Commentary by Caroline Baum
Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Within days of the Republican upset in the Massachusetts special election for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat, Barbara Boxer saw the way forward.
“It is time for a change -- it is time for Main Street to have a champion at the Fed,” the three-term California Democratic senator said on Jan. 22. “Dr. Bernanke played a lead role in crafting the Bush administration’s economic policies, which led to the current economic crisis. Our next Federal Reserve chairman must represent a clean break from the failed policies of the past.”
California voters are sympathetic to the idea of change, too. Boxer holds a slim lead over her three main Republican challengers in the 2010 Senate race. A Jan. 14 Rasmussen poll of 500 likely voters found Boxer leading former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina by 3 points, 46 percent to 43 percent, an ominous sign.
“Any incumbent who polls below 50 percent at this point in the season is considered potentially vulnerable,” said Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Research.
Boxer’s support was at 46 percent in November when Fiorina was trailing by 9 points.
Boxer wasn’t the only senator to have a sudden epiphany on needed change at the Fed. Twenty of her colleagues consulted their inner candidate and decided it was in their best interest to vote no on Bernanke. (Forty-nine will vote yes while 30 are undecided or declined to comment, according to a Bloomberg News tally.) Bernanke’s four-year term as Fed chairman ends Jan. 31.
Policy Debate
Boxer’s desire for a Main Street champion at the Fed is a transparent excuse for opposing Bernanke in the same way “the failed policies of the Bush administration” provide economic cover for the Obama administration.
If Ms. Boxer senses the California Senate race is slipping out of her grasp, she could always throw her hat in the ring for Bernanke’s job. California is such a paragon of fiscal prudence, she might bring valuable input to the monetary policy process.
All kidding aside, there are legitimate reasons for the Senate to debate Bernanke’s reappointment, but kowtowing to populist sentiment isn’t one of them.
As a Fed governor from 2003 to 2005, Bernanke advocated interest-rate cuts to avoid deflation at a time when the economy needed just the opposite. He became Fed chairman in February 2006 as the housing bubble was cresting, failed to see the effect intertwined mortgage derivatives could have on the financial system and told us the subprime crisis was “contained.”
No Character Questions
But, hey, poor forecasting never disqualified anyone from a job at the Fed!
The decisions the Fed made in 2008 to create a host of credit facilities to make loans to non-banks and support various markets were made under “unusual and exigent circumstances,” as specified in the Federal Reserve Act. No one would challenge that assessment of the financial backdrop.
It’s easy in hindsight to be critical of this or that policy decision and offer alternative solutions. But do any of Bernanke’s newfound critics believe he acted in anything but the public’s best interest?
“You can debate his policies, but you cannot impugn his character,” said David Kotok, chairman and chief investment officer of Cumberland Advisors in Vineland, New Jersey. “His record at Princeton, as a Fed governor, as an economic adviser to the president reveals not one single element of doubt on his character.”
PR Campaign
When Bernanke talked about his anger at having to bail out American International Group Inc. in a “60 Minutes” interview last year, his emotion was palpable. He did what he thought he had to do to avert Great Depression II.
Just maybe Bernanke’s problem is poor public relations. If he weren’t a soft-spoken academic more comfortable in the classroom than the hearing room, he might be a stronger advocate for his reappointment.
So Ben, here’s my advice. Take a leaf out of President Barack Obama’s book. Every time you give a speech or testify to Congress, invoke his disclaimer. Reiterate that “we inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.” Link the crisis to your predecessor, Alan Greenspan, and George W. Bush in their shared aversion to regulation. And give everyone a taste of what Boxer envisions when she talks about a Main Street champion at the Fed.
Populist Fed
No doubt it would mean leaving the benchmark interest rate at zero until the unemployment rate falls to a politically palatable 5 percent. It would mean ignoring the potential for higher inflation. It would mean undoing everything you and your fellow central bankers across the globe have learned from trial and more errors than you care to remember: That -- and you’ve said it best yourself -- price stability is both an end in itself and a means to achieve maximum sustainable growth in employment and output.
So the next time Boxer brandishes her faux populism, just tell the public you are turning interest-rate policy over to Nancy Pelosi. The dive in the markets will jolt those populists back to reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment