February 15 Barry EIchengren and Beatrice Weder di Mauro write: In the United States, the “Audit the Fed” movement is back. Motivated by growth in the Federal Reserve’s assets and liabilities, Republicans are introducing bills in both chambers of Congress to require the Fed to reveal more information about its monetary and financial operations.
But should central banks really worry so much about balance-sheet profits and losses? The answer, to put it bluntly, is no. To be sure, central bankers, like other bankers, do not like losses. But central banks are not like other banks. They are not profit-oriented businesses. Rather, they are agencies for pursuing the public good. Their first responsibility is hitting their inflation target. Their second responsibility is to help close the output gap. Their third responsibility is to ensure financial stability. Balance-sheet considerations rank, at best, a distant fourth on the list of worthy monetary-policy goals.
(Our question: Do most Americans know that the Central Bank bought billions of dollars of sub-prime assets. Sub=prime assets, based on inappropriate lending, brought the US economy down. Auto loans are now being bundled the same way. Will the Fed “have” to buy these?)
Robert Litan writes on February 14: The Fed’s financial statements have long been audited by professionals. Sen. Paul’ and those supporting his “audit” bill want the Government Accountability Office to give Congress annual reports on monetary policy functions of the Fed, or its core responsibilities.
If the same logic were applied to the private sector, then accountants would do far more than determine whether companies’ financial numbers are accurate: They would assess the performance of the business–something stock analysts do for public companies, and not always that well. What’s the issue here? Accountants are not trained to have experience in those businesses. Similarly, the economists employed by the GAO are no match for the economists at the Fed. It is not within their domain of expertise.
In creating the Fed, Congress established an expert, independent agency to manage the country’s monetary affairs. It’s fine for Congress to regularly asked the Fed, as it does other independent agencies, to report what it is doing. But why create, in effect, a “shadow Fed” elsewhere within the government, especially at time when lawmakers are trying to trim excess fat from federal spending?
If backers of the “audit the Fed” movement want to get rid of the agency, they should say so, and let that debate begin. If it does, central banks will win. No modern country operates without one, and it is inconceivable that the United States would prefer to have no central bank–and thus no way to fight financial panics other than to rely on Wall Street financiers, as was the case before the Fed was created (and policy makers had to trust J.P. Morgan to save the country). In the wake of the 2008-09 financial crisis, why would anyone want to embrace that approach?
If ending the Fed is not the objective, and “auditing” is the goal, this proposal is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. A ruly independent central bank keeps inflation lower than in countries where finance ministries manage monetary affairs. Many of those who back “audit the Fed” legislation also want lower inflation. Clipping the Fed’s wings and politicizing monetary policy is hardly an outcome they should welcome.
Note: In 2010, the largest asset on the Federal reserve’s balance sheet at over one trillion dollars in face value. These were the securities that brought the economy down. Who knew the Fed bought them?
February 10, 2015 Pete Schroeder reports: “One of President Obama’s top economic advisers said Tuesday he opposed ‘dangerous’ legislation that would give lawmakers closer scrutiny over Federal Reserve deliberations. Jason Furman, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, called pending legislation subjecting monetary policy deliberations to outside review ‘somewhere between superfluous and highly counterproductive.’
“He added that he would encourage President Obama to oppose the bill if it reached his desk. That opposition could be noteworthy, as previous efforts have stalled in a Democrat-led Senate, which is now in GOP control. Furman argued that the bill, presented by its proponents as a needed check on the central bank, would effectively allow lawmakers critical of the Fed to second-guess its moves.
“‘What that bill is about is about Congress supplanting its judgment as to what monetary policy should be,’ he said in an interview with Bloomberg TV. ‘Congress shouldn’t be telling the Fed what to do with monetary policy.'”
February 2, 2015 The Wall Street Journal says: “The Fed sees GAO reviews of its monetary policy decisions as a congressional intrusion into its independent decision-making. Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke strongly and successfully resisted ‘Audit the Fed’ proposals and Chairwoman Janet Yellen is sure to do the same. In a December news conference, Ms. Yellen said she would be ‘very concerned’ about such a bill and would ‘forcefully make the case’ against it.
“The Fed demonstrated its savvy in dealing with Congress during Dodd-Frank debates in 2010. Efforts to impose congressional inspections of monetary policy and to reduce the Feds bank regulatory powers failed. It emerged from those debates in most respects with more power than it had before.
“Ms. Yellen will have President Obama on her side again if the bill gets new life. She will also have the central banks 12 regional bank presidents, an influential but little seen force in Congress with strong connections in the deep-pocketed business and banking communities around the country. It remains hard to see the Fed losing this battle.
January 29, 2015: While some criticize Rand Paul effort to get the US Fed audited, we do not think an audit will effect its independence, the big objection.
In fact, the Fed’s stated purpose is: 1. Conducting the nation’s monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices. 2. Supervising and regulating banks and other important financial institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation’s banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers. 3. Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.
4. Providing certain financial services to the U.S. government, U.S. financial institutions, and foreign official institutions, and playing a major role in operating and overseeing the nation’s payments systems.
In fact, the US Fed has become the big banker to banking institutions. One of the reasons that the general US population did not benefit from policiies instituted as the Great recession began was that this was not the Fed’s purpose. The purpose was to save certain select financial institutions, to keep insolvent institutions in business.
What happened in 2007 was not a traditional panic, where flooding the economy with cash would help stabliize matters. In fact, the panic began when financial institutions created runs on other financial institutions. This is a complex issue and it has been poorly reported. Instead of increasing the monetary base, the Fed spent its time bailing out Bear Sterns, who had formed EMC, a company that issued mortgages to people with no income and no assets (NINA) so that Bear could bundle and securitzie the mortgages to sell through two hedge funds they had formed and also to other finanicial institutions. Aurthorized by the Fed, Bear Sterns was directly bailed out by the New York Fed which created Maiden Lane. And so on.
The US Fed is running wild. It was become obvious that bankers are smarter than politicians. Bankers wind Obama around their pinkies. But they also captivated Bill Clinton who is pretty smart about economics and bankers are heavily financing his wife’s Preisdential campagin.
Let’s see the audit. American taxpayer’s money was loaned by the US Treasury to the Fed to swap currencies with foreign countries. This is the people’s business.
