The Message of Sarah Raskin's Defeat
By: The Editorial Board (WSJ)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sarah Bloom Raskin on Tuesday withdrew her nomination for vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the message of her defeat is more important than the fate of one would-be regulator. Her defeat is a warning to the Fed that a majority of the Senate doesn't believe the central bank should use its power to allocate capital for political purposes.
President Biden blamed Ms. Raskin's defeat on "baseless attacks from industry and conservative interest groups." But Ms. Raskin's most significant opponent was her oft-expressed view that the Fed and other regulators should deny credit to companies that produce or heavily consume fossil fuels. We've documented those views in several editorials.
While she and her supporters tried to say she wouldn't use her powers that way at the Fed, everyone knew that was false. Those views are the reason that Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse pushed her so hard for the job.
This isn't part of the Fed's dual mandate, which is full employment and stable prices. Congress gave the central bank additional regulatory power after the financial panic, but in the name of bank safety and soundness, not to steer capital to one industry or deny it to another. But Democrats now want the Fed to use those powers to promote their political goals.
This would be economically destructive if it ever became Fed policy because politicians inevitably distort investment decisions. It would also lead to the corruption of the Fed itself, as the central bank became another avenue for political and industry lobbies to implement their policy goals without having to do the messy business of passing legislation.
This has been Ms. Warren's explicit mission since she created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and insulated it from Congressional appropriations and executive oversight. Ms. Raskin was her agent to do the same at the Federal Reserve.
Her defeat should give Fed Chairman Jerome Powell more confidence to oppose attempts by others on the Fed Board of Governors to politicize financial regulation in the name of climate change. It should also instruct the White House not to replace Ms. Raskin with a nominee with the same views, though it probably won't.
From the puppet who claimed he was going to build consensus and unify the nation. Instead, he calls dissent for any of his far left appointments "baseless". The reason they are going to be defeated is because they are radical and Biden via his terrible poll numbers, has given the GOP the political Capital to stop them.
Absolutely. The right wing abhors anything even remotely connected with 'Consumer Protections' for the American people.
Corporate will be corporate rule.
"Ms. Raskin's most significant opponent was her oft-expressed view that the Fed and other regulators should deny credit to companies that produce or heavily consume fossil fuels. "
It's right there in the article
She is a climate quack.
Meh, you may soon be in the position to trumpet a fossil fuel quack.
Mediocre at best.
That they are.
Didn't read the article?
She isn't about "Consumer Protections" or protecting the American people. She is an environmental nut job that would cause gas, oil, and coal prices to sky rocket even further by denying those industries credit. How high do Democrats want the damn prices to go for both fuel and inflation?
Interesting article about how the US manipulates the price of oil. (A google search about oil price manipulation will show it isn't just the US that does this. This practice has been on repeat since the disastrous 1970s by OPEC with or without US government cooperation.)
Article from 2017. (I haven't verified the numbers, but I do remember (& appreciated) the cheap gas prices when oil prices crashed over the years.)
One case of manipulation might still be moving through the US courts.