PDA

View Full Version : an example of why I just can't trust democrats on economic policy



peb
01-19-2008, 08:20 AM
From John Mauldin's weekly E-letter, 1/18/08


Basically, there are two vacant seats on the Fed. President Bush has nominated two very qualified people with distinguished records and backgrounds who have hands-on experience in real-world banking, as opposed to being academicians. These are not political appointments, but serious economists.

Dodd refuses to allow these nominations, or any others, to move forward. Plus, Dodd has let it be known that he will not hold a confirmation vote on current Fed governor Randy Krozner, whose expertise is mortgage markets, when his term ends January 3.

Under current rules, since there are now just five Fed governors instead of the normal seven, you cannot have just three governors on a conference call, as that would be a violation of the public meeting rules, since three would constitute a quorum and potential majority. That clearly makes communication difficult. It also means that the current governors, who already have tight schedules, have to take on extra duties.

Why would Dodd do this? He has made it clear that he is not happy with Fed policy, as has his counterpart in the House, Barney Frank; so some of this is just personal pique. They want the Fed to respond to their political goals. But some of it is clearly partisan. If there is a Democratic president, they would be able to immediately nominate three new governors, and would not have to reconfirm Ben Bernanke as chairman, which means he would leave and the new president would appoint the chairman.

Dodd clearly wants a say in this, and wants a Fed that will pay attention to his politically driven needs. This would mean the Fed would be short-staffed for at least another 18 months, which is not a good thing. The Fed does more than just hold eight meetings and set monetary policy. They have real work that needs to get done.

Whoever the new president is, they will get to nominate who they like as governor terms come to an end. But to act as Dodd is currently doing threatens the independence of the Fed, which is a critical part of the economic world. You can criticize the Fed and their policies, and I often do, but every right-thinking person agrees that Fed policy should not be set in Congress and subject to political whim. The last time we had a Fed chairman who let politics suggest policy was William Miller under Jimmy Carter, and that did not turn out well.

Dodd is sending a message that is not appropriate. These should not be political appointments. These appointments have serious economic consequences. Shame on Dodd for holding hostage an economy which is in crisis for his own political advantage, and shame on a Democratic Senate leadership which goes along with him.

Tylerdurden
01-19-2008, 08:43 AM
Nice. To bad its just crap.

Dem/Repub=same animal.

General public=Deaf, Dumb and Blind.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
01-19-2008, 08:50 AM
Well, I don't have a dog in this fight.

But if I did, I would certainly want to see some evidence for the bald assertions here:

"President Bush has nominated two very qualified people with distinguished records and backgrounds who have hands-on experience in real-world banking, as opposed to being academicians. These are not political appointments, but serious economists."

President Bush does not have particularly good track record for making "non-political" appointments or for choosing particularly capable people. Appointments to the Fed are a serious matter.

Tylerdurden
01-19-2008, 09:24 AM
I got a better idea, lets eliminate the FED and give that responsibility back to congress and the treasury.

Sorry for making sense. I will try and correct that.

elf
01-19-2008, 09:28 AM
Boy, if I had to choose between Bush and Barney, I sure wouldn't pick Bush. He's got a pretty poor record of appointments up to now.

Gonzales, Wolfowitz, Rove, Chalabi, Tenet just for starters.

As for the economy have you checked out the article about bubbles in the current Harpers?

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908

Ian McColgin
01-19-2008, 10:07 AM
Mauldin neglects to mention that Bush has left these seats vacant for 10 and 19 months respectivly and that they are 14 year terms.

