The British historian Lord Acton famously said that "power corrupts
and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The American response
is a system of checks and balances. The Federal Reserve
represents a concentration of power that became abundantly clear during
and after the Great Financial Crisis.
The Federal Reserve is a creation of the legislature, not the
Constitution. Congress is trying to reassert its control.
The latest reports indicate that the Republicans, which enjoy a majority in
both chambers, will call for a vote tomorrow on the Fed Oversight Modernization
and Reform Act.
There are three measures in the bill that have in particular raised the
ire of the White House and Fed Chair Yellen. First, the bill requires
that the Fed adopt a mathematical formula, like the Taylor Rules, to set short-term
interest rates. Second, the bill would limit the emergency powers that
the Fed claimed during the crisis. Third, the bills require the
Government Accountability Office to review monetary policy decisions.
Each of these measures is flawed. The bill, which is originating in
the House of Representatives, is unlikely to pass. And if it does
pass, Obama is likely to veto the measure. Obama has used his veto powers
sparingly. He has exercised the veto around five times. The least
since Warren Harding in the 1920s. However, the underlying issue will not go
away. There may be other attempts to check the Fed's power.
The idea that the conduct of monetary policy can be driven by a simple agreed
upon rule is farcical. It is true that as House Speaker Ryan said,
"At times when the Fed apparently practiced a rules-based monetary policy,
the US, and global economies grew with low inflation." The key words
are "at times" and "apparently". The
former gets to the idea that there are other times when faced with
unprecedented conditions, the Fed correctly must innovate.
The latter tacitly recognizes that the Fed never endorsed a simple
rule. A rule might be deduced after the fact, but the Fed no less
than any other major central bank wants, and arguably needs, to be flexible and
pragmatic.
Some critics have complained about what is seen as the Fed's hubris.
However, at least on this issue, it is the bill’s advocates that claim a
knowledge that does not exist. Yellen has argued that policymakers simply
do not have sufficient understanding of how a large complex economy works to
come up with a rule that reliably can drive monetary policy throughout a
business cycle. In addition, there is no consensus among economists or
policy makers about a simple policy rule that can cover a wide range of
circumstances.
Monetary policy is not a technocrat process. It cannot be
done by blindly following a rule. It requires judgments calls and
reasonable people can and will differ. The Fed has three
mandates. There are trade-offs that cannot be reduced to a simply
formula.
Limits on the European Central Bank's ability to act as a lender of last
resort is part of the difficulty officials had in addressing the Great
Financial Crisis. Some in Congress think the Fed abused its power as
lender of last resort. Given the complexities of modern finance and
unfathomable linkages, it seems imprudent to ties official hands. If the
end is legitimate, such as financial stability, then the necessary means must
also be legitimate.
A GAO review of the Fed's conduct of monetary policy risk politicizing
monetary policy in the most banal way. It will bring short-term
partisan political pressure into the deliberations. The House passed a
similar bill last year, but it was blocked in the Senate, which at the time had
a Democratic majority.
When observers talk about the importance of an independent central bank,
it is these often precisely narrow political interests that are feared. A GAO review turns it on its head.
Nevertheless, there are measures the Fed can take to boost its transparency
and accountability. This could include a press conference after every meeting,
as the BOJ and ECB currently conduct. The BOE has shown that the minutes
of the meeting can be released much quicker than the Fed
practices. Congress could help its own case by timely
confirming appointments to the Board of Governors, ensuring it is fully
staffed.
Disclaimer
Democratizing the Fed or Politicizing Monetary Policy?
Reviewed by Marc Chandler
on
November 18, 2015
Rating: