Fed chief Bernanke wins 2nd term in closest vote

Status
Not open for further replies.

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
I have no opinion on whether this will be a good or bad thing. But let me say 70-30 means there had to be some Republican who voted for Bernake....so go figure...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100129/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bernanke_senate

By JEANNINE AVERSA and JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writers Jeannine Aversa And Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writers – 14 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Embattled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke won confirmation for a second term Thursday, but only by the closest vote ever for the crucial post and after withering criticism from lawmakers for bailing out Wall Street while other Americans suffered in recession.

The Senate confirmed Bernanke for a new four-year term by a 70-30 vote, a seemingly solid majority but 14 votes worse than the closest previous vote for a Fed chairman.

President Barack Obama hailed the Senate's action and praised Bernanke's "wisdom and steady leadership."

The battle over Bernanke's confirmation has been a test of central bank independence, a crucial element if the Fed is to carry out unpopular but economically essential policies. Its decisions on interest rates can have immense consequences, from the success or failure of the largest companies to the typical home-buyer's ability to get an affordable loan to the price of cereal at the grocery or gas at the corner station.

Created by Congress in 1913 after a series of bank panics, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, supposedly outside politics, but its chairman is typically assailed by lawmakers and others when the economy falls and jobless ranks lengthen.

"Bernanke fiddled while our markets burned," huffed Richard Shelby, of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, during Thursday's debate. "Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve played a key role in setting the stage for the financial crisis."

Shelby and other opponents blame Bernanke for failing to spot problems leading up to the crisis, for lax bank regulation and for not cracking down on dubious home mortgage practices. All those missteps contributed to the recession, they contend.

Supporters see it far differently, crediting him with preventing the Great Recession from turning into the second Great Depression.

"The chairmanship of Ben Bernanke has in no small measure made it possible for this nation to avoid a catastrophe," said Senate Banking Committee Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

Supporter Chuck Schumer, D-N-Y., worried that the bitter fight over the nomination would send "the message that the Federal Reserve and its monetary policy decisions are under the thumb of Congress. Businesses will be faced with the prospect that the Fed might not be able to do what's necessary for the economy because of pressure from Congress."

The vote on his confirmation came at nearly the last possible moment — Bernanke's current term expires Sunday.

The confirmation vote was preceded by a critical preliminary ballot to block a filibuster by opponents. He needed 60 votes rather than a simple majority and got 77, to 23 against. The closest previous final confirmation vote for a Fed chairman was 84-16 for Paul Volcker's second term in 1983 following another severe recession.

In the final vote, 11 Democrats and an independent joined 18 Republicans against Bernanke. They included senators facing potentially difficult re-elections this year, such as Democrats Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Barbara Boxer of California. Seven Democrats stuck with their party's majority on the vote to overcome the filibuster, but then switched to vote against confirmation. Both party leaders — Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada and Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — voted to confirm. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, voted against him.

After Thursday's vote, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said, "The Senate did the right thing. Chairman Bernanke will continue to play a vitally important role in guiding the nation's economy."

First appointed by President George W. Bush and then re-nominated by President Barack Obama, Bernanke found himself without a broad partisan constituency in the Senate.

"Although the Fed can print money, it can't print political capital," said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics, a consulting firm that advises financial institutions.

Bernanke's role in bailing out Wall Street has angered many Americans, who are still struggling under double-digit unemployment, stagnant paychecks, cracked nest eggs and record home foreclosures. In an election year in which the economy's health is still precarious, senators were hearing those complaints loud and clear.

"A vote for Ben Bernanke is a vote for bailouts," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., a longtime critic.

Bernanke has especially upset lawmakers with his support of a $182 billion rescue of insurance giant American International Group Inc. Hefty bonuses to AIG executives and billions in payments to AIG's Wall Street partners added to the outrage. Criticism mounted as unemployment rocketed to 10 percent.

Bernanke advocates argue that the Fed chairman is being blamed for the failure of institutions over which the Fed had no authority. What's more, they say the countermeasures he took to intervene were exactly what Congress created the agency to do.