Republicans have prooven that they can't be trusted anywhere near any part of the economy. Given how long the remaining 5 governors will sit, it makes sense to not bind the Fed to Bush's failed economic policies for all of the next president's first term.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-19-2008, 12:20 PM
Chris Dodd is a savvey politician. In the US Senate he has extensive seniority and is considered a mover and shaker. If he has decided to hold Dub'ya's feet to the fire it is not for personal agrandizement. He is at the top of his calling and has been there for years.
Peb, Texas has been playing that old right-wing game of sucking up lucre from the federal government since Sam Rayburn was in office. They have been against anything the least bit progressive except that their share of the federal dollar gets progressively bigger each annum.
Your two senators, Cornyn and Kay Hutchison, are nothing but talking heads for the right. In exchange for their services the boxcars of federal dollars keep rolling toward the Rio Grande and points northward.
Because they are joined at the hip to Dub'ya their stars are going to fall even lower than they are know. Hutchison knows that. That is why she is considering taking a hike.
When you consider that Texas gave the world George Bush, Cornyn, Hutchison, Gonzales, Tom Delay and crazy ol' Ron Paul, I think you folks have a lot of chutzpah casting aspersions on other's polititcal choices.


"If you want to be invited to the party you have quit drinking out of the soup bowls."

S.V. Airlie
01-19-2008, 01:17 PM
Why doesn't Cris Dodd suggest some replacements instead ofjust nixing any name that comes across the table?
Instead of being helpful, he is just being a stick in the mud.

So easy to be opposed to someone who is being considered without coming up with an alternative to be considered.

Ian McColgin
01-19-2008, 01:32 PM
Senators don't get to nominate presidential appointees, just vote.

Bush has prooven that he's not interested in others' opinions anyway.

S.V. Airlie
01-19-2008, 01:34 PM
Senators don't get to nominate presidential appointees, just vote.

Bush has prooven that he's not interested in others' opinions anyway.


You mean they can't think for themselves and come up with a suggestion to forward to the president? How sad...
As far as opinions and looking at other's opinions. If at first one doesn't succeed try try again. In the case of Bush, you maybe right but there is no harm, or is there, in trying.

elf
01-19-2008, 01:40 PM
Why doesn't Chris Dodd suggest some replacements instead of just nixing any name that comes across the table?
Instead of being helpful, he is just being a stick in the mud.

So easy to be opposed to someone who is being considered without coming up with an alternative to be considered.

Have you looked at his site? Perhaps the answers are there.

S.V. Airlie
01-19-2008, 01:54 PM
They have, and they do. On a number of occasions during the past 7 years, the various Senate committees responsible for examining nominees have made nomination suggestions to Bush.... which he's ignored.

Norm.. I'm not doubting you but can you find a source for this...?
Elf, I checked the WSJ article.. No answer other than he isn't going to suggest replacements until after Bush's term is up...As far as websites.. There were pagesand pages of Dodd stuff..

peb
01-19-2008, 02:01 PM
He's doing what senators are supposed to do; it's what 'advise and consent' is all about. If Bush had made wise appointments in the past, this wouldn't have been a problem.


I don't see how declining to have hearing and votes is providing "advise and consent". It is like just the opposite. It is intentionally NOT doing what the senate is supposed to do.



Nobody is THAT naive. There is NO politician who really wants the Fed, or ANY federal agency, to be truly independent. They ALL want to exert their influence.

The Federal Reserve was set up to be rather independent, that is why there are 14 year terms. And playing games so the Bernanke can be replaced in short order is definitely not the way it was intended to work.

elf
01-19-2008, 02:13 PM
As far as websites.. There were pagesand pages of Dodd stuff..
Well, there's a good way to spend the afternoon for ya!

You've been a teacher. That surely means you know how to dig out information, since the first and foremost purpose of education is to prepare students to dig out and evaluate information.

It's a cold amble back to the boat, spend the afternoon in the nice warm cafe!

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-19-2008, 03:48 PM
Why doesn't Cris Dodd suggest some replacements instead ofjust nixing any name that comes across the table?
Instead of being helpful, he is just being a stick in the mud.

So easy to be opposed to someone who is being considered without coming up with an alternative to be considered.

