By Bob English
The "Suspense at the Fed," according to David Wessel at the WSJ, is not over continued QE trimming, but "the fate of President Barack Obama’s nominees to the shrinking Fed Board of Governors." There are only four governors currently, down from the statutorily-mandated seven. Come May, the Fed may be down to three governors.
Why is this a problem (or cause for suspense)? Because the balance of power over monetary policy could be tipped by the five regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents who hold seats at the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which currently sets monetary policy. This gives Wednesday's FOMC Announcement at least the potential to be somewhat interesting (but don't hold your breath). True, the regional Fed bank presidents tend to follow the central monetary planning heard, but they also tend to be less obsequiously unquestioning of the Fed Chair than the Washington-based governors.
Wessel's own answer to the "so what?" question digs into a bit of Fed history (emphasis mine):
"[T]his influences the balance of power inside the FOMC, and the market-moving statements it makes about its plans at the end of each meeting. When the Fed board is at its full strength, monetary policy is made by votes of the seven Fed governors in Washington and presidents of five of the 12 regional Fed banks, a delicate balance created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913."
Unfortunately for Wessel, this explanation is just plain wrong.
The "delicate balance of power" was not created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, but by the Banking Act of 1935.
Pursuant to the original 1913 Federal Reserve Act, the regional Fed banks could conduct their own monetary policy. There was a Federal Reserve Board in Washington, but no Board of Governors until 1935. This prior situation could be described as a more "delicate balance of power" than after Washington created de facto monetary policy hegemony for itself in 1935. With the institution of the FOMC and its seven Fed governors versus five regional Fed bank presidents, the balance of power was decidedly tipped in favor of Washington.
Hopefully, this puts the present kerfuffle over Senate intransigence when it comes to Fed nominees in the proper perspective. If anything, the Senate's on its way to rolling back the clock to 1934. Now, if only Congress would roll the clock back to 1912.
Bob English as an occasional contributor to EPJ.
With paparazzi tracking her every move, V. Stiviano roller-skated in her driveway Tuesday and said she wanted to be president.
called the economic means of getting wealth (by production and exchange) and the political means (by robbery and extortion), members of the ruling classes have opted decisively for the latter. Pope Gregory VII (1071-85), the leader of the momentous Papal Revolution that began during his papacy and ran its course over a span of nearly fifty years (even longer in England), minced no words when he wrote (as quoted by 
