iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

How Bernanke Became A Toxic Asset

First Posted: 03/24/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:15 PM ET

Bernanke

With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's term coming to an end on January 31, what once seemed implausible has quickly become a genuine political possibility: he might not have the votes to win confirmation.

On Friday, a host of lawmakers expressed either skepticism or downright opposition to a second term for the man appointed by George W. Bush and re-nominated by President Barack Obama. By day's end, it was unclear whether the Fed Chairman had the 60 votes needed to move his nomination forward, raising speculation that the president would have to pull the nomination.

How, exactly, did it come to this? Aides on Capitol Hill were asking themselves that very question. One high-ranking Democrat said that until recently, the Bernanke nomination was barely discussed in leadership meetings and even less frequently in caucus gatherings. "It was widely assumed that he would coast," the aide said, "after taking a few political punches." It seemed so inevitable that leadership was leaking news that a vote would happen this week -- Wednesday being the target date.

Then Massachusetts happened. The election of Republican Senator-Elect Scott Brown on a wave of anti-Wall Street, anti-bailout sentiment was, as Sen. Bernie Sander's (I-Vt.) deemed it, a "wake up call to many Democrats" considering Bernanke.

"I think Tuesday's election reinforced that the American people are appropriately outraged by the behavior of Wall Street for creating this crisis and wanting to go back to business as usual after this," Sanders told the Huffington Post. "Was Massachusetts a wakeup call to many Democrats, that the American people are profoundly disgusted with Wall Street, want changes and want a new chairman of the Fed? I'd say yeah."

What followed for members was a frantic day of self-reflection over the party's economic platform and the message it is sending. During the caucus meeting on Wednesday lawmakers aired their concerns that symbolically and substantively they had become too tied to Wall Street. The anti-Bernanke voices then spoke up. Sanders went first, taking the quaint and unusual tact of printing out one-page fliers (which he distributed to his colleagues) that laid out the case against confirmation.

"It ain't that hard," he said to the Huffington Post. "It isn't that hard to figure out. If you are a Democrat you ask yourself right off the bat why would we be reappointing not only the individual that George W. Bush appointed to the Fed, but someone who was a member of the Bush administration? Why would you want to do that when the country faces today the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression?"

Next up was Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a backbencher freshman but also a widely respected progressive economic thinker who was the only Democrat to vote against Bernanke's nomination when the Banking Committee considered it. The Oregon Democrat explained his earlier vote and relayed the positive reception he had received when talking about his opposition to the Fed Chairman with constituents back home.

"Those comments really did focus people on the issue and made them start to think," said a senior Democrat with direct knowledge of the caucus meeting.

"There was tension there," said a Senate aide briefed on the meeting. "There were people willing to vote yes but hesitant about it. After that, people got the sense there was a need for different leadership on the economic front."

The floodgates were suddenly open. Sanders put out a post-caucus statement expressing his sense of growing opposition to the confirmation vote. By Thursday, Capitol Hill newspapers were poking around to see who else was turning into a skeptic. The Huffington Post quizzed 26 Senators and found that three were no votes, 13 were undecided and one simply wouldn't state his position. That day, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met with Bernanke. That night, his office made it official. "The votes might not be there," said Reid's press secretary, Jim Manley.

Manley now tells the Huffington Post to expect a vote at the "end of next week," adding: "It looks pretty close and we may need Republican votes in the end to confirm him."

But on the Republican side of the aisle, support for Bernanke was never strong to begin with. The Fed Chairman had already received a poor reception from the GOP during his Banking Committee hearing, with six of the party's 10 committee members voting against him. The Massachusetts election only crystallized the opposition. By mid-week Republican leadership was counting how many members would oppose confirmation.

"It was a known quantity that Republicans are not thrilled with him," said one top-ranking Republican aide. "What has been new is the Democrats coming out against him."

All of which is not to suggest that opposition to Bernanke has been purely driven by electoral politics -- though his confirmation vote could not have come at a worse time. Sanders, indeed, has been raising concerns with the Fed Chairman for months, citing not just the performance during the market meltdown, but also his unwillingness to make economic policy changes in real time, such as lowering interest rates on credit cards, finding avenues to get credit to small business, and pursuing additional measures of transparency.

Over the summer and into the fall, those concerns were overshadowed by a nearly monomaniacal focus on health care. To a large extent, the Democratic Party had blinders on when it came to seeing voter discontent with all things tied to the Wall Street bailout.

The Massachusetts election ripped those blinders off. And by Friday afternoon the Fed Chairman Obama had nominated in late August, who was confirmed by the Banking Committee in mid-December, and who seemed destined for a second term as late as last week, no longer was a shoo-in. Just how toxic Bernanke had become was evident by day's end, when Reid in a statement affirming his support for confirmation, made sure to declare that it was "not unconditional."

"I made it clear that to merit confirmation, Chairman Bernanke must redouble his efforts to ensure families can access the credit they need to buy or keep their home, send their children to college or start a small business. He has assured me he will soon outline plans for making that happen, and I eagerly await them," Reid's statement read. "I know Chairman Bernanke is committed to transparency and accountability, and that is why I will hold him to the highest standards of both."

With Reporting From Ryan Grim

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's term coming to an end on January 31, what once seemed implausible has quickly become a genuine political possibility: he might not have the votes to win co...
With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's term coming to an end on January 31, what once seemed implausible has quickly become a genuine political possibility: he might not have the votes to win co...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 489
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ebanks84
Grandma knows best!
12:56 AM on 01/25/2010
I don't care how they try to analyze this and analyze that, Bernanke needs to go. And the Feds need to follow him. We need to have control of our OWN MONEY back!
06:02 PM on 01/24/2010
“OT -

I found a reputable charity, where you can sponsor a Haitian orphan from $15.00 per month.

It's called SOS Children's Villages. If you click on the link, you can find information about the charity.

https://secure2.convio.net/scv/site/Donation2?df_id=5140&5140.donation=form1

Please pass the link on to anyone you think might be interested.

I will be sponsoring from their UK website -

http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/sponsor-a-child/americas/haiti

I know there may be better charities, but after searching for days, this was the only one I could find, that met the following criteria.

1. The money will go to help a child in Haiti.
2. The amount of money you pay can be as little as $15.00 (most of the other charities were $28.00 - $35.00 per month), therefore, people who do not have a lot of money to spare, can get involved.
3. The aim of the charity is not to bring the children up in one, or other, religious denomination, but to feed, clothe, educate, and keep them with families, in their own surroundings, until adoption can be arranged.
4. The charity enables you to help long-term, rather than "Donate Now."

I really did spend days trying to find a charity that will allow some of us (on HuffPo), who don't have much money, to help (in a small way), on a long-term basis.

Virginia Plain””
05:11 PM on 01/24/2010
This is why Bernacke will be reappointed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQyFxBG6dhY
photo
PoorRichardsHeartache
when is obstruction insurrection?
01:32 PM on 01/24/2010
Obama needs a trifecta in the economy and financial policy. BYE Geihtner, Summers, and Bernanke. And take Emanuel with them,
The only way to have made the situation worse was to just turn the economy and financial policy over to the just say no party and Wall Street. Oh Wait, wait, Obama already did that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
06:22 PM on 01/24/2010
For a year, we have heard the naysayers rag on Bernanke and Geithner. My question which still after a year is not answered is WHO SHOULD have been appointed?????? Anyone? I can think of a dozen or so that would be better than Rahm.
09:26 AM on 01/25/2010
Paul Volker, Elizabeth Warren, and half of the other non-NY fed bankers.
Jazzcomedian
An easy going responsible bohemian
12:44 PM on 01/24/2010
Regardless of monetary policy, a man with a beard that neatly trimmed in today's sloppy world, deserves another term. It'll inspire the unemployed to go to their job interviews much better groomed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jinxed
starting over at 60
06:04 PM on 01/24/2010
Its a little difficult to go to a job interview "better groomed" when you have been unemployed for as long as many have and are homeless to boot.
photo
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
11:31 AM on 01/24/2010
Obama's entire economic team have been Wall Street/AIG first and Main Street last. Instead of empowering Main St and giving "bailout" money to the people and let it trickle up to the bankers, Obama's team gave billions to Wall St and hoped it would trickle down to Main St -- it didn't, and Bernanke, Geithner and Summers were the ones saving the Wall St thieves and greedy gamblers. The Fed under Bernanke will not even tell Congress how and where billions went. During the campaign Obama had some Progressive advisers, but immediately after election he dumped all them in favor of Wall St shills, ex-lobbyists and other business-as-usual functionaries. Now Obama gives his unqualified support to Bernanke -- Bush's pick for Fed Head -- instead of following up some half-hearted narrow focus Populist anti-bank rhetoric (that I believe is just a way to evade REAL banker/AIG accountability and reform). Obama and his advisers clearly do not get it, even now, and the Dem leadership still supports his pro-banker greed, big-money stance and agenda. His tone-deafness is infuriating!

