the United States through the eyes of a European banker and was literally shocked at what he considered the primitive status of banking and financial affairs.
In the early 1900s, the nation was suffering from periodic liquidity crises. These crises or “panics” occurred because the banking system was fettered with a rigid amount of currency that could not meet unusual demands, and a system of reserves that pyramided up to New York. During these panics businessmen and farmers were unable to obtain credit to finance inventories and the production and transportation of crops. The crises spread across the country and converged upon Wall Street, resulting in plunges in the stock market, a large number of bank and business failures, and a further shortage of currency.
Such phenomena deeply affected Warburg, a small unassuming man whose most obvious physical characteristic was a large drooping mustache that gave him more the appearance of a tenor in a barbershop quartet than an important international banker.
While small in stature, however, he was hardly tame or timid in his professional assessment of conditions then prevailing in his new country. “The United States,” he said, “is at about the same point that had been reached by Europe at the time of the Medicis.” Witnessing first-hand a period of high interest rates — “where call money went up to 25 and 100 percent,” he felt compelled to “write an article on the subject then and there for [his] own benefit.”
Warburg thought it a bit presumptuous to attempt to educate a country to which he was so new a resident, so when advised by an associate to put the paper aside, he did so and attended to duties at his firm. However, when the same conditions arose in the beginning of 1907, he could hold his tongue no longer, and he began to circulate his writings for the benefit of others as well.

The Panic of 1907

Early in 1907, New York Times Annual Financial Review published Warburg’s first official reform plan, entitled “A Plan for a Modified Central Bank,” in which he outlined remedies that he thought might avert panics, like the great one that would occur later that year. Furthermore, he identified what he saw as the “evils” of the system in the United States — the “decentralization of reserves and the immobilization of [commercial] paper.” To remedy this, he advocated the development of an American discount market and a European-style commercial paper. This system was based partly on a concept known as the “real bills” doctrine, which maintained that the money supply should vary with the short-term “legitimate” needs of business and commerce. By allowing banks to borrow only against short-term loans, the real bills doctrine, in theory, provided liquidity through the discounting (or selling) of loans and at the same time restricted the ability of a central bank to expand the supply of money. Warburg also proposed the creation of a “central reserve” or central bank that would hold the reserve funds of member banks so that collective funds could be made available to a bank in need of liquidity. Both the discounting and reserve concept, he contended, would help make money and credit more elastic and keep interest rates stable.
The Panic of 1907 hit full stride in October. The crash was of such severity that it immediately helped focus public awareness on the problems with the monetary and banking system. Although the issue of a central bank was unpopular because of its connotations of powerful central authority, Congress was now forced to act. The Aldrich-Vreeland Act, passed by Congress in May 1908, provided for the issuance of emergency currency and created a bipartisan National Monetary Commission to study central banking and other alternatives for monetary and banking reform. Warburg would serve this committee and, through his efforts for the commission, achieve an influence on subsequent proposals for reform.

