December 21, 2009
By now you should be aware of the fact that for his 56th birthday, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year”. Were the folks at Time so arrogant as to believe that this honor would insure the confirmation of Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve? More than a few commentators expressed the view that Time’s “Person of the Year” award might actually jeopardize Bernanke’s chance at confirmation. For example, take a look at what Mike Shedlock (a/k/a Mish) had to say:
That Bernanke is on the cover of Time Magazine means one thing “Bernanke’s Time Is Limited” He is on his way out. And that is good news.
* * *
The quicker this blows up, the quicker we can recover. And knowing what we know about Time Magazine, Central Banking will blow up sooner rather than later. Moreover, Bernanke will not be part of the solution, and that is a good thing.
I thank Time Magazine for the information and their kiss of death warning. However, I must also remind readers that Stalin made the cover twice, so immediate results just might be expecting too much.
When Bernanke was grilled by the Senate Banking Committee during the confirmation hearing on December 3, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky gave him a magnificent pummeling, most notable for the assertion: “You are the definition of a moral hazard!” My only criticism of Bunning’s diatribe was that he should have said: “You are the personification of a moral hazard” or “You are the epitome of a moral hazard” — otherwise, it was perfect. If that weren’t enough, Senator Bunning demanded that Bernanke answer seventy written questions submitted by Bunning himself. Those of you who have ever been a party to a lawsuit might recall having to provide signed answers to written interrogatories. Most jurisdictions place a limit on the number of such interrogatories to the extent of approximately 35. Senator Bunning propounded twice that many to Bernanke and the nominee answered all of them. Don Luskin of Smart Money analyzed one of these answers in a way that underscored the necessity of removing Bernanke from the Fed chairmanship.
On December 18, Victoria McGrane reported for Politico that the Bernanke nomination “could be in more trouble than previously thought”. Although the Senate Banking Committee voted to confirm the nomination, ultimately the entire Seante must vote on the matter. The fact that six Republicans and one Democrat from the Banking Committee voted against the nomination was portrayed as an ominous signal, casting doubt on the likelihood of confirmation. Ms. McGrane discussed the reaction to the confirmation hearings expressed by Brian Gardner, a bank analyst for Keefe, Bruyette and Woods:
Two aspects of the two-hour debate that preceded the committee vote struck Gardner as worrisome for Bernanke: the unenthusiastic — even apologetic — tone from some of the senators who voted yes and a dispute over the Fed’s refusal to release documents about the bailout of insurance giant American International Group to senators on the committee.
The article explained that the AIG bailout documents were available for review by “some banking committee staffers” although the documents have been withheld by the Fed from individual senators and the public, based on the Fed’s claim that the documents are “protected”.
This is apparently an assertion by the Fed that there is some sort of privilege protecting the AIG bailout documents from disclosure. Nevertheless, if the fight over these records ever gets before a court, it is likely that production of the documents would be compelled, since any claim of privilege was waived once the Fed allowed the “banking committee staffers” to review the items.
The Politico report noted the significance of this matter:
That spat could have legs, Gardner said, and if it resonates with a public already fuming at the Fed, it could sway the votes of yes-leaning senators.
The battle over the AIG bailout documents was also the subject of an opinion piece in the December 19 edition of The New York Times, written by Eliot Spitzer, Frank Partnoy and William Black. Here’s some of what they had to say:
No doubt, some of the e-mail messages contain privileged conversations among lawyers. Others probably include private information that is irrelevant to A.I.G.’s role in the crisis. But the vast majority of these documents could be made public without legal concern. So why haven’t the Treasury and the Federal Reserve already made sure the public could see this information? Do they want to protect A.I.G., or do they worry about shining too much sunlight on their own performance leading up to and during the crisis?
What will these e-mails reveal about the actions of Ben Bernanke and “Turbo” Tim Geithner during the AIG bailout phase of the financial crisis? Were laws violated or do they simply exhibit some poor decision-making and cronyism?
Most of us are now getting ready for the coldest month of the year – but for Ben Bernanke, the heat is being turned up — full blast.
An Early Favorite For 2010
February 11, 2010
It appears as though the runner-up for TheCenterLane.com’s 2009 Jackass of the Year Award is well on his way to winning the title for 2010. After reading an op-ed piece by Ross Douthat of The New York Times, I decided that as of December 31, 2009, it was too early to determine whether our new President was worthy of such a title.
Since Wednesday morning, we have been bombarded with reactions to a story from Bloomberg News, concerning an interview Obama had with Bloomberg BusinessWeek in the Oval Office. In case you haven’t seen it, here is the controversial passage from the beginning of that article:
Many commentators have expounded upon what this tells us about our President. I’d like to quote the reactions from a couple of my favorite bloggers. Here’s what Yves Smith had to say at Naked Capitalism:
At his Credit Writedowns website, Edward Harrison made this observation:
Victoria McGrane of Politico gave us a little background on Obama’s longstanding relationship with The Dimon Dog:
Some commentators have expressed the view that Obama is making a transparent attempt to curry favor with the banking lobby in time to get those contributions flowing to Democratic candidates in the mid-term elections. Nevertheless, for Obama, this latest example of trying to please both sides of a debate will prove to be yet another “lose/lose” situation. As Victoria McGrane pointed out:
As for those members of the electorate who usually vote Democratic, you can rest assured that a large percentage will see this as yet another act of betrayal. They saw it happen with the healthcare reform debacle and they’re watching it happen again in the Senate, as the badly-compromised financial reform bill passed by the House (HR 4173) is being completely defanged. A bad showing by the Democrats on November 2, 2010 will surely be blamed on Obama.
As of February 11, we already have a “favorite” in contention for the 2010 Jackass of the Year Award. It’s time for the competition to step forward!