Biden’s Has Twice Delayed His Fed Chair Nomination, What’s Going On?

The WSJ reports Biden Nears Endgame on Fed Chair Decision

One group of Democratic lawmakers, which includes Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has called on Mr. Biden to install a new Fed chair because they want the central bank to take a tougher approach on bank regulation and to use those supervisory powers more aggressively to address climate change. They are also eager to see more diversity at the senior ranks of the U.S. government.

Other Democrats have lauded Mr. Powell’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and his focus on elevating the importance of tighter labor markets, which they say greatly benefits minorities and other potential workers that typically struggle to find jobs. These backers have said strong and unique bipartisan congressional support for Mr. Powell has insulated the central bank’s policies against more intense partisanship across Washington.

Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.) said on Sunday that it would be a mistake for Mr. Biden not to renominate Mr. Powell. “I think he would be confirmed by a large margin if the president appointed him,” Mr. Tester said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” arguing that Mr. Powell has a “proven track record.”

Why the Delays?

The WSJ snips are self explanatory. But why the delays? Here are the scenarios.

  1. Biden wants to nominate Powell
  2. Biden is clueless. He does not know who he wants.
  3. Biden wants to nominate Brainard.

I rule out #1. 

If Biden really wanted to nominate Powell, he would have done so already. 

Biden has now extended an “announcement soon” message several times.

He may have done that once to appease the progressives like Warren (making it look like Brainard was in play). However, repeating such a tactic adds no value.

Is Biden Clueless As to Whom He Wants?

That is certainly easy to believe, but there are other issues that make things unclear.

For starters, Biden is pulled in two different directions, one by Warren, the other by Tester. 

The key reason for the delay could be as simple as this question: “Can my nominee be approved by the Senate?” 

This leads us to my top choice.

 Biden Wants Brainard

The pieces all fit. Whereas Powell would easily be approved by the Senate, Brainard is iffy. 

Biden wants Brainard but is one or two senators short. The delays are due to incessant hounding of the Democrat holdouts to get them on board.

Tester, are you being hounded?

Warren probably wants a Brainard nomination regardless of the outcome, but whoever is actually calling the shots for Biden (or Biden himself) likely doesn’t. 

Nomination Determination

Opinions of the House Progressive Caucus don’t matter. This is a Senate only determination although it’s possible, if not likely, that someone like Obama is applying further pressure along with Warren.

If so, further outside pressure could add to Biden’s indecision. 

If Biden nominates Brainard, it’s a signal that he, his staff, or Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer believes they have 50 votes with Kamala Harris casting the tie breaker.

If Biden nominates Powell, I suggest it’s because Brainard does not have the votes. 

It’s also remotely possible Biden ultimately concludes Brainard has the votes when she really doesn’t. A Brainard nomination that fails would be messy.

Final Prediction

Brainard will fall short of the needed 50 votes. I expect this to be evidenced upfront by a Powell nomination. We need to reassess if Biden does nominate Brainard. 

If Biden nominates Powell for Chair, expect Brainard to become vice chair for supervision replacing Randal Quarles, a Trump appointment. Quarles term expired in October.

The vice chair of supervision is the Fed’s top banking cop. 

Progressives want more regulation and and they want more climate change activism from the Fed.

Biden’s Bank Regulatory Nominee Espouses Helicopter Money and Praises the Old USSR

Saule Omarova is President’s Biden’s Marxist nominee for Comptroller of the Currency.

I expect Omarova to go up in flames. Biden will not want another nomination mess, thus the delays on the Fed Chair.

In case you missed it, please see Biden’s Bank Regulatory Nominee Espouses Helicopter Money and Praises the Old USSR

Fed to Turn Markedly Left

One way or another, Progressives rate to get their wishes for more regulation as well as more climate activism. 

Look for the supposedly independent Fed to turn markedly Left.

Thanks for Tuning In!

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen.

Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

41 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
Well, Jay Powell worth tens of $millions … and an active trader.  Brainard net worth “only” $1.6 million … so maybe she will spend less time fine tuning her portfolio …
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
I think it’s because they’re searching for a black lesbian to meet their diversity requirement.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Lesbians and feminists are no longer in the diverse category. They have become vanilla. 
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
link to bloomberg.com  That is the url, the actual article title is:
“U.S. Intel Shows Russia Plans for Potential Ukraine Invasion”
Is there a proofreading position open at Bloomberg?
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
If they intended to invade Ukraine, wouldn’t it have made a lot more sense to do it when they took Crimea?
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
From the title one could say that the CIA gave the Russians plans for invading the Ukraine. I would assume that the Russians themselves have plans for invading the Ukraine and wouldn’t need the CIA’s plan. In that case maybe the CIA gave the Russians the CIA’s plan for invading the Ukraine or possibly another country’s plan for invading the Ukraine. Alternatively one could say that the person who wrote the title made an error and wrote Russia instead of Russian. If that is the case then it is clear. 
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Had to laugh at those who said the vaccine is not gene therapy.
The president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division told international “experts” during a globalist health conference on November 17 that the mRNA COVID-19 shots are indeed “cell and gene therapy” marketed as “vaccines” to be palatable to the public and that if they had said the truth, that it was gene therapy very few people would have take the vaccine. With behavior like this you can understand  why many people distrust them.
Death Spiral
Death Spiral
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
They aren’t gene therapy in the sense they don’t contain, alter, or interact with DNA. Obviously mRNA is a genetic material, but the vaccines are quite different from what’s typically referred to as gene therapy.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  Death Spiral
The president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division which develops these types of vaccines should know what he is talking about. If he says clearly in a speech in a conference on the subject that these vaccines are gene therapy then I would have to assume that they are in fact gene therapy. 
QTPie
QTPie
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78

You’re getting hung up on semantics. The main point is that mRNA vaccines do not possess the ability to alter the cell’s genetic information and as such they are safe to use.

Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  QTPie
I am not hung up on semantics but maybe the president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division is because he said it, not me. Who am I to believe, him or you?
az_dirt
az_dirt
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
He’s using the term very broadly and really, inaccurately.   The messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines use a piece of messenger RNA, which is, a type of genetic material that matches the part of the Covid-19 spike, to cause your immune system to produce anti-bodies to that bit of mRNA.  So when you get infected by real Covid-19 virus the anti-bodies that bind to the spike and prevent it from binding to the receptor sites of your cells.   Using mRNA is technically using genetic material (as opposed to the typical vaccine technique of using pieces of live or dead virus,) but it doesn’t change your 23 chromosomes.
To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or
inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, mRNA
vaccines use mRNA created in a laboratory to teach our cells how to make
a protein
that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune
response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting
infected if the real virus enters our bodies.
az_dirt
az_dirt
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Let me ask you this, does the phrase “gene therapy” scare you?  Why? Can you define the term in detail?  What genes are used?  What is changed, specifically?  Or are you just spouting “frightening” vaccine disinfo in a comment to an article about the chairman of the Fed? 
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  az_dirt
Lol. I have a masters in Microbiology and when I worked in the field long time ago in grad school we were doing “recombinant DNA”. I know this stuff intimately. I am vaccinated because I understand what it is and seeing my age, it made sense for me. If you had looked at the clip you would have seen the president of Bayer’s division saying that although they knew it was gene therapy, which of course it is, if they had described it as gene therapy to the population then 95% would have said no. I find that insulting to the general population and since they decided to market it as a normal vaccine, which it  isn’t, when the protection turned out to last only 6 months it caused people to wonder if they had not been told the whole truth but only the marketed truth. Assuming the people cannot handle the truth because they are too dumb or ignorant is a very dangerous thing to do. When people find out, and they do, then you just short your credibility. Do you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of all the top military officers saying to Congress that they had the situation in hand on Iraq and Afghanistan. At the time we believed them. We don’t anymore.
To get back to it. I am for the vaccine for people at risk like me. At my age I am not too worried about long-term effects but I am not for forcing all people to take it. Seeing the low fatality risk to do that  would be the height of folly.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  az_dirt
Look up the definition of gene therapy on the CDC page. With the covid vaccines no nuclear DNA are used to make the vaccine to make spike. They use Ribosomes to make the spikes. Essentially the vaccine does what a RNA virus, like covid,  would do, that is take over the host’s ribosomes to make copies of itself. The vaccines instead of making a virus particle program the ribosome to just make the spike and that’s it. Everything is fine with that. Nevertheless the process is not perfect and ribosomes can screw up and make copies that are variations and there lies the problem. Those imperfect copies of the spike protein could produce effects which we know nothing about hence the need for long-term study. We shortcutted the process and we may end up regretting it. For older people with comorbidities long-term means a few years. For young people it means a lifetime.    
That is the light version. Let’s now get down into the details. Are you not at all worried about RNA transcription errors? RNA transcription errors are 1000 times higher than its DNA equivalent. RNA transcription errors have been found to be a cause of pion formation in fatal neurodegenerative disorders. Let’s talk about that. Show your cards.
az_dirt
az_dirt
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Having trouble finding a CDC definition (lots about analyzing genes to discover those linked to disease.)  Found FDA, Mayo Clinic and  Genomics Institute definitions though which are closer to what I thought Gene Therapy was – attempting to replace gene sequences in your DNA, that are associated with various diseases, with sequences thought to express themselves in a non-disease related way.   The mRNA vaccines are not attempting to do that, they’re, in the words of the CDC,  “Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines teach our cells how to make a protein that will trigger an immune response inside our bodies”.  
However, I’m sure that there are, in some cases, negative side effects.  I’ve looked through the VAERS file and while some of it is crap a good amount of it seems to be worth investigating.  The vaccines are designed to provoke an immune system response so yes, different people, different levels of response, maybe some people already had “natural” antibodies so not much of a response, some people, flat out on the couch for a few days, some people perhaps it kills. 
On the other hand, at 63, I don’t want to get Covid and haven’t, afaik, haven’t had it.   I did think a bit about a risk from the vaccine vs. a benign Covid case and chose the vaccine. 
You seem to be saying that the messenger RNA can have transcription errors (presumably while it’s doing the protein creation thing,) and will produce random proteins.  I think you meant to say Prions and not Pions?  Diseases like CJD?
Like this?

