In a rare attempt to intervene in the policymaking of an independent agency, the four top Republicans in the House and Senate wrote a letter to Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke, warning him against further steps to use monetary policy to boost the struggling US economy.
The group, which included the top two Republicans in both houses of Congress, said the Fed’s policies have been ineffective at supporting economic expansion and boosting employment.
“It is not clear that the recent round of quantitative easing undertaken by the Federal Reserve has facilitated economic growth or reduced the unemployment rate,” the group said in a letter to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.
The letter was signed by House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl [...]
“We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy,” the letter said.
The Fed has a mandate given to it by Congress to promote both maximum employment and price stability. Congressional Republicans are basically asking Bernanke to violate that statute. If they don’t want the Fed intervening in the economy, they could pass a law changing the mandate. But they’d rather jawbone and try to influence an independent agency in an effort to stall monetary policy during a jobs crisis, just as they have stalled fiscal policy.
I wish I could say this was the first time any politicians have ever petitioned the Federal Reserve and tried to dictate their policies, but sadly, it happened with little fanfare just a year ago. The same four lawmakers – Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and Kyl — wrote the Fed in November 2010, albeit with a little trepidation, saying that they believed “monetary policy must be free and independent from political pressure,” and that they were just giving input and data.
But that letter came after the announcement of the second round of “quantitative easing” (QE2), which sought to lower long-term interest rate, and was mainly an expression of concern. Yesterday’s ominous warning against monetary intervention comes on the eve of an announcement by the Fed, expected today at 2:15 pm ET, on their next steps on the economy. It is widely expected the Fed will announce “Operation Twist,” an effort to rebalance their portfolio with long-term rather than short-term bonds, again attempting to lower long-term rates. They may announce more.
So the GOP letter is a naked attempt to forestall that prospect, or at least to get Fed Chairman Bernanke, who often desires consensus thinking about the consequences of Fed actions. None of the caveats about how “monetary policy must be free and independent from political pressure” are present in the new letter.
Robert Reich explains the double-bind this letter puts on the Fed:
If global investors suspect the Fed is responding to political pressure of any kind, investors will lose trust in the nation’s monetary policies. … And once politics intrudes, lenders of all stripes worry that it will continue to intrude in all sorts of ways. The inevitable result: Lenders charge more for lending us money.
The letter puts Bernanke and his colleagues in a huge bind. If they decide against another round of so-called “quantitative easing” to lower long-term rates and boost the economy, they may look like they’re caving to congressional Republicans. If they decide to go ahead notwithstanding, they’re bucking the Republicans and siding with Democrats. Either way, they’re open to the charge they’re playing politics.
I don’t know about the global investor effect, but it’s true that letters like this politicize the Fed. The Fed deserves more criticism and more people speaking out about its policies. That includes politicians, who are entitled to their opinions. But when Congressional Republicans do it in this manner, and specifically warn against expansionary policies, it moves away from the realm of criticism and into the realm of angling for the economy to fail, to gain a political advantage in the next election.




44 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The real story here isn’t political intransigence, but rather that the Fed has reached the point where these sorts of fiscal maneuvers have become viable options. The toolbox is empty and now the Powers That Be are rummaging around in the junk drawer.
This is an example of what, back in Feb. 2009, Rep. ( and RCCC head ) Pete Sessions
referred to as Taliban like insurgency. The unwillingness of anybody in Washington at the time to swat down that kind of rhetoric has led the US to where things stand today.
Sad to see FDL on the easy money bandwagaon. The only people who have benefited from the Greenspan/Bernanke era of cheap money are the gatekeepers of all the extra liquidity – the big banks and financial centers. In the meanwhile, the average person got a mountain of debt.
The Fed has so overused the easy money gambit that it doesn’t work anymore. Several years of 0% short term interest rates, record low long term rates and trillions in money printing have done nothing for the real economy.
Also, FDL needs to get over the asinine idea of an “independent” Fed. Anyone remotely familiar with the events of 1907-1913 which led to the creation of the Fed knows it has always been a creature of the big banks.
Hey, if it worked for Nixon and Kissinger, it’s good enough for Boner and Cantor and McConnell and Kyl.
War in Vietnam, meet the Republican War on the Middle Class.
Thanks David. How pathetic of team trickle-down. Spew the same tired, failed for decades bullshit in the hope of further tanking the economy heading into an election year.
All four of the
assholessigners of the letter should be turned out of Our business.Then why do Boehner/Cantor et al bother to write to it if it’s already doing what they want it to do?
You are 100% correct. It amazes, and troubles, me how so many progressives reflexively support the Federal Reserve which is nothing more than a front organization of the oligarchy.
Exactly.
