Republican Senators Propose Overhaul of the Federal Reserve

[Frodo]

Or to be more specific, its twelve regional banks, which they would like to shrink to five, and to treat the heads of those regional banks like any other presidential nominee in an effort to depoliticize the institution:

Republican senators propose overhaul of Federal Reserve amid concerns about politics

Seven Republican U.S. senators on Wednesday announced a new bill aimed at reshaping the Federal Reserve's 12 regional banks, amid concerns that those institutions have become too political.

In a news release from outgoing Senator Pat Toomey, the legislators said they are calling for regional Fed bank presidents to be presidentially nominated and confirmed by the Senate, matching the requirements to become a member of the central bank's Board of Governors.

Among its provisions, the bill would also shrink the 12 regional Fed banks to five. "This will enable more effective congressional oversight and ensure that all presidents of Fed regional banks have permanent seats on the Federal Open Market Committee," the news release said.

Regional Fed leaders contribute to monetary policy debates, gather local economic intelligence and vote on interest rate decisions on a rotating basis.

[Del Tachi]

Without looking these should be the five cities:  Buffalo, Montgomery, Toledo, Cheyenne and Medford.  

[Blue3]

Seems reasonable, it's long overdue for an overhaul of some kind.

What are the con's?

[lfromnj]

Sounds good, I actually sent a letter to Toomey after my concerns about the racial disparity study done by the SF fed.

[Benjamin Frank]

Sounds good, I actually sent a letter to Toomey after my concerns about the racial disparity study done by the SF fed.

OK, racist enabler.

[Tintrlvr]

To make them less political... increase Congressional oversight and make them all Presidentially appointed? Sounds like they want to make the Fed more political.

[Hope For A New Era]

Seems reasonable, it's long overdue for an overhaul of some kind.

What are the con's?

Requiring Senate confirmation makes it more political, not less. Surely the last few years have made this clear.

[lfromnj]

To make them less political... increase Congressional oversight and make them all Presidentially appointed? Sounds like they want to make the Fed more political.

The Fed is already political by funding garbage diversity studies with no basis on econometrics. Toomey in general has been quite good on the issue of the federal reserve and he opposed a few of Trump's picks for being too political. I would at least consider this bill.

[Tintrlvr]

To make them less political... increase Congressional oversight and make them all Presidentially appointed? Sounds like they want to make the Fed more political.

The Fed is already political by funding garbage diversity studies with no basis on econometrics. Toomey in general has been quite good on the issue of the federal reserve and he opposed a few of Trump's picks for being too political. I would at least consider this bill.

Ignoring diversity issues is just as political as focusing on them.

[lfromnj]

To make them less political... increase Congressional oversight and make them all Presidentially appointed? Sounds like they want to make the Fed more political.

The Fed is already political by funding garbage diversity studies with no basis on econometrics. Toomey in general has been quite good on the issue of the federal reserve and he opposed a few of Trump's picks for being too political. I would at least consider this bill.

Ignoring diversity issues is just as political as focusing on them.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=427709.0

Again this specific study was so bad because it doesn't use any logic at all. It assumes the economy is of infinite wealth. We might as well say GDP would triple of everyone earned as much as an Indian American.

Overall this study was a breaking point for me on the issue of DEI. I saw how badly it has affected and corrupted our institutions.