Fed

Congress and the Obama administration refused to do anything about the corrupt government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even though administration officials admitted that they were at the “core” of “what went wrong” in our financial system.  Doing so was just “too hard,” they claimed, and too time-consuming.

But they did find time in their financial “reform” legislation to push racial quotas at the Federal Reserve, requiring each Federal Reserve Bank to establish an “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion” to “increase the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in programs and contracts.”  This requirement is the brainchild of Los Angeles Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the Castro-loving, left-wing ideologue who earlier praised the Los Angeles race riots that destroyed scores of Korean-owned businesses as an “uprising” against injustice.

Forget about those pesky Supreme Court decisions saying that racial preferences are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny, and not permissible to promote “racial balance.”  Apparently, they are obsolete in the era of “hope and change.”  Plenty of other changes are afoot too.  Obama fired an inspector general for exposing corruption by one of his cronies.  And the Obama Justice Department illegally defied the Civil Rights Commission to cover up the fact that the administration let members of the racist, anti-Semitic New Black Panther Party get away with voter intimidation.

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott and Marc Scribner get together to bring you Episode 75 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We take on Ben Bernanke’s recession theories, Canada’s struggle to provide affordable energy, the high cost of government-regulated credit cards, bringing booze to Salt Lake City and the FDA’s critics on the left.

Your hosts Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist welcome back special guest co-host Michelle Minton for Episode 35 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We begin with a celebration of human achievement and a peek into the realm of secret government documents. We then investigate how the White House is going to waste another $1 trillion of your money and how the British beer tax has managed to kill off 20,000 jobs. Finally we focus on the history of the scandal-addled Sen. Dodd of Connecticut and the future of U.S. Olympic glory.

BONUS BOOK FEATURE: We congratulate our good friend Steve Milloy on the publication of his new book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them. The book is a one-of-a-kind, comprehensive takedown of the entire environmental movement that will open your eyes to a looming threat to our economy, our civil liberties, and the entire American way of life.

In a running theme, I again cover the topic of the U.S. government’s heavy-handed dealings with swiss bank UBS.  A nod to my colleague John Berlau, whose letter in today’s Financial Times gives a nod to former ambassador Faith Whittlesey and her commentary in FT expressing concern over the Obama administration demanding the names of 52,000 Americans who do business with UBS.  As I stated in previous posts on this issue, these actions by federal authorities are setting a bad precedent for the privacy of American citizens.  As usual, I am left at the end my post with questions: When the government can demand to know every detail of your financial life, what is there to stop it from exerting control over it?

“Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is basing hundreds of billions in emergency lending on credit ratings from companies that gave AAA grades to toxic securities. The Fed has purchased $308.5 billion in commercial paper and lent $631.8 billion” based on appraisals by the bond rating agencies Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch.  So reports Bloomberg News.

Before the financial crisis, we repeatedly warned in vain that these ratings agencies were failing in their job, and that regulations that prevented independent companies from competing with them should be eliminated.  But the Fed continues to rely only on these firms, and shield them from competition, bowing to their special status as the  “major nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations,” rather than relying on independent ratings firms, such as those accountable to investors.

Policy makers should take the opportunity to spearhead a change in the system by elevating the independents, said Alex Pollock, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.  Unlike the top three, they are paid by investors who subscribe to their services, rather than by businesses whose products they rate. That makes them less likely to grade securities favorably, Pollock said.  ‘Why would you limit this to the dominant ratings agencies that helped get us into this situation?‘ he said.”

“It is foolhardy” to rely on the major rating agencies, said Keith Allman, chief executive officer of Enstruct Corp., which trains investors. The major raters issued top marks to $3.2 trillion in subprime mortgage-backed securities at the root of the financial crisis.  “They’re outsourcing the credit assessment to a group of people whose recent performance has been unbelievably bad,” said Allman. “If their goal is to not take a loss on these assets, they should be hiring independent analysts.”

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke should be removed from office.  He is destroying the value of the dollar and discouraging investment in the U.S. through his reckless printing of money and buying up of risky and worthless securities at taxpayer expense.  He has impoverished savers and punished thrift through his irresponsible interest rate-cuts and giveaways to banks.  He has promoted irresponsible bailouts for deadbeat mortgage borrowers.  And he has ignored statutory limits on Federal Reserve authority through a succession of failed bailouts that are both radical and unauthorized, legally justifying his removal from office.

“The dollar yesterday staged one of its biggest one-day drops against the euro and fell to a 13-year low against the Japanese yen as near-zero interest rates and the Federal Reserve’s plan to print vast sums of cash dilute the value of the greenback,” reports the Washington Post today.

“On Monday, the Fed cut . . . the federal funds rate, at which banks lend to each other, from 1 percent to a target range of 0 percent to 0.25 percent, and effectively vowed to print as much money as it needs to try and pull the United States from a worsening recession.”

“In response, investors are dumping the dollar and buying up other currencies.  If the dollar’s fall is unchecked, it could jeopardize the long-term faith of foreign investors in the value of American currency and could cause foreign investors to dump U.S. stocks and other assets,” and cut investment in the U.S.

Foreign investors in the U.S., like Switzerland’s Julius Baer family of mutual funds, have long criticized the Fed’s easy-money policies, which helped spawn the mortgage bubble and financial crisis, and now are destroying the value of the dollar in a vain effort to push back the day of reckoning for years of excessive borrowing that occurred in what Julius Baer calls “The Age of Decadence.”  The Fed’s absurdly low interest rates are impoverishing savers and punishing thrift and responsibility.