Warburg Meets Sen. Aldrich

Sen. Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was appointed head of the National Monetary Commission. He divided the commission into two groups: one would study the US banking system and compile a report, and the other, headed by the senator himself, would travel to Europe and study the central banking systems in London, Paris and Berlin.
Aldrich was a known advocate of the extant bond-backed currency arrangement, which provided that bank notes could only be issued by national banks on the basis of the amount of US government bonds that were held to back them. However, the 67-year-old Aldrich, who was considered the most influential figure in Congress on financial matters, was committed to exploring new ideas for reform. In 1908, he announced that he would not seek office again and instead would devote his full attention to the currency and banking question.
Meanwhile, Warburg began to enlarge his circle of professional contacts and have his voice heard throughout the country. However, the German banker still didn’t have the ear of the man who mattered most — Aldrich.
Aldrich first met Warburg by chance when the senator was preparing for the European trip and visited Kuhn, Loeb and Co. to gather preliminary material about the German banking system. Following that meeting, the German native began writing to Aldrich outlining his proposals, but Aldrich was cool to Warburg’s plan and deferred his correspondence to A. Piatt Andrew, a Harvard professor whom Aldrich had appointed official secretary of the National Monetary Commission. As new ideas on banking reform began to crystallize for the senator, Andrew brought the work of Warburg to the senator’s attention again and soon Andrew was corresponding with Warburg on behalf of the senator. Warburg was asked to write a study on the “discounting of commercial bills” for the National Monetary Commission, and became an unofficial advisor to the group. However, the banker and the senator still were at loggerheads on the question of what shape the central bank should take in the United States, and on the issue of discounting commercial paper.
In his monograph, “The Discount System in Europe,” Warburg declared that the effective utilization of the discount policy was one of the most impressive victories for central banks in Europe during the Panic of 1907. The only structure that is safe, he concluded, is one that provides for effective concentration of cash reserves and their freest use in case of need, enabling banks, when necessary, to turn into cash a maximum of their assets with a minimum disturbance to general conditions. He noted further that a central bank is able to guard the cash reserve of the country and accommodate nonreserve banks by accepting prime security, like bank-accepted bills.
Warburg, in the meantime, continued his campaign on other fronts. He had followed his first New York Times article with a speech at Columbia University on “American and European Banking Methods and Banking Legislation Compared,” and privately published a new, more complete proposal for a US banking system, entitled “A Modified Plan for a Central Bank.”
In May 1908, the New York Times gave his revised plan prominent coverage. Primarily, Warburg continued to emphasize that the United States must finally develop some sort of central bank system, giving the country an elastic currency based on modern commercial bills payable in gold: a system similar in principle, if not exactly alike in form, to those of the important European central banks. He believed that “no measure that bases currency on a long term basis like the Aldrich-Vreeland Emergency Currency bill, (which allowed banks in regional currency associations to use their aggregate bank balances as the basis for the issuance of currency) can be acceptable.” Also, he stressed that issuing notes “must be centralized into a few organs, or if feasible, into one organ to ensure effective expansion and contraction of reserves.” The tireless reformer further stated that no central bank could be effective that “vests the powers of a central bank in political officers alone. That power clearly defined, ought to be vested in political officers and businessmen combined, in a way that would render impossible any political or financial abuse.” Any hasty decisions on the composition of the directors of a central bank, he said, could stand in the way of the creation of such an organization. Better that those practical and political questions could be worked out after careful consideration.

Warburg’s Contribution

The idea of an “elastic currency,” which would expand to meet the legitimate needs of business and commerce, was not new. In fact, Warburg himself claimed no originality for the idea, but through his writings, speeches and counsel to others he began to have a greater impact than anyone else. Warburg did, however, succeed in injecting two new ideas into the discussion: first, shifting of emphasis from the currency problem to the reserve problem; and second, advocacy of the principle of rediscounting a new kind of commercial paper.
These ideas were starting to be discussed more seriously throughout the country, and other individuals involved in the banking and currency reform movement began to take note. With both the building momentum of other banking reform advocacy groups and Aldrich’s own exposure to the efficient and effective central banking system in Europe, the senator finally opened to these other ideas.
The debate on central banking reform was still in full swing several years after the 1907 Panic. Indeed, it began to heat up, with the American Bankers Association standing opposed to “any form of central bank yet suggested by legislators.” Meanwhile, Warburg, Aldrich and several other prominent figures intensified their efforts and began to form an alliance that was to last over the coming crucial years of the banking reform movement.

Aldrich Reconsiders His Position

The European interviews of the National Monetary Commission had a profound influence upon Aldrich. He had a clear plan for reform when he returned from Europe, radically different from his original beliefs. The change in the senator’s thinking was so drastic that Aldrich’s biographer explained it as an epiphany, saying, “Aldrich was converted on the road to Damascus.”
When Aldrich and the National Monetary Commission returned from Europe in the fall of 1908, Aldrich asked Warburg to present his own ideas and answer questions regarding the European interviews at a meeting at New York’s Metropolitan Club.
After Warburg’s Metropolitan Club testimony, Aldrich pulled the banker aside and told him that he liked his plan for reform but he was being too timid about it. Warburg was surprised to learn that Aldrich, who before his European travels had not favored centralization and had advocated a national currency backed by government bonds, had changed his thinking and envisioned a European-type central bank for the United States. While Warburg now warned the senator against attempts to establish a full-scale central bank in the European sense—believing it politically unrealistic— he was nonetheless encouraged.
A particular key feature of the European systems persuaded the senator to reconsider his thinking. According to commission member Sen. Theodore Burton, the concept of currency backed by commercial assets began to take hold in Aldrich’s mind in London, and the interviews in Berlin finally convinced him. Commission Assistant George Reynolds concurred, noting that “the experience and practice of German bankers in meeting the needs of commerce in their country demonstrated to Aldrich the validity of the use of commercial assets as a basis for currency. The idea, formerly so obscure, came home to him in great force from its demonstration in a non-political, practical atmosphere.”
While Aldrich’s conversion was a welcome one to Warburg and other progressive reformers, the very concept of a European-style central bank was still an anathema to a great many bankers and politicians. Bankers wanted reform that would make the banking system more efficient and better coordinated but were fearful of government interference in the management of a central bank. While Reynolds, as president of the American Bankers Association, had traveled to Europe and had become an intimate of Aldrich, his association was not supportive of reform. Moreover, many politicians believed that the geographic size of the United States and its diverse business conditions warranted a different banking system than those existing in Europe. Complicating the matter further was the fact that any plan to which Aldrich attached himself was sure to be attacked by Democrats and others who believed the senator had only the interest of eastern businessmen and bankers in mind. Aldrich had close ties with J. P. Morgan and other important bankers, and his eldest daughter’s marriage to John D. Rockefeller Jr. did not help to dispel this suspicion.

