Yellen and Fed Transparency
Janet Yellen claimed she supported Fed "transparency" at her Senate hearings - as long as such transparency did not include an audit of the Fed. That, apparently, would compromise the Fed's "independence" from undue political influence.
One has to wonder what exactly she means by transparency if she won't allow an audit. Perhaps "transparency" equates to "what I decide you should know, you have a right to know" - or something along those lines.
And so the New York Sun has decided it opposes Yellen's appointment. And they certainaly have the prerogative as a member of the media. But you wonder what they're thinking when they state the following:
Of course, I'm being sarcastic. But that's just the problem. You can't help but feel that there's really no serious interest on the part of the Senate here, besides the concern of "appearing" to ask good questions. Asking the questions is one thing. Getting answers is clearly another. And they're simply not interested in pressing for answers. Hearings like this can only leave us with the impression that they are part and parcel of the problem of a lack of transparency at the Fed - again, real transparency. They're just putting on a show to satisfy their constituents that they're doing some sort of due diligence, and have their constituents' best interests a heart. They don't really want to press the point and upset the apple cart.
What else can you conclude?
One has to wonder what exactly she means by transparency if she won't allow an audit. Perhaps "transparency" equates to "what I decide you should know, you have a right to know" - or something along those lines.
And so the New York Sun has decided it opposes Yellen's appointment. And they certainaly have the prerogative as a member of the media. But you wonder what they're thinking when they state the following:
Mrs. Yellen may be no different than Mr. Bernanke, nor than most, if not all, of the chairmen who have come before him. All the more maddening is the fact that the committee proceeded to drop the matter. Mr. Vitter surely gets the issue, or he wouldn’t have raised it and co-sponsored Senate 209. But his colleagues made no follow-up about the Constitution of the United States. Not one senator who serves on the Banking Committee stood up for the prerogatives of the Congress. What is the Congress, chopped liver?So they're thinking that the Congress has an interest in defending or promoting the Constitution? The Senate?
Of course, I'm being sarcastic. But that's just the problem. You can't help but feel that there's really no serious interest on the part of the Senate here, besides the concern of "appearing" to ask good questions. Asking the questions is one thing. Getting answers is clearly another. And they're simply not interested in pressing for answers. Hearings like this can only leave us with the impression that they are part and parcel of the problem of a lack of transparency at the Fed - again, real transparency. They're just putting on a show to satisfy their constituents that they're doing some sort of due diligence, and have their constituents' best interests a heart. They don't really want to press the point and upset the apple cart.
What else can you conclude?
Comments