I know there was a game of chicken that was started by the vice president. He was adament that presidential power wasn't sufficient unless it made the president into a Maharajah. He was never inclined to deal and so Bush was not inclined to deal.
In more benign times, like when Clinton was president, no names where sent up officially until the Senate had a look at all the potential candidates and said, sub rosa , which ones were acceptable. That saves a lot of time and bloodletting. But, that's dealing and is never a consideration in anything Dick Cheney's involved in.
In Dodd's case there was something ( I don't remember what)he was trying to get from the administration. They showed no desire to deal so he applied pressure where he thought it would hurt the most.
If Dodd is to be criticised for playing hardball than we should point out all the Neocons who are likewise inclined. The problem is a list of them would fill a spiral notepad.
Bush & Co. have been the most secretive, politically unyielding, administration in US history. It is a wonder that Washington politics have been as mild as they have been.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-19-2008, 04:00 PM
I don't see how declining to have hearing and votes is providing "advise and consent". It is like just the opposite. It is intentionally NOT doing what the senate is supposed to do..

"Advise and consent" is more than just a descriptive term. It gives constitutionally authorized POWER to the Senate to apply the "yeahs and nays" to a certain class of appointees. It's a fairly big club. A club that Dick Cheney would clutch to his breast if were his to control. It is being applied constitutionally here but, with insufficient enthusiasm. Neocons are like recalcitrant children and need the rod more than most.


The Federal Reserve was set up to be rather independent, that is why there are 14 year terms. And playing games so the Bernanke can be replaced in short order is definitely not the way it was intended to work.

The board members have 14 year terms. I'm not certain the chairman's term is as long.

peb
01-19-2008, 04:18 PM
"Advise and consent" is more than just a descriptive term. It gives constitutionally authorized POWER to the Senate to apply the "yeahs and nays" to a certain class of appointees. It's a fairly big club.

I agree. That is why it is so inexcusable that Senator Todd is not fulfilling this responsibility at a time when the fed actions are important and could have such long term consequences.


The board members have 14 year terms. I'm not certain the chairman's term is as long.

I am certain. It is.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-19-2008, 06:28 PM
I agree. That is why it is so inexcusable that Senator Todd is not fulfilling this responsibility at a time when the fed actions are important and could have such long term consequences..

His name is Christopher DODD. As a US senator he is free to use his constitutional authority as he sees fit. He is under no obligation to turn the other cheek to the likes of those constitutional pharisees that occupy the White aHouse at the moment.
I am thoroughly suprised that anyone from one of the "Original Intent States" would demand that Sen. DODD or any other member of the congress should relinquish their constitutionally authorized power. It might help if you could prevail upon your politicians to forego a tiny bit of their constitutional power as a sign of good will. Till then Senator DODD stays in the saddle and applies the spurs. Yipee kaioh-kaiyeah!


I am certain. It is.

Thank you.

john l
01-19-2008, 06:39 PM
in my opinion bush knows nothing about economics except for his own and his cronies and has no qualifications for picking anything other than a pair of shoes, or perhaps a political friend. i have no faith in anything he says or does. he's lame and always has been. quack quack says the bush!

elf
01-19-2008, 06:53 PM
I'm not even certain that he could be counted on to pay the bill for the shoes.

peb
01-19-2008, 08:23 PM
His name is Christopher DODD. As a US senator he is free to use his constitutional authority as he sees fit.

Its not just about constitutional authority. It is about constitutional responsibility. He is not intentionally NOT performing them.

Milo Christensen
01-19-2008, 08:36 PM
One of the men being "held" up by Sen. Todd [sic] is 35 years old, coming from inside the White House (no more loyal cronies!) and a mergers and acquisitions banker. Don't want him on the Fed, thenkyewveddymuch.

