Senate Dems Not Sure They Can Get Enough Votes to Reconfirm Bernanke

Amidst the voter anger at Wall Street and Washington, D.C., ABC News has learned that the Senate Democratic leadership isn't sure there are enough votes to re-confirm Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Sanders, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., have all put holds on Bernanke's nomination, requiring 60 votes to proceed to a vote.

Voter anger is of heightened concern to members of Congress given the surprise victory of Sen.-elect Scott Brown, R-Mass., who rode a tide of voter discontent and economic anxiety to an upset victory in a special election earlier this week.

Last month, the Senate Banking Committee voted in favor of Bernanke's nomination by a vote of 16-7, not exactly a reflection of overwhelming positive feelings towards the Fed chair given the fact that he was first appointed in 2006 by President George W. Bush and nominated by President Obama for a second term last August.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., at one point was planning on scheduling a vote on Bernanke for Friday, but the Senate is currently in the midst of a debate over raising the debt limit and the vote has been pushed.

Roll Call reported this week that at the Senate Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday, "according to senators, liberals spoke out against confirming Bernanke for a second term. Those liberals tried to make the case that the White House needs to put in place fresh economic advisers to focus on 'Main Street' issues like unemployment rather than Wall Street concerns. Moderates were more reserved, senators said, but have similarly withheld their support for Bernanke."

Unfortunatly I think I do mean government, however that would be a government that actually exercised fiscal discipline and did what was in the best interest of the long term goals of price stability, low inflation and low national debt (what a government that would be!).

The issue with the Fed is that it is a privatly controlled bank (actually a conglomerate of large banks that participate in the Federal Reserve System, so its more accurately called a Cartel) and as such there is no mechanism for removing its members from power. With their ability to control monetary policy they are in a unique position to either help or hinder the economey as a whole far more effectivly than the government depending on what aim they are wishing to accomplish. While there is nominal input from the people (in the form of Senate confirmation of the Chairman and appointment by the President), practicly there is no input on the actual operations of the Fed, we just have to trust them that what they are doing is the right thing. For an organization with as much power in society as they have I personally find this abhorrent.

Even with the Audit the Fed bill currently making its way through Congress there would still be no noticible change in day to day operations or oversight, a periodic audit by the Senate Financial Services Committe is something to be sure, but lets not kid ourselves here, the Fed really isn't worried about it despite what Benny boy says. I like that Ron Paul started that bill and that it has so much support, but the only reason it does have that support is that it doesn't really threaten the Fed.

We’d have gone bankrupt already with these idiots running the place.

In case you've been living under a rock for the last 40 years, heres a news flash. The US has been bankrupt for a very long time now, but the Fed has been running the presses for at least as long to keep the party going.

Nope, the market is tanking on the Obama bank proposals, to forbid proprietary trading to any bank that takes deposits.

Populism is stupid. He will ride it straight into the ground. It won't benefit the actual economy and nobody will vote for him for beating up on bankers, when it just keeps the economy smashed.

The economy recovers strongly when banks make loans again, which will happen five minutes after people stop welshing to them on every piece of paper ever, and pols stop using them as punching bags.

Which could be never, I suppose...

Bernanke has done a brilliant job and should be confirmed by the senate immediately. The Fed acted decisively and brilliantly during the depths of the financial crisis in 2008 and prevented another great depression. The culprits in this crisis are irresponsible mortgage borrowers, overconfident mortgage lenders, and people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who wrote legislation that pushed the banks and FNMA into so much sub-prime mortgage lending. Opposition to Bernanke in the senate is nothing more than vacuous political posturing by some of the same politicians who helped to create the crisis. If Bernanke is not confirmed, that will do more damage to the confidence of investors and would also be a great injustice to Mr. Bernanke.

NO, do not allow congress to audit the Fed. The Fed is run by brilliant people who know what they're doing, while congress is run by dolts who usually don't know much about economics. The super-low interest rates of 2002-2003 were a response to 9/11 that worked well for some time but unintentionally caused a speculative real estate bubble because of the foolishness of housing speculators, sub-prime borrowers, and some sub-prime lenders.

Keep congress out of the Feds' business! If congresscritters get involved in setting interest rate policy that will surely lead to much higher inflation in the future because congress will surely want to keep interest rates too low for its own short-term political benefit (by juicing up the economy in the short run). The LAST thing we want is people like Chuck Schumer and Barabara Boxer with any control over interest rates and monetary policy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.