Why are Democratic lawmakers so eager to shield the
Federal Reserve Board from public scrutiny?
After Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska)
used a procedural trick in the U.S.
Senate to torpedo a longshot legislative bid that
would have had the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) audit the Fed, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)
expressed
his disappointment on the "Glenn Beck Program":
Frankly, a lot of us here in this country and around the world,
are concerned that we're going to destroy the American dollar
and the worldwide reserve currency.
DeMint told substitute host Judge Andrew Napolitano that
If we could get the Federal Reserve under control, it would
make it more difficult for the Obama administration, I think,
to carry out the continued spending and growing of debt.
Fed deputy chairman
Donald Kohn is opposed to the idea. He told a
congressional hearing that auditing the primary
institutional enabler of Big Government in America
would interfere with Fed processes.
If the GAO, a congressional agency, were authorized to
audit the Fed, that "could cast a chill on monetary policy
deliberations," Kohn said.
Vadum -- I usually disagree with you on financial issues, but you
are on target with this one. The Fed, Fannie, and Freddie need
oversight. The problem we have with government oversight,
however, is that things like derivatives and some of the more
complex financial instruments are too sophisticated for
government employees to understand. These instruments (and I
helped design some of them) are made to look good. You must to
some sophisticated mathematical modeling with data unavailable to
you to uncover fraud or over-leveraging.
So, along with increased oversight, the government needs to hire
some sophisticated financial analysts with a knowledge of
non-bank financial institutions. These people will require
significant salaries which I think are worth paying. If you don't
hire these people and give them the support they need (which is
an expensive proposition), then oversight is a waste of time.
I don't know what the solution is but I know the status quo with
the Fed isn't working.
Bob| 7.10.09 @ 5:12PM
Matthew, I think the issue is competence. Paulson was a disaster
at treasury as his background was nothing more than a highly paid
day trader. Geithner is smart, but he is more of an economist
than a Wall Street Financial guy -- the Treasury job seems over
his head even though he seems to be honestly trying. Summers is
the brightest bulb in the room but is not a team player and
doesn't listen to anyone. The financial people I like best are
Romer and Bair -- they are not only very smart, but they are
savvy and team players.
The solution must lie in increasing government competence -- (I
know, I know.... that is a contradiction in terms.)
Bob| 7.10.09 @ 4:52PM
Vadum -- I usually disagree with you on financial issues, but you are on target with this one. The Fed, Fannie, and Freddie need oversight. The problem we have with government oversight, however, is that things like derivatives and some of the more complex financial instruments are too sophisticated for government employees to understand. These instruments (and I helped design some of them) are made to look good. You must to some sophisticated mathematical modeling with data unavailable to you to uncover fraud or over-leveraging.
So, along with increased oversight, the government needs to hire some sophisticated financial analysts with a knowledge of non-bank financial institutions. These people will require significant salaries which I think are worth paying. If you don't hire these people and give them the support they need (which is an expensive proposition), then oversight is a waste of time.
Matthew Vadum| 7.10.09 @ 5:00PM
Thanks, Bob.
I don't know what the solution is but I know the status quo with the Fed isn't working.
Bob| 7.10.09 @ 5:12PM
Matthew, I think the issue is competence. Paulson was a disaster at treasury as his background was nothing more than a highly paid day trader. Geithner is smart, but he is more of an economist than a Wall Street Financial guy -- the Treasury job seems over his head even though he seems to be honestly trying. Summers is the brightest bulb in the room but is not a team player and doesn't listen to anyone. The financial people I like best are Romer and Bair -- they are not only very smart, but they are savvy and team players.
The solution must lie in increasing government competence -- (I know, I know.... that is a contradiction in terms.)