The Fall Guy
It’s Ben Bernanke:
California Democrat Barbara Boxer has become the latest senator to oppose the nomination of Ben Bernanke to a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Boxer’s opposition, which she announced in an exclusive statement to the Huffington Post, is a blow to Bernanke. Boxer is no firebreather on economic issues, but considered a more mainstream Democrat from a state that was considered comfortably blue — until Tuesday’s special election in Massachusetts, that is.
On Twitter, Politico’s Martin Kady said the the anti-Bernanke sentiment is “starting to snowball.” That’s all well and good — but changing people isn’t going to save the Democrats. Changing policies, however, just might.
Until then, enjoy watching the circular firing squad.
I’m not convinced that reappointing Ben Bernanke is the right thing to do, for many of the same reasons the Wall Street Journal editorial page have cited over the years. His monetary policy calls have not been especially rigorous in defense of price stability and the value of the dollar, going back a number of years now. And he doesn’t seem to have learned much from those policy mistakes.
On the other hand, as a scholar of the Great Depression he had some credibility in dealing with the financial crisis. Almost inevitably, the Fed would have had to take on more responsibilities than is good for its independence, in response to the crisis.
Bernanke unfortunately has undermined confidence in the Fed’s independence, and looks like he acts as an arm of the Obama administration. So there are good policy reasons that he should not be confirmed to a second term.
But nobody is in the mood to think policy reasons, it’s all ugly politics instead. If he is not confirmed, it won’t be because our level headed public servants thoughtfully considered serious policy issues, it will be to make a populist statement. And I don’t see a young Paul Volcker waiting in the wings as a replacement.
How about Thomas Sowell?
And Tim Geithner must go.
Obama is fortunate that he has a recent blueprint on how to rescue the presidency–Clinton’s first term. The only way I see it happening is if he changes his inner-circle. Get rid of the Chicago mafia.
But does he have the guts to do it?
Guts, hell. Does he have the sense?
I’m hoping not. His continued political survival will be used as an excuse for his initial failures; Democrats will claim voters weren’t utterly repulsed by what he tried to do during his first year.
It’s best they are left no room to make that claim.
Hey I’m no fan of the guy and have no problem with them going another direction (although what that direction might be is REALLY scary). But jeez louise… It’s going to be nauseating watching all these blowhard socialists try to suddenly look tough and fiscally enlightened while taking turns hammering this guy. I wouldn’t trust Boxer sort my loose change. So now I’m supposed to think that she’s been pondering this situation all along with the country’s best interest in mind. Oh pulease…
Poser! That the word I was looking for.
So typical, the only guy in the entire administration who has half a clue gets fired for the mistakes the people who fired him committed.
Obama won’t follow the blueprint because he isn’t Clinton. Clinton was an amoral theif with no political core values. The advantage to an amoral thief is he can be convinced to do the right thing if he sees he can profit from the deal. Obama’s a true believing lefty determined to go down with the ship rather than turn things around.
Anyone calling for Bernanke’s head should bear in mind that if he if rejected, Barack Obama gets to pick his replacement. You really think he’s going to appoint someone more conservative or independent?
However disappointing Bernanke may be, do we really want this President selecting a new head for the Fed?