The bernanke is much maligned on these pages.
This would make sense if it were the first time the Boehner/Cantor Gang wrote to the Fed.
As for tools, there are a few tools that could be used. One of them is letting the Bush tax cuts expire and throwing on a few more taxes on the people who unlike the vast majority of us actually profited from the crash.
” But when Congressional Republicans do it in this manner, and specifically warn against expansionary policies, it moves away from the realm of criticism and into the realm of angling for the economy to fail, to gain a political advantage in the next election.”
Good piece, David, but your last sentence is all that needs to be said. What infuriates me is that if the shoe were on the other foot, the thugs would be screaming ‘electioneering’ incessantly. When oh when, are our lilylivered dims going to call the thugs out directly.
And it is in the body of this post as well. People who say it isn’t either haven’t read/remembered much of the posts mentioning the Fed or are pushing their own agendas.
It is the institution itself that is the problem, not Bernanke. The fact that 13 members of a private corporation have quasi-governmental power with no accountability is absolutely disgusting. Posters on FDL have criticized individual actions of the Fed but not the existence of the Fed.
Seems more and more lately that we get far too many shit-disturbers. Looking to highjack a thread with crap that has little basis in reality. Experts all, if you listen to them tell it.
Your statement is inaccurate and I’m not your guy today.
What are you talking about?
The article is about Republicans attempting to influence the Fed (politicizing it), not the Fed’s policies.
Wow David,
I have to say I am shocked by this piece. The FED is a private cartel set up by the bankers to benefit the bankers. It was created at midnight (when congress was home for xmas) The fed maybe independent of politicians but not the bankers. A reporter from bloomberg through FOIA was able to show the FEd gave out 16 trillion dollars to banks, a fact the Fed tried to keep secret. If teh books of the FEd for the last 100 years were opened, I suspect there would be a revolution on the streets.
QE benefits the banks while causing inflation to spike. Why did repubs send this letter, are they the same repubs that pushed for a full audit of the FED, not the watered down version we got? In fact they would push to take away its charter. Please this letter is little more than a dog and pony show.
Dean Baker discusses this in his new book “Loser Liberalism”. He believes it to be a loser’s game to just whine about this, and that what we should be doing is pressuring it from the opposite direction. Can’t say I blame him, even if I do disagree with politicizing monetary policy.
And look at the Ron Paulites coming out of the woodwork, attacking the Fed itself, as if we were better off before it. Sad.
One point about the problem with easy money: The issue isn’t that an easy money policy is bad now, it was bad back in the mid 2000s. The time to raise interest rates was almost a decade ago. Because they didn’t we had wild speculation in the housing market (not the sole cause, but it sure played into it), and because they left rates so low, we were unable to lower them when it was needed (like now). The sad fact is that it is too late. The damage was done by Greenspan, and now, when a weak economy needs a goose from lowered interest rates we are already at the zero lower bound.
Scott Sumner — who is a political conservative, and a neomonetarist — calls it treason.
…
As if any of the paulites have a better idea. Or a workable plan. Or solutions to ANY of our country’s problems.
Agree. Naive to think FRB was anything other than banksters’ tool. Ditto anyone who thinks FRB has dual mandate, regardless of a silly law written on a piece of paper. Greenspan spat upon the unemployment part, and that was 24 years ago. I’m sure you could find earlier evidence.
If you looked at Baker’s list of economists on the other side, you would understand why progressives are losing. It is a loser list.
Paulite’s are not as arrogant as people like you. They don’t believe they have “the solution” to our country’s problems, whatever that means. They believe people are responsible for their own lives and should not be running to the government, crying like little bitches, whenever they fuck up. Whaaa.., I paid too much for my house, bail me out !!!! Whaaa.., I made bad decisions with my 401K money, bail me out !!!! Pathetic.
A loser list. It is.
And no one without “stature” is allowed to put up a winner list.
But I would be interested to see you compile such a list, eCAHN.
A diary perhaps? …
For educational purposes …
DW
It’s not a matter of “bail me out”, it’s don’t steal it in the first place. I have a daughter in Arizona who is a single mom, has a son who is a junior at UofA. She works very hard and owns a home. She lost EVERYTHING in this financial bank robbery – her retirement and her son’s college fund. The housing market is dead in AZ so she can’t even sell her house without losing money and there isn’t one thing she can do about any of these. So take your smug attitude some place else.
Good comment.
The Fed’s panicked response to the mild recession of 2000 was a perfect example of the Fed’s overuse of easy money I talked about in #3. In response consumer debt doubled and we had the biggest housing bubble in US history, exhausting the supply of willing, credit worthy borrowers. This is why easy money policy can’t get traction now.
