Sen. Patty Murray Says She’ll Support Bernanke Reconfirmation

What does “she has voted the status quo on President Obama’s Wall Street program” mean? Does it mean that Senator Murray has voted to give the President the authority and people he needs to resuscitate the US and world economies?

Frankly, my frustrations with Congress are greatest when it is NOT doing what the President wants (health care, immigration and energy, to name a few). The fact that Senator Murray has been a dependable ally and vote for the President should earn her our praise, rather than a snarky dig.

Voting against Ben Bernanke is an easy vote, a token gesture to show one’s sensitivity to the public’s anger over Wall Street bailouts, high unemployment and DC more generally. I’m glad that Senator Murray is more focused on actually helping the President revive our economy than on cheap political tricks.

What does “she has voted the status quo on President Obama’s Wall Street program” mean? Does it mean that Senator Murray has voted to give the President the authority and people he needs to resuscitate the US and world economies?

Frankly, my frustrations with Congress are greatest when it is NOT doing what the President wants (health care, immigration and energy, to name a few). The fact that Senator Murray has been a dependable ally and vote for the President should earn her our praise, rather than a snarky dig.

Voting against Ben Bernanke is an easy vote, a token gesture to show one’s sensitivity to the public’s anger over Wall Street bailouts, high unemployment and DC more generally. I’m glad that Senator Murray is more focused on actually helping the President revive our economy than on cheap political tricks.

A wise decision, if not a popular one. The easy choice would be voting against him, it would entail zero political risk. But for elected leaders trying to actually get something done, supporting him is the smart choice even if it is harder politically. It means when she actually does have constucitve criticism or specific priorities to advance her voice will carry greater weight within the debate. It would be disengenuous to support the stimulus and recovery programs on the one hand — including the appointees who built them — and then turn around and throw stones at the same people after the fact. The effect would be to marginalize her voice within the debate. The jury is still out on the ARRA. Kudos for common sense.

A wise decision, if not a popular one. The easy choice would be voting against him, it would entail zero political risk. But for elected leaders trying to actually get something done, supporting him is the smart choice even if it is harder politically. It means when she actually does have constucitve criticism or specific priorities to advance her voice will carry greater weight within the debate. It would be disengenuous to support the stimulus and recovery programs on the one hand — including the appointees who built them — and then turn around and throw stones at the same people after the fact. The effect would be to marginalize her voice within the debate. The jury is still out on the ARRA. Kudos for common sense.

@good on her — The stimulus package is entirely separate from the bank bailout. Bernanke had nothing to do with the ARRA. He was, however, tasked with watch over big banks as they speculated their way to disaster and then he “solved” the problem by shoveling billions at them. Terrible politics, worse policy. His denial of the existence of the housing bubble for several years was a significant contributor to worsening the crisis, whose impact he utterly failed to foresee until it was crashing down upon him.

And do you really think a “no” vote is marginalizing while a “yes” vote allows opportunities for criticism? The guy has a multi-year appointment now. The one time we had him to make him (and future Fed chairs) responsive to criticism, we blew it. With Murray’s vote. Not common sense. Not worth kudos.

@good on her — The stimulus package is entirely separate from the bank bailout. Bernanke had nothing to do with the ARRA. He was, however, tasked with watch over big banks as they speculated their way to disaster and then he “solved” the problem by shoveling billions at them. Terrible politics, worse policy. His denial of the existence of the housing bubble for several years was a significant contributor to worsening the crisis, whose impact he utterly failed to foresee until it was crashing down upon him.

And do you really think a “no” vote is marginalizing while a “yes” vote allows opportunities for criticism? The guy has a multi-year appointment now. The one time we had him to make him (and future Fed chairs) responsive to criticism, we blew it. With Murray’s vote. Not common sense. Not worth kudos.

@Greenwood progressive – You know Bernanke was originally a Bush appointee, right? And a top economic aid to Bush before being appointed to the Fed.

If a no on Bernanke were the easy vote, the vote would surely not have been 70 for and 30 against. Senators are not in the business of choosing the difficult path, are they?

@Greenwood progressive – You know Bernanke was originally a Bush appointee, right? And a top economic aid to Bush before being appointed to the Fed.

If a no on Bernanke were the easy vote, the vote would surely not have been 70 for and 30 against. Senators are not in the business of choosing the difficult path, are they?

krugman scares the shit out of me. he refuses to admit we are on the verge of a second great depression. he also seems to think we got into this mess because of the fed’s complacency.

the problem i see, he begins his opinion column by telling us about what “he used aggressive, unorthodox tactics (he used) to head off a second Great Depression”

i want to raise the bullshit flag on krugman because he did not ‘head off’ any depression. he merely prolonged our inevitable demise.

krugman scares the shit out of me. he refuses to admit we are on the verge of a second great depression. he also seems to think we got into this mess because of the fed’s complacency.

the problem i see, he begins his opinion column by telling us about what “he used aggressive, unorthodox tactics (he used) to head off a second Great Depression”

i want to raise the bullshit flag on krugman because he did not ‘head off’ any depression. he merely prolonged our inevitable demise.

@Fat-tailed – Yes, I know Bernanke was a Bush appointee and he worked in the Bush White House as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors for 6 months before his appointment as Fed Chair.

However, he was Obama’s nominee at this point for a second term. My point above is that if the President thinks Bernanke is the best choice to run the Fed — and the White House worked hard over the past few days to get him reconfirmed — then I am happy that Senator Murray did not substitute her judgment for that of the President.

And the fact that it was a 70 – 30 vote proves my point that a vote against is easy. At the end of the day, the Senate was going to reconfirm Bernanke, so it was easy to vote NO, knowing that your side did not have the votes needed to win.

Given the on-going economic problems, do we REALLY want to force the President to go out to find a fall-back candidate for Fed Chair? Why do we want to tie our President’s hands?

Thank you, Senator Murray, for your vote for Bernanke!

@Fat-tailed – Yes, I know Bernanke was a Bush appointee and he worked in the Bush White House as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors for 6 months before his appointment as Fed Chair.

However, he was Obama’s nominee at this point for a second term. My point above is that if the President thinks Bernanke is the best choice to run the Fed — and the White House worked hard over the past few days to get him reconfirmed — then I am happy that Senator Murray did not substitute her judgment for that of the President.

And the fact that it was a 70 – 30 vote proves my point that a vote against is easy. At the end of the day, the Senate was going to reconfirm Bernanke, so it was easy to vote NO, knowing that your side did not have the votes needed to win.

Given the on-going economic problems, do we REALLY want to force the President to go out to find a fall-back candidate for Fed Chair? Why do we want to tie our President’s hands?

Thank you, Senator Murray, for your vote for Bernanke!

@ greenwood progressive

this bernanke is key evidence to support the theory that bush and obama are the same president.

@ greenwood progressive

this bernanke is key evidence to support the theory that bush and obama are the same president.