http://wallstreetpit.com/13059-why-bernanke-must-go
11:29 AM on 01/24/2010
"...outraged by the behavior of Wall Street?" This is one of the funny twists on spinning Massachusetts. When is anyone on the left going to say it out loud: The people are outraged with the behavior of Congress! (And if you want me to spell it out specifically, we are outraged by the current democrats in office, who after promising bipartisanship and openness in government, went on to back room meetings and flagrant bribery to try to ramrod through the most partisan piece of legislation in our country's history.)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
06:26 PM on 01/24/2010
I agree with you about congress, but different reasons. I say when it was clear that bipartisanship was an impossibility, that the Dems should have just started legislating without the GOPers. Lieber man should never have retained his chairmanship. He alone scuttled health care reform and the public option. Now that the Dems no longer have a "supermajority" (LOL) Lieberman should be out on his ear. Dems it's time for hard ball.
09:23 AM on 01/25/2010
Lieberman isn't alone. If he were, there wouldn't be a push to have the House accept the Senate bill as is. He was the scapegoat for at least 9 other senators, if this stuff about reconciliation not working is true.
09:25 AM on 01/25/2010
If the Senate won't pass an improved bill through reconcilliation, then at least 9 Corporate Democrat senators are as sold out as Lieberman.
09:29 AM on 01/25/2010
The left is outraged by congress too. Neither party represents their base. They are both rushing to sell out constituents as fast as they can.
03:59 AM on 01/24/2010
I think President Obama is incredibly lucky to have corporate stooges like Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander around who will support Bernanke and make his reappointment a bipartisan sellout.
photo
JDM73
male, 38, writer/draughtsman/ex-musician
11:29 PM on 01/23/2010
Bernie Sanders speaks for me. We need more socialist independents in Washington.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jinxed
starting over at 60
06:14 PM on 01/24/2010
What we really need is to get rid of all incumbents and all their baggage including the staffers. Its time to start over, folks. Come the 2012 election, get rid of the rest of the incumbents that didn't run in 2010 and the deal is done no later than 2014! Any "new faces" who try to do "business as usual" will find themselves out in the first election they try to get re-elected in. OR maybe one term is all any politician should be allowed. With all the citizens in this country, we don't NEED to have ANY politician in office for more than one term! No seniority, no special "powers" to any of them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
06:27 PM on 01/24/2010
I love our new Congressman. He is a true progressive and having him thrown out just for the sake of throwing out the incumbents would be counter productive.
10:52 PM on 01/23/2010
So Bernanke will become synonymous with Rumsfield and it will be the 2006 elections in reverse. Sigh.

Why keep him - except to keep selling out to Wall Street.

No one trusts Bernanke - will there be transparency on the TRILLIONS in Fed Reserve Debt? Will we find out the Disasters of Assets in Maiden Lane I, II, and III with all the AIG garbage.

But the real ending of Bernanke came when he testified before Congress and his Only Solution to help the financial crisis of millions of Americans Who Need Jobs, Need to Stop Home Foreclosures, and stop Lending to Banksters at ZERO - but then gouge Consumers at 29.99% ---- Bernanke's solution was . . .

Repeal Social Security! Yep Bernanke is so brilliant an economist that he stated the problem is - Senior Citizens collecting Social Security --- Not Corrupt Wall Street Banksters!

