LAST October, I won the Nobel Prize in economics for my work on unemployment and the labor market. But I am unqualified to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve — at least according to the Republican senators who have blocked my nomination. How can this be?
That is stymied Federal Reserve nominee Peter Diamond talking, and all I can say is...Wow. How many spectacularly wrong-headed things could he fit into one paragraph?
For starters, winning a Nobel prize is irrelevant in deciding the fitness of someone for public service. Period. Sure, it is a nice award to win and it is sure swell to be able to drop that into your bio - Diamond mentions it four different times in this one op-ed - but should winning this award be considered enough to make the confirmation process itself redundant? The suggestion is ludicrous. Diamond obviously does not think the notion is ludicrous, which in itself marks him as someone who may not be the best fit for public service.
Generally speaking, I believe Presidents should be largely deferred to when it comes to out-and-out political appointees. Judges and Fed. Reserves members are not in that category. The Board members do not serve for life, but they have 14 year terms, which argues the need for some sort of consensus on a nominee. That consensus may not be supplied merely because a nominee has a prestigious looking CV.
In fact, Diamond seems to be a fairly partisan individual:
Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Banking Committee, called the Nobel laureate “an old-fashioned, big government Keynesian” at his nomination hearing on Tuesday. His objection: The MIT professor doesn’t have enough experience in making monetary policy.
Still, Shelby allowed that Diamond, whose nomination was re-sent by Obama to the Senate on Jan. 5, is a “very accomplished academic and economist.”
“Does Dr. Diamond have any experience in conducting monetary policy? No,” Shelby said. “Does Dr. Diamond have any experience in bank management or supervision? No. ... Does Dr. Diamond have any experience in crisis management? No.”
The Alabama senator also reminded the banking panel that Diamond had sided with some of Obama’s biggest financial decisions by supporting the stimulus package, arguing for higher taxes to fund Social Security and bailing out banks.
“Our economy is already suffering from excessive government debt and misguided regulation,” Shelby said. “Our financial regulators should be trying to take steps to strengthen our markets, rather than replace them with new layers of government.”
So, on all of the recently contentious political/economic questions Diamond has shown himself to be rather inflexible and one sided. Why should a Republican think you are a good choice? ANY nominee must try and supply that reason. Given the precarious state of the economy in the wake of the decisions Dr. Diamond has supported, one might have thought a little humility could have gone a long way.
Then again I may know more about humility than Diamond does. I haven't won a Nobel Prize.
No comments:
Post a Comment