Another damning metric is the total (public plus private) debt to GDP ratio, which was a stable 140-170% from 1950 – 1975, but has now soared to almost 400%, much higher than it was at the bottom of the Great Depression. People who think this isn’t a problem are whistling past the grave. We’ll be paying for this for many, many years.
Just had to pull your pants down and whip out your stupid, didn’t you. I said I’m not your guy today.
It would be impossible for you to be more wrong about me. Get some help with your learning disability.
Well according to the people you’re agreeing with, progressives have been “losers” from the get-go. I’m sure you know of the historical revisionism regarding the progressive era, in that they weren’t staunch public defenders but people who used the government to enforce the monopoly of the oligarchy. So why even side with progressives at all?
I hope you are including the banksters who went crying to the gummint. You may have noticed a difference. The banksters crying was heard and attended to by big gummint to the tune of many billions of taxpayer dollars.
I’m still working on my Zinn diary. Got put aside for a week to mull on the most difficult part and to do some cooking (you should smell my house right now after baking plum crunch) and finally one of the outdoor guys showed up to do some projects which required my attention.
There are NO economists I know who would make the cut. The ones who might have their heads screwed on right are completely out of public view (Stiglitz seemingly on his choice) or for other reasons, no one’s ever heard of them.
Zinn would argue that it has to come from bottom’s up. And that’s the part of the diary I’m stuck on figuring out how to express concisely.
Example: Most effective labor strikes are those that are spontaneous, not those the union leaders launch. Union leaders (Gompers comes to mind) are so easily coopted by corp PTB. Strikes may be necessary but not sufficient, lose more often than they win, workers get killed (Lincoln sent U.S. troops straight from Gettyburg to break up a strike). Strikes with higher probability of “winning” besides arising from workers, are sit-ins/occupations: those cripple the factory bc scabs can’t be called in, workers don’t have to suffer weather, and they get to sit around & talk to each other about grievances and tactics/strategies.
Here.
Stiglitz blew the whistle on the IMF said it was not there to help countries but to put them in debt and makes sure the bankers got their pound of flesh. he leaked the IMF memo to guy palast, I think, so he was shut down.
One of the many tactics the few use to control the many. Stiglitz did write a good book, but got no publicity from it prolly for the reason you advance & for a whole host of other reasons. But he could still get on demcracynow & other leftie websites, and it is bc I don’t see his presence there that I concluded he didn’t want any public platform. But I’m guessing.
Interesting side note on bankers: there is a book regarding the start of the OSS which was the precurser to the CIA under “Wild Bill Donovan” which stated how he staffed the agency with bankers and bank lawyers. they have never been far from the levers of power-then and now
Thank you twain.
It’s Knightly’s The Second Oldest Profession prolly.
Looking forward to that Zinn diary for sure, eCAHN.
Yes, Stiglitz doesn’t want his name associated with any of this and I don’t blame him. About the time “the people” MIGHT be willing to listen, and actually HEAR, I hope he’ll have something to say.
Bet your house smells great!
DW
And it’s yummy too, despite the fact that this has been a lousy year for fruit. Anything with brown sugar & cassis can’t be all that bad. (Eat dessert first; you never know what will happen.)
Equally wonderful foododerous house on Monday when I made chicken a la king. I make it about once/year and the recipe is big enough to put 6 meals into the freezer. It’s one of my favorite comfort foods.
what is chicken a la king?
Well, I am definitely not on the side of Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and Kyl. But this is a real issue.
Nobody can criticize the Fed? Fed policies absolutely need to be talked about and criticized. What are they, infallible?
Just what has the Fed done to maximize employment lately? Or ever? This cheap money (taxpayer subsidized money to the banks, really) is only benefiting Wall Street. It is killing ordinary people, retirees and savers, pushing people into risky stock market speculation. It obviously is not creating jobs, or holding down prices.
These Repubs have got hold of a real issue that increasingly resonates with a lot of people and it would be stupid to ignore it by saying, tsk tsk, we’re not supposed to talk about that.
Federal Reserve policy has always been politicized. Everything is politicized. Are we supposed to believe that Alan Greenspan’s politics didn’t influence his fed policies?
A useful response to this development might be: well, are they right or not?
Republicans = enemies of America.
Chicken pot pie without the crust. I usually serve mine over rice.
The bankers that control the Fed interfere with politics all the time. In fact one could say they own the damned place.
How much different is this ideas of the Christian Right, that the meaning of separation between church and state is that the Government can’t interfere with Religion but Religion is free to interfere with Government?
We should do away with this fiction.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/aig-scandal-fed-as-chump-or-fed-as-crony.html
Is this a kin to what we’ve been accusing the Chinese of doing with their currency?
Who addresses trade imbalances?