The Jekyll Island Expedition

One evening in early November 1910, Warburg and a small party of men from New York quietly boarded Sen. Aldrich’s private railway car, ostensibly for a trip south to an exclusive hunting club on an island off the coast of Georgia.
In addition to Warburg and Aldrich, the others, all highly regarded in the New York banking community, were: Frank Vanderlip, president of National City Bank; Harry P. Davison, a J.P. Morgan partner; Benjamin Strong, vice president of Banker’s Trust Co.; and A. Piatt Andrew, former secretary of the National Monetary Commission and now assistant secretary of the Treasury. The real purpose of this historic “duck hunt” was to formulate a plan for US banking and currency reform that Aldrich could present to Congress.
Even Warburg at first questioned the motives of this gathering, not knowing if he was included because the group knew what he preached and was interested in what he had to offer, or if he was to be involved as a conspirator in order to be muzzled. He soon saw that the Jekyll Island conference was pulled together because, as Warburg later wrote, Aldrich was “bewildered at all that he had absorbed abroad and he was faced with the difficult task of writing a highly technical bill while being harassed by the daily grind of his parliamentary duties.”
The group was secluded on Jekyll Island for about 10 days. All the participants came to the conference with strong views on the subject and did not agree on the exact shape a US central bank should take. Vanderlip noted: “Of course we knew that what we simply had to have was a more elastic currency through a bank that would hold the reserves of all banks.” But there were many other questions that needed to be answered. If it was to be a central bank, how was it to be owned: by the banks, by the government, or jointly? Should there be a number of institutions or only one? Should the rate of interest be the same for the whole nation, or would it be higher in a community that was expanding too fast and lower in another that was lagging? In what open market operations should the bank be engaged?
Warburg realized that he had not been able to persuade the senator that if a central banking organization was to be created, it had to be a modified scheme based on the European models. In fact, Warburg, “the best equipped man there in the academic sense,” according to Vanderlip, “was so intense … and apparently felt a little antagonism towards Aldrich,” so that there were some moments of strain that had to be eased by the others. Aldrich had his mind set on a European-style central bank, “a model he seemed loath to abandon,” according to Warburg, and the senator strongly believed that the proposed central bank should be kept out of politics. Warburg and the others felt that whatever the theoretical justification for such a central bank, American conditions would require some sort of compromise and that concessions should be made considering government influence and representation. Aldrich, yielding somewhat, allowed that the government should be represented on the board of directors and have full knowledge of the bank’s affairs, but a majority of the directors were to be chosen, directly or indirectly, by the members of the association.
Warburg also didn’t agree with Aldrich’s position on note issuance, conditions of membership of state banks and trust companies, or on the need for a uniform discount rate. Aldrich insisted, however, that a central bank should maintain a uniform rate of discount throughout the United States. He thought such a measure politically wise because it would refute the charges that other “great financial centres” would attempt to establish favorable rates for themselves in different regions to the disadvantage of other localities in the country.
Eventually all of the individuals at the Jekyll Island conference had to modify their views on a central bank plan. Nonetheless, Aldrich got out of the conference just what he intended—a banking scheme that rested upon a consensus of opinion representing the best-informed bankers of this country.
The banking bill the group brought north, which came to be known as the “Aldrich Plan,” called for the establishment of a central bank in Washington, to be named the “National Reserve Association,” meaning a central reserve organization with an elastic note issue based on gold and commercial paper. The association was to have 15 branches at geographically strategic locations throughout the country. The bank was to serve as fiscal agent for the US government and, by mobilizing the reserves of its member banks, become a lender of last resort to the American banking system. The association as a whole was to serve as a bank of rediscount, that is, it was empowered to discount a second time commercial paper that members of the association had already discounted. By rediscounting, the association could issue new money that might stay in circulation so long as the paper for which it was issued was not redeemed.
No one person was responsible for the final draft bill that was written. It was a record of their composite views. Yet Vanderlip regarded Warburg as having made significant and important contributions to the final result: “As a philosophical student of banking he was first among us at that time.” Warburg was satisfied that the Aldrich Plan was not a central bank in the European sense. “It was strictly a bankers’ bank with branches under the control of separate directorates having supervision over the rediscount operations with member banks,” he said.
Warburg viewed the result of the Jekyll Island meeting as pivotal: “The period during which nonpolitical thought held the leadership in the banking reform movement may be considered as having ended with this conference.” Up until then, bank reform had been an educational campaign carried on by individuals and groups; but at that point, the movement assumed a national character. Warburg saw Senator Aldrich as being the standard-bearer of a political proposal for a central bank. Said Warburg: “From then on until the final passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the generalship was in the hands of political leaders, while the role of banking reformers was to aid the movement by educational campaigns and, at the same time, to do their utmost to prevent fundamental parts of the nonpolitical plan from being disfigured by concessions born of political expediency.” Aldrich presented his draft plan to the public in January 1911. One year later, on Jan. 19, 1912, the National Monetary Commission presented its report and endorsed the Aldrich Plan.

