ShareThis Page
Change vs. continuity at the Fed |

Change vs. continuity at the Fed

| Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:00 a.m

President Obama has renominated Ben Bernanke to a second term as the increasingly powerful chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Widely anticipated in financial circles, the decision reassured markets and prices continued to rise.

Politically, however, many voters will have felt betrayed that a president who had campaigned so effectively for “change” would have sought continuity.

Did such a decision indicate that the true nature of the economic and financial situations is so bad that the president was forced to accept continuity over change?

Given the failure of the Fed to anticipate the recession and effectively to supervise the banks, is continuity in the long-term interest of Americans?

In supporting his nomination, the president described Bernanke as “an expert on the causes of the Great Depression.” He reminded his audience that Bernanke had “approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom.”

If the president does see real recovery, then these words of praise were misplaced, if not decidedly misleading.

Until recently, Larry Summers, one of Obama’s trusted inner circle, appeared to be the favorite choice for Fed chairman. He not only represented change but he had espoused a key fundamental economic policy that would have crucially altered America’s downward economic spiral.

Since 1971, with President Nixon’s breaking of the U.S. dollar-gold exchange standard, Congress has unleashed an ever-increasing torrent of entitlement programs that have resulted in America consuming three times what it produces, depleting its national wealth and leaving it the largest debtor in history.

Summers proposed key economic restructuring to reverse this situation and potentially return America to prosperity. With financial credibility restored, this could have been the bulwark to enable the United States to rebuff China’s challenge to the crucial “reserve status” of the U.S. dollar.

Such a potentially fruitful change must have seemed almost irresistible to Obama. Indeed, it was this feeling that likely prompted the recent speculation that Summers would replace Bernanke. So, what possibly could have prompted the president to opt for continuation of the status quo when change offered the glowing opportunity of economic rebirth?

Was it that the economic sea continued to look so rough and the black financial clouds lingered so ominously that rocking the boat with a change of helmsman risked disaster?

If not, why would Obama pass up such a golden opportunity for change and opt for a somewhat discredited continuity?

Perhaps the pivotal factor was Bernanke’s reputation in the financial community. After all, under former Chairman Alan Greenspan, Bernanke watched as President Bush doubled the U.S. Treasury debt to $10 trillion and raised the total government debt to a staggering $48 trillion.

He further stood on the sidelines as Greenspan presided over a fall in the dollar’s value of more than 50 percent since 1987. This effectively robbed every holder of U.S. dollars of half their dollar wealth.

More troubling, Bernanke watched silently as the Greenspan-led Fed presided over the largest asset boom in history. It allowed the formation and hugely profitable growth of casino-style behemoth banks that became too big to fail.

In conjunction with the Treasury, Bernanke orchestrated the rescue of the “casino” financial system with trillions of dollars of people’s wealth. Accounting rules were changed further to camouflage the toxic assets held by the banks.

In addition, huge public TARP funds were pumped into the banks, which could borrow from the Fed at zero percent. Furthermore, for the first time, banks were paid public interest on their reserves held at the Fed.

The government, with no spare dollars and only enormous debt, had to rely heavily on the creation of dollars by the Fed to finance the massive bailouts.

To his credit, Bernanke did save the banking system. But the total cost to current and future generations of Americans is likely to prove staggering.

The same behemoth banks have become even larger with the same casino-style managers in charge, continuing to pay themselves multibillion-dollar bonuses.

Is this a condition that America can tolerate when the economic seas are storm-tossed and we head into uncharted waters?

Is it the type of continuity that is in America’s long-term interests?

The recent spate of tea parties and town hall meetings reflect intense frustration and annoyance with the government’s bailout of those highly rewarded gamblers who got it wrong.

In addition, people are angry at the secrecy surrounding the rescue of the banks. There are increasing calls for more disclosure of Fed spending. People are asking for the transparency that Bernanke promised, has resisted and has yet to deliver.

Clearly, in nominating Ben Bernanke, Obama has opted for continuity over change. But he was elected primarily because most Americans actually wanted him to rock the old boat that appeared set on a course of decay.

In this case, staying the course is not safe and ordinary Americans appear to sense it.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.