"Much of the anger directed at the Fed and the uncertainty regarding Bernanke's reconfirmation is terribly unfortunate — both because of the impact it might have on the central bank going forward, and also because much of the scorn is undeserved," said John Dearie, a former officer of the New York Fed now serving as executive vice president of the Financial Services Forum, an industry group.

The Federal Reserve acts as the "lender of last resort" to banks when they can't get money elsewhere. That's important for the nation's financial and economic stability.

Bernanke's confirmation comes as Congress is writing an overhaul of financial regulations aimed at avoiding another financial crisis. The chairman has had to defend the Fed against efforts to diminish its authority.

A House bill would remove its power to oversee consumer protections and would subject it to a sweeping congressional audit. A Senate bill seeks to create a separate consumer entity as well, and would create a single banking regulator that would also strip the Fed of its supervision of bank holding companies.

Bernanke has admitted making mistakes — including underestimating the threat of a booming housing market that eventually went bust and the resulting fallout to the economy. But he insist he has the tools, the know-how and the political backbone to safely steer the recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s. The biggest challenge facing Bernanke this year: deciding when and how to reverse course and boost interest rates to sop up the unprecedented money pumped out during the crisis. That's important to prevent an outbreak of inflation.

A scholar of the Great Depression, Bernanke, 56, spent most of his professional career in academia, including 17 years teaching economics at Princeton University. He came to Washington to take a job at the Federal Reserve, working with then-Chairman Alan Greenspan. Bush selected him to be his top economist. After that, he was sent to run the Fed starting in 2006.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
More of the same.

I pity the people who thought this administration and legislature would be anything different than what it was 4 years ago. Big gov't, closed gov't, slow gov't, inefficient gov't, unneeded gov't, and meddlesome gov't.

Can I have my hope and change now?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
More of the same.

I pity the people who thought this administration and legislature would be anything different than what it was 4 years ago. Big gov't, closed gov't, slow gov't, inefficient gov't, unneeded gov't, and meddlesome gov't.

Can I have my hope and change now?

get through grade school...then high school...thgen when your old enough to vote then what you have to say will matter...
 

sciwizam

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,953
0
0
I'm not sure where you are going with your comment "But let me say 70-30 means there had to be some Republican who voted for Bernake....so go figure..."

From the article, "In the final vote, 11 Democrats and an independent joined 18 Republicans against Bernanke."

While only 55% of the Reps (22/40) voted for him, 81% of the Dems (47/58) did the same. Maybe I need to go to bed, but I'm not sure what you were implying.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
I'm not sure where you are going with your comment "But let me say 70-30 means there had to be some Republican who voted for Bernake....so go figure..."

From the article, "In the final vote, 11 Democrats and an independent joined 18 Republicans against Bernanke."

While only 55% of the Reps (22/40) voted for him, 81% of the Dems (47/58) did the same. Maybe I need to go to bed, but I'm not sure what you were implying.

I can't say for sure what he is implying but if I were to guess, I believe it would be that Republicans don't vote in lock step all the time. The party was pretty split on this vote. The same can't be said of the democrats. That isn't good or bad.

But people have vilified the republicans to say they are only playing partisian politics since they are the minority and stick together. If that were the case, and they wanted to block Bernanke as a party, they could have done it.

It just shows that some issues are just completely polarizing. This wasn't one of those issues. It was a touchy feely issue.

<-------- Not a republican
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Remarkable how quickly Repubs can attempt to distance themselves from problems of their own making. They cheered wildly and got re-elected on the strength of an overheated economy provided by themselves in congress, the Bush Admin, the FRB and "self-regulated" banking giants. When it all fell down, well, it became time to find somebody else to blame. Kinda tough to put it off on teh ebil libruhls, although they try. Given that they're right in the pocket of the bankers, that they can't blame themselves or the former admin, it leaves Bernanke as the odd man out...

There's a lot of know-nothing sentiment against the banking bailout, some of it righteous and well deserved. OTOH, those attempting to exploit it are those who created the structure that failed in the first place. Beginning in the Reagan era, Repubs sought and got serial deregulation of banking and finance. The staunchly republican former head of the FRB, Greenspan, led the charge many times over his long tenure.