The Final Campaign

Warburg playfully described himself as a “fanatic” for what he considered sound finance. He was also pragmatic and sensitive to political realities, however. Thus he tempered his approach to a central bank in the United States, and his campaign over the next several years reflected that position. When he saw the roadblocks that lay ahead with Aldrich attempting to sell his plan to a greater part of the country, Warburg began a formal educational campaign to assist. Warburg believed that “beyond doubt, unless public opinion all over the United States could be educated and mobilized, any sound banking reform plan was doomed to fail.”
The National Board of Trade appointed Warburg the head of a seven-man committee to set up a national group to promote reform. The group was called The National Citizens League For the Promotion of Sound Banking. It accomplished much of what it set out to do: establishing effective organizations in 45 states, printing a vast amount of educational materials for the businessman and layman alike, and publishing essays in pamphlets and articles in newspapers. Warburg also continued to publish in important journals and lecture before influential groups, doing all he could to help promote sound banking principles and convince larger audiences of the urgency for reform.

The Final Plan — The Federal Reserve Act

Before the Aldrich Plan could be enacted into law, the Democrats won the White House and took control of the Congress in 1912. The Democratic position called for a divisional reserve bank system, with a number of reserve banks or central banking cities. Nevertheless, President Woodrow Wilson believed that the Aldrich Plan was “60-70 percent correct.” As a result, the plan became the basis for constructing the Federal Reserve bill, which began to take shape in Congress with the presentation of a bill proposed by Sen. Robert Latham Owen in May 1913.
When the Aldrich bill was rejected and the Democrats began to rework the banking bill, the group of bankers that had worked so hard in support of the Aldrich Plan began to split apart, and many of those bankers refused to consider an alternative plan. Warburg was more conciliatory and remained in contact with prominent Democrats, including Carter Glass, chairman of the House banking committee, and H. Parker Willis, the committee expert, and continued to write and speak on the new legislation. Warburg’s reserve and discounting concepts were embraced in the Federal Reserve plan, though the central bank gradually abandoned the emphasis on discounting in favor of open market operations as the major monetary policy tool. Nonetheless, his efforts in educating the country, bringing sound banking techniques to the forefront of debate, were of tremendous importance in final preparation and passage of the Federal Reserve Act.


