A bill proposed by Congressman Ron Paul would shine a light on the mysterious goings-on at the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has been sopping up many billions in toxic assets, creating money hocus-pocus, loaning vast fortunes to central banks in other countries, and in general behaving as if its actions cannot have bad consequences.

HR 1207, introduced in February, would authorize the GAO to audit the Fed’s various funding facilities, used with such abandon over the last year. Look under the hood, see what’s going on in nitty-gritty detail.

Doesn’t sound very radical. But the Fed is accustomed to being “independent,” i.e., unaccountable. Yet as Jim Grant, editor of a publication that monitors interest rates, has observed, if the Fed had to accept the auditing it requires of others, it would be regarded as insolvent.

Except, of course, for that whole create-money-out-of-thin-air thing.

President Obama, a.k.a. Mr. Transparency, has said zilch to support the bill. Still, with over 150 Republicans and over 50 Democrats cosponsoring the legislation, it now has enough votes to pass if congressional leadership allows a vote.

An audit with a negative outcome would not force the Fed to shut down.

But it would provide more ammo for those interested in slowing or stopping fiscal insanity.

And that, too, should be bipartisan. Transpartisan. Universal.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Economists tell tales.

The best are those that make it easier for us to understand very complicated ideas. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate, wrote one such tale years ago, an essay called “Ricardo’s Difficult Idea.” It explains something economist David Ricardo discovered nearly 200 years ago: When nations trade they both become better off even when some people seem to suffer.

Since that essay Krugman has been telling tales for the New York Times. Not all have been as wholesome.

Krugman appears to be one of those court wizard economists who believe they — that is, the government — can fine-tune the economy. In his August 2, 2002 column he says that “[t]o fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that . . . Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

Yes, back in 2002 Krugman supported the Fed’s super-low interest rates, and predicted the outcome: A housing bubble.

Which has burst.

Since then, Krugman’s readers have looked for someone to blame. Well, Krugman’s own words give us all we need to incriminate his own very self . . . and his fellow court wizards.

Familiar story: Self-aggrandizing experts aim to fix things, and put us all in a fix. The case against government management of the economy just got even stronger.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tolls on bridges and roads used to be common. Before the federal government began writing  humungous checks for infrastructure, the rule was to loan localities money. The feds would get paid back from tolls collected.

Earlier, private toll roads and bridges built our first good infrastructures.

There’s increasing talk, now, about congestion pricing of roads — charging more at peak hours, or for fast lane access.

Tim Rutten argues against this. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed called “Congestion pricing — a slippery slope to toll roads,” Rutten says that congestion pricing “discriminates against the working poor.”

Rutten imagines a low-level worker rushing from work to go to the day care center to retrieve her sick child. Driving the jammed lanes would be too slow, so she turns into the fast lane and pays money to get her child faster. Rutten says “A society that can rationalize the imposition of such pain doesn’t need to worry over how to define equity; it needs to worry about its soul.”

Yeah, right. There are costs and choices everywhere. In an emergency, spending a few bucks to help your child is reasonable. Even if you are poor.

But preventing the option from even being available?

Mr. Rutten should rethink his all-or-nothing approach. And maybe even the fantasies that jam up his own soul. Without faster lanes that cost money, the mother would have no choice at all but to sit in traffic.

Solutions that work are better than solutions merely dreamt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

A few years ago, stories of Americans going to Canada to buy cheaper drugs were all the rage. Here’s a twist on that: Canadians going to Mexico to get cheaper drugs.

The Canadian government has been intercepting shipments and travelers at the border and confiscating the drugs.

The drug in question is Thalidomide.

You no doubt remember this drug for its horrific side-effects, in babies.

But it is still used — by people who won’t get pregnant — to treat a rare form of cancer. It turns out that it’s one of the better drugs on the market, extending the lives of sufferers from myeloma.

Trouble is, only one province pays for one version of the drug. Other versions are illegal. Canada’s socialized health care system does not approve of cheaper versions of the drug hailing from Mexican factories. Those factories haven’t gone out of their way to deal with side-effects.

So Canada confiscates Thalidomide as if it were cocaine.

Do you ever get frustrated hearing these tales? I do. I don’t know about your frustration, but it seems to me that if someone’s going to take the trouble to go out of the country to buy a drug to treat themselves, the full weight of responsibility for safety and side-effects — as well as the choice — should fall on his or her shoulders.

Not the government’s.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Here’s an idea about how to help businesses survive in this troubled economic climate: Stop allowing an unaccountable regulatory board — unclad by even a fig leaf of constitutionality — to ride roughshod over public companies.

In the wake of the Enron scam and other financial scandals several years ago, Congress enacted a packet of onerous new regulations. This Sarbanes-Oxley legislation created a regulatory board, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, to issue arbitrary edicts, impose arbitrary penalties, etc.

One problem with this star chamber is that its officers are neither appointed by the executive branch nor approved by Congress, as required by the Constitution.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Free Enterprise Fund want this practice to end. CEI explains that if the president were obliged to appoint and dismiss members of this board, as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, “he will be on the hook for their policy failures, and thus have an interest in making them develop sound policies. . . . He won’t be able to blame the red tape on an unaccountable agency. . . .”

But the two organizations are not merely publishing op-eds and issuing press releases. They have filed suit, taking their case against the oversight board to the courts. And now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

At last, this oversight board gets some much-needed oversight.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.