Get rid of Bernanke now!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jpb0914
10:10 PM on 01/23/2010
If Geithner and Rahm, the big coropratist culprits are in favor .......I am opposed.
12:14 AM on 01/24/2010
Amen to that one. Lets get all three of them out of there.

I voted OBama. I voted for change. Let's see some change.

Amazing, the Dems are just now waking up to the fact that the man in the street is angry. The man on Main St that is.

The Repugs have already plugged into this, and they created the mess which caused it all, and they will now exploit the anger to the benefit for more seats in 2010. The Repugs are marketing geniuses. They can sell ice cubes to Eskimos
09:48 PM on 01/23/2010
In the real world of human beings horrified and disgusted at the possibility of another term, Webster Tarpley at least is calling for action. He says people must mobilize now to oust Bernanke.

http://tarpley.net/2010/01/22/mobilize-now-to-oust-bernanke-as-fed-chair/

Tarpley says, "It is time for every serious intelligent person to send two e-mails and place two phone calls to the Washington and local offices of their senators demanding that they stop Bernanke. Obama should also be warned that Bernanke is an insult to the American people. Those who have been complaining about the Fed for decades now have a real chance to do something about it. These chances are very rare, but this is the best one in many, many decades."

That's mobilize. But only if you want to "mobilize to turn of the tide against Wall Street in the struggle to decide who will pay for the current depression — the people or the bankers and hedge fund hyenas."
09:13 PM on 01/23/2010
Senator Reid is part of the problem - they anti-CHANGE crowd, Reid's "supporting" the Bernanke nomination but not unconditionally and claims, he'll keep an eye on him. NEWS FLASH for Reid - there are no do-overs on nominations.

Vote for CHANGE NOW or polish your resume because you'll be gone in November.
08:45 PM on 01/23/2010
Obama, again this week, failed to deliver the CHANGE we voters wanted in 2008 (and that Massachusetts voters wanted this month). Obama should have withdrawn the re-nomination of economic arsonist Bernanke. Instead, Obama signaled it's new rhetoric but business-as-usual. Obama failed to withdraw the flawed nomination and then doubled-down in sending Geithner and Emanuel out to drum up support for the wrongful nomination.

Senate democrats would give Obama a HUGE gift if they reject Bernanke's nomination. They would show Obama that THEY got the CHANGE message. Maybe then the White House would FINALLY, belatedly begin to CHANGE.
04:34 PM on 01/23/2010
Proceedings from Democratic Senate causus meeting: "Those comments really did focus people on the issue and made them start to think," said a senior Democrat with direct knowledge of the caucus meeting. ..... After that, people got the sense there was a need for different leadership on the economic front."

God have mercy!
Only at this recent meeting have our esteemed senators started to think about the need for different leadership on the economic front.? How tone-deaf are these folks?
06:00 PM on 01/23/2010
"Bernanke is a Bank's Best Friend"

Our country's in great peril.
We're going down the drain.
But we prefer a man who gives
To those too big to fail.

A kick in the ass
May be just what is needed,
But Bernanke is a bank's best friend.

We get that kick
While the banks get a bailout
And we're left flat
While Wall Street gets fat.

Our credit is shot
But Wall Street's hot,
And we all lose it all in the end.

The country is tanking,
That's not so with banking,
Bernanke is a bank's best friend.

Sumners!
Paulsen!
Ken Lewis!
Leo Mozillo!
Talk to me Mr. Geinthner.
Tell me all about it!

While we live in times
Of high unemployment,
Bernanke is a bank's best friend.

While we live in times
When there are NO employers
It's awful nice,
That crooked banks get all the dice.

He's their guy
Wall Street is high,
The rest of us lose in the end.

Bankers are louses
We've all lost our houses,
Bernanke is a bank's best friend.

I've heard of affairs
We've been sold out in back rooms,
Bernanke is a bank's best friend.

And I think affairs
That you must keep a secret
Are better bets
Wall Street thugs are Geithner's pets.

Time rolls on,
Our assets are gone,
Wall Street wins it all in the end.

Why fight for
Healthcare,
We'll all be on welfare.

Bernanke! Bernanke!
I don't mean Geithner!
Bernanke is a bank's best friend.