The other recently used one of the great lines of all times decrying the "nattering nabobs of negativity" who see some problems with the American economy. Don't want him on the Fed, either, thenkyewveddymuch.

peb, appreciate that you're a good conservative and all that, but Bush's incompetency in getting anything done administratively is beyond the pale, don't even go there any more. Bite the bullet, admit we got suckered, move on and work to rebuild the Republican Party so that it will, in the distant future, have a shred of credibility and a bit of legitimacy.

peb
01-19-2008, 08:49 PM
One of the men being "held" up by Sen. Todd [sic] is 35 years old, coming from inside the White House (no more loyal cronies!) and a mergers and acquisitions banker. Don't want him on the Fed, thenkyewveddymuch.

The other recently used one of the great lines of all times decrying the "nattering nabobs of negativity" who see some problems with the American economy. Don't want him on the Fed, either, thenkyewveddymuch.

peb, appreciate that you're a good conservative and all that, but Bush's incompetency in getting anything done administratively is beyond the pale, don't even go there any more. Bite the bullet, admit we got suckered, move on and work to rebuild the Republican Party so that it will, in the distant future, have a shred of credibility and a bit of legitimacy.


Why would you think I am so unhappy with the Bush administration? For being such a stupid and incompetent person, he has gotten quite a bit accomplished. His tax cuts were good and a success. His education and drug plan were so-so failures. His handling of 9/11 was pretty good. His judicial appointments have been very good from what I can tell (excepting Miers). His war in Iraq, a mistake. His war in Afghanistan, a just and needed cause.


Yea, I wish he would be such a spender, but his deficits are not why we are in economic troubles right now.

john l
01-19-2008, 09:20 PM
peg, you're giving him way too much credit!
congress has been controlled by republicans for over 12 years.
there has been a republican president for the last 20 of 28 years.
maybe the republicans aren't so conservative, economy minded,
or so right on all issues. but i can see why you like the republicans,'they have fuel the souths economic base with pork, military bases, munitions contractors and low energy costs. and at great expense to the north
who helped pay for all this. i've see documentation that illustrates that for every tax dollar a northern state gives to the FEd gov, they get back .50 in fed support and spending, while for every $1 the southern/red state pays out in Fed Taxes they get $2 in Fed Spend. Well, I'd say the blue states need some Tax relief! I'm tired of hearing bush and his tax cut crap. He is as full of it as he can possibly be. i'd say how about reversing the equation and let the blue states get $2 for $1 and the red states .50 for $1 for the same time period the north has paid out. it's not a few years either, but something like 40 years or more. then, i will listen to someone talk about tax cuts.
bush is a flaming hypocrit and a lier and everyone in the "world" knows this.

john l
01-19-2008, 09:23 PM
But i have him to thank, because i lived my life thinking things were not, or could not be the way they actually are, and he revealed it all in no uncertain terms. ultimately republicans should hate him too, because he spilled the beans! probably because he was full of them!

elf
01-19-2008, 09:23 PM
What I don't understand is why you, Milo, "got suckered".

Can you explain that to me?

john l
01-19-2008, 09:28 PM
the repubs suckered many...even some trade unions...and blue collar workers who ended up seeing their jobs disapear.
they used a religious and morals line to line their pockets and even kill 100's of thousands of innocent people in foreign places. all in the name of god.

john l
01-19-2008, 09:32 PM
Yea, I wish he would be such a spender, but his deficits are not why we are in economic troubles right now.[/QUOTE]


he spent like a drunken sailor and a lot of it went right into the profits of his friends and supporters. If you like him, you are probably a benificiary. and if not you have hopeful blinders on.

john l
01-19-2008, 09:33 PM
he wasted your tax dollars. no wonder he wants to give you a few back. maybe he feels guilty!

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-20-2008, 12:38 AM
Its not just about constitutional authority. It is about constitutional responsibility. He is not intentionally NOT performing them.

As Dr. Ron Paul would say, "it isn't in the constitution". "Responsability" that is. And for once he'd be correct.
The members of the US congress are not the president's errand boys. They are not his facilitators. There are entitled to follow their own inclinations and entitled to suggest, guide or force the government to act in ways they think are beneficial. They are a co-equal branch of government. At least that is the way it works in the 49 other states of the Union.