When that system collapsed, choices had to be made. Let it, nationalize the banking giants, or bailout. With the first option, we could be re-living 1931. The second meant that the Bush Admin and congressional repubs would have to denounce their own philosophy. Bailout was the only politically viable choice, and blaming the FRB is the only way congressional repubs can keep their money flowing from banking interests.

As various attempts to reform the banking system are proposed in congress, it shouldn't be any surprise that repubs will oppose them. The system we have now is the one they demanded and largely created, so it's perfect, except that it's a failure, but it can't be, because it's based on their own philosophy...

Epic bouts of circular reasoning are coming our way, even though the current, obviously perfect, system leaves us entirely vulnerable to similar collapse down the road...
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
Jhhnn,

I think one piece you are missing is that it isn't all on the republicans. The republicans did things that contributed but don't be blind. The democrats did also.

Clinton ran with the idea of getting people to own homes will help with poverty because people will care about things they own. The democrats pushed for home ownership. They PUSHED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac(quasi government entities) to loan to people that should not have gotten loans. That forced private banks to do the same.

That was the foundation that allows the banking industry to do the derivatives. That enabled them to do some really bad things using home loans that should never have been given out.

The mess we got in didn't happen over night. It was a growing threat that started under Clinton. The groundwork was layed. Bush took over and removed regulations that further feed into the frenzy.

Make no mistake. It took both parties to screw it up this much.....
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Jhhnn,

I think one piece you are missing is that it isn't all on the republicans. The republicans did things that contributed but don't be blind. The democrats did also.

Clinton ran with the idea of getting people to own homes will help with poverty because people will care about things they own. The democrats pushed for home ownership. They PUSHED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac(quasi government entities) to loan to people that should not have gotten loans. That forced private banks to do the same.

That was the foundation that allows the banking industry to do the derivatives. That enabled them to do some really bad things using home loans that should never have been given out.

The mess we got in didn't happen over night. It was a growing threat that started under Clinton. The groundwork was layed. Bush took over and removed regulations that further feed into the frenzy.

Make no mistake. It took both parties to screw it up this much.....

I don't think Jhhnn doesn't realize the Democrats have mad etheir own big contributions to the problems.

The corporatist Dems voting with them, Clinton's shift to support corporatist policies, were big parts.

On the other hand, the one major faction in Congress who has by far the best record on these issues, normally voting for the public interest against Republicans and corporatist Dems, are the progressive Dems.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Jhhnn,

I think one piece you are missing is that it isn't all on the republicans. The republicans did things that contributed but don't be blind. The democrats did also.

Clinton ran with the idea of getting people to own homes will help with poverty because people will care about things they own. The democrats pushed for home ownership. They PUSHED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac(quasi government entities) to loan to people that should not have gotten loans. That forced private banks to do the same.

That was the foundation that allows the banking industry to do the derivatives. That enabled them to do some really bad things using home loans that should never have been given out.

The mess we got in didn't happen over night. It was a growing threat that started under Clinton. The groundwork was layed. Bush took over and removed regulations that further feed into the frenzy.

Make no mistake. It took both parties to screw it up this much.....

I'll agree that Dems played a part, but they're certainly not the ones who pushed it over the top. They acquiesced, they got chumped. It was the Bush Admin, make no mistake about it, and the groundwork laid by their predecessors in congress and in the Reagan Admin. They demanded more "affordable" lending from the GSE's as part of the Bush re-election strategy, the "Ownership Society". Banks didn't "have" to do anything- they chose their own path so that execs could reap huge rewards from a flimflam operation. They knew the Greenspan put was in force, and they found ways to co-opt the rating agencies. And if their corporate steed bit the dust, so what? They got theirs, to the tune of hundreds of millions, even billions, making them financially untouchable.

The middle class? The Nation? Fvck 'em, I got mine, and there's no getting it back, chumps. As a matter of fact, I'll hold your economy hostage, extort even more out of you, like this-

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2952

Watch and see who opposes the financial reforms currently being set on the table. There won't be any surprises, other than some truly epic doublespeak from repubs...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.