Warburg’s career didn’t end with passage of the Federal Reserve Act. In a sense, the close of this chapter marked the beginning of his next important role as a central banker. He was to wield a tremendous influence on the development of the System he worked so hard to help establish. In spite of vehement opposition from many Democrats and populists, President Wilson asked Warburg to become a member of the first Federal Reserve Board.
It appears President Wilson made a wise decision. Once Warburg was appointed to the board, Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo, who often clashed with Warburg over policy matters, explained Warburg’s appointment this way: “It was thought that his technical knowledge in international finance would be useful. It was useful, in some respects it was invaluable.” Benjamin Strong, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, went even further in his estimation of Warburg. Although Warburg was appointed as a member of the board (not as the chairman or vice chairman), Strong called Warburg “the real head of the board in Washington, so far as knowledge and ability goes.”
But the fact that he was at all chosen to serve on the board seems to have been as much a surprise to the European-born banker as to those who took issue with his nomination. Indeed, he first declined the appointment because of the “rampant prejudice in this country against a Wall Street man,” and balked at testifying before the Senate banking committee because other nominees had not been asked to do so. However, when World War I erupted in Europe, Warburg decided to waive all personal considerations “in deference to the president’s urgent request and in view of the present urgency which render desirable the promptest organization of the Federal Reserve Board,” and appeared before a largely antagonistic committee.
With Warburg before them, rather than take advantage of his vast knowledge in central banking to learn how the country would adapt to this new system, the senators chose instead to question the banker on Kuhn, Loeb and Co.’s “money trust” connections. Thus, one of the best opportunities for history to record Warburg’s extemporaneous impressions on the final Glass-Owen Federal Reserve bill was lost. But when Warburg was questioned as to his motives for making the sacrifice — financial and otherwise — to become a member of the Federal Reserve Board, the nominee’s answer was characteristically to the point:
“When President Wilson asked me [again] whether I would take this [on] and make the sacrifice … I felt that I had no right to decline it; and I will be glad to make the sacrifice, because I think there is a wonderful opportunity for bringing a great piece of constructive work into successful operation, and it appeals to me to do that.”

>Why Obama Won’t Fire General McCrystal

>The snobby New York Times editorial staff may find the following opinion offensive. So it may not get printed there, but I thought you would like to know my stand on the war and the McCrystal flap. Don White

Thank you for your submission. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. An email will be sent to you at (Change e-mail)

Your Submitted Comment

Display Name

Donald M. White


Windermere, FL


Obama is more of an ignoramus if he fires the general than we all thought he was. He won’t fire him. How could he. He’s touting and following McCrystal’s war plan and has none of his own.
He knows nothing about war. He didn’t serve in our military – at first he barely saluted and never places his hand over his heart – so it’s no wonder he and his staff appeared disengaged and incapable in the general’s first meeting.
You don’t fire a general because your ego is hurt over something that was said in a bar. Obama knows that he can make more enemies than friends by firing a top-notch general.
Dissension was bound to happen. It’s been nine years in Afghanistan and Iraq. The officers and troops are tired and the American public is disgusted with this war. We’re not getting anywhere over there except \”leveling the playing field\” by spending millions of dollars on them and on foreign intrigue when our President really has turned his back on his this country’s security problems at home.
Bring everyone home like you said you would, Mr. President. Can’t you at least keep one promise? It’s the most costly war this country has ever had and we could use the troops on the Mexican border. Oh, but of course defending the United States of America and living up to your mandate of providing to us security is not as important as dumping billions of dollars on defending an Arab state in a no-win conflict, health care, banks, GM, Cap and Trade, and raising taxes is it? Don White

>Drill, Drill, Drill: Judge Invalidates Obama Ban


Judge halts Obama’s oil-drilling ban

** FILE ** Vessels operate near the Q4000 drilling rig at the site of the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday, June 13, 2010. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)** FILE ** Vessels operate near the Q4000 drilling rig at the site of the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday, June 13, 2010. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

A federal judge in New Orleans halted President Obama’s deepwater drilling moratorium on Tuesday, saying the government never justified the ban and appeared to mislead the public in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Judge Martin L.C. Feldman issued an injunction, saying that the moratorium will hurt drilling-rig operators and suppliers and that the government has not proved an outright ban is needed, rather than a more limited moratorium.
He also said the Interior Department also misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don’t support the blanket ban.
“Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the summary also states that ‘the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.’ As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading,” Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration will appeal the decision, and said Mr. Obama believes the government must figure out what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon rig before deepwater drilling goes forward. Still, the ruling is another setback as Mr. Obama seeks to show he’s in control of the 2-month-old spill.
Democrats and Republicans from the Gulf states have called on the president to end the blanket moratorium, saying it is hurting the region.
Oil company executives told Congress last week they would have to move their rigs to other countries because they lose up to $1 million a day per idle rig, and said there are opportunities elsewhere.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.