The Fed’s frantic efforts to bail out the economy by printing money and attempting to inflate the money supply have been colossal failures to date, and some of its bailout measures have exceeded its legal authority.  Undaunted, the Bush Administration is now pushing a unilateral automaker bailout that lacks Congressional authorization and construes the financial bailout statute in an unconstitutional manner.

Thanks to his reckless bailout policies, which have exposed taxpayers to hundreds of billions of dollars in losses, and exploded the national debt, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke will go down in history as the worst Fed Chairman in generations.  His record is far worse than even infamous predecessors like Arthur Burns, the spineless Fed Chairman who gave in to Richard Nixon’s pressure to run the printing presses to temporarily prop up the economy to get Nixon re-elected in 1972, resulting in the severe recession of 1973-75 and the “stagflation” of the 1970s.

Jacob Sullum’s recent column argues that Bush’s auto bailout plan is an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers.  We earlier argued that it was either illegal or unconstitutional

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, with little public awareness, is attempting a financial system bailout far bigger than Congress ever authorized, resulting in one failure after another, as economics professor Jeffrey Rogers Hummel explains in a recent editorial.  “All the emergency initiatives of both the Fed and the Treasury since the subprime problem first emerged have not merely proved stellar and consistent failures. As Anna Schwartz . . . and other economists have suggested, the thrashing about of Fed and Treasury policy has undoubtedly made the financial situation worse.”

Professor Hummel describes how an unhinged Federal Reserve has “opened the monetary floodgates,” to the point where “Federal Reserve Bank credit [has] doubled to around $1.8 trillion.”  That massive  “increase of the monetary base . . . heralds future inflation.”  And the Fed is using money from the Treasury to buy up risky securities, putting the taxpayers at great risk:  

“Essentially, the Treasury is now issuing extra securities to borrow money from the economy, then loaning the money to the Fed in these special deposits so that Bernanke can re-inject it to make his bailout purchases of various securities, all without increasing the monetary base. In other words, what the infamous bailout act permitted the Treasury to do directly is something it had already started doing indirectly through the Fed to the tune of half a trillion. All in the name of easing a tight Treasury market.

This means that the total bailout is not the $700 billion that Congress appropriated, but at least $1.2 trillion. And that figure doesn’t include the Fed’s mid-October promise of $540 billion to bail out money market funds, which if not covered by the Fed’s sale of other assets, will require either further monetary increases or further Treasury borrowing. Thus we now have the worst of both worlds: a massive bailout financed both by Treasury borrowing (in order to avoid inflation) and a Federal Reserve increase of the monetary base (which heralds future inflation anyway).

Of the $1.2 trillion increase in federal government borrowing, at least half took place within the space of a month. This sudden 25 percent increase in the outstanding national debt qualifies as the most dramatic peacetime experiment in fiscal stimulus the U.S. government has ever implemented. If Keynesian theory were correct, the economy should have been well beyond the reach of any potential recession by the end of October. But how many economists are going to acknowledge this striking empirical refutation of the fiscal policy they hold dear?

This enormous increase in government debt may at least partly explain the sudden stock market collapse after the bailout passed.”

The Fed’s increasingly radical bailout measures have been described by sympathetic journalists as “creative.”  That polite euphemism disguises the fact that many of the Fed’s bailout measures have been illegal and lacking in any statutory authorization.  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should be removed from office for usurping powers not granted to the Fed by any federal law. 

Even recent Fed actions that are perfectly legal — like its unprecedented cut in the federal funds rate to virtually zero – are likely to be completely ineffective in reviving the economy, even as they discourage responsibility and thrift.

The Treasury Department, meanwhile, is using financial system bailout money for purposes Congress never intended, like buying up ownership shares in banks, leading even some former supporters of the bailout to protest that they were deceived by the Bush Administration.

The Federal Reserve has just cut the federal funds rate for loans to banks to an unprecedentedly low rate — ranging from 0.0% to 0.25% — well below its prior 1 percent rate.  After taking inflation into account, the Fed is literally giving money away.  The Fed’s low interest rates since 2001 helped spawn the current financial crisis and the mortgage bubble, greatly weakening the value of the U.S. dollar and reducing capital investment in the U.S.

The Fed’s rate cut will also have the effect of reducing already very low interest rates on savings accounts, costing savers money.   Not only is your bank interest rate less than the inflation rate, eroding the value of your savings, but to add insult to injury, you have to pay income tax on the insultingly-low interest, too.

The Fed’s action misdiagnoses the cause of the financial crisis.  Banks aren’t refusing to lend money because interest rates are too high — they’re refusing to lend because they are afraid they won’t be paid back.  The Fed’s irresponsible actions lend weight to such fears.

The Fed’s action, which is partly intended to prop up overextended borrowers by reducing their interest payments, sends the message that the government will protect such borrowers from the consequences of their own overspending and recklessness, regardless of the cost to others.

That same mentality is behind Obama’s campaign call for a freeze on foreclosures; the FDIC’s failed policy of reducing the mortgage payments of delinquent borrowers at failed banks; and calls by politicians like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bail out defaulting mortgage borrowers.   Banks’ reluctance to lend money in such a political climate, and fear that they won’t be fully paid back, is understandable.