Prion diseases or transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
are a family of rare progressive neurodegenerative disorders that affect
both humans and animals. They are distinguished by long incubation
periods, characteristic spongiform changes associated with neuronal
loss, and a failure to induce inflammatory response.

The causative agents of TSEs are believed to be prions. The term
“prions” refers to abnormal, pathogenic agents that are transmissible
and are able to induce abnormal folding of specific normal cellular
proteins called prion proteins that are found most abundantly in the
brain. The functions of these normal prion proteins are still not
completely understood. The abnormal folding of the prion proteins leads
to brain damage and the characteristic signs and symptoms of the
disease. Prion diseases are usually rapidly progressive and always
fatal.

The mRNA and the spike protein don’t last long in the body.

  • Our cells break down mRNA and get rid of it within a few days after vaccination.
  • Scientists estimate that the spike protein, like other proteins our bodies create, may stay in the body up to a few weeks.

Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a
gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for
therapeutic use

Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat
or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:
  • Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
  • Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
  • Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

Gene therapy products are being studied to treat diseases including cancer, genetic diseases, and infectious diseases.

Gene therapy replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene in an attempt to
cure disease or improve your body’s ability to fight disease.
Gene therapy is an experimental technique for treating disease by
altering the patient’s genetic material. Most often, gene therapy works
by introducing a healthy copy of a defective gene into the patient’s
cells.
az_dirt
az_dirt
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
You seem to be talking about what Seneff talks about in this paper.  She talks about a lot of possible effects from mRNA vaccines but most of her language is tempered by “could”  and “possible” terms.  Also in the paper are multiple descriptions of how Covid-19 does bad things, both during the active phase of the infection and post active phase with no “could” or “possible” modifiers.   There should definitely be studies of vaccine side effects.  Most people aren’t good at assessing risks.  Is the risk worse from being infected by the virus or from getting the vaccine?  Are the possible side effects of the vaccine acceptable to control the risks from the virus to society or should we just let it run?  
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  az_dirt

In the
middle of 2020 the CDC changed their definition of gene therapy it seems so you
are technically correct. I was not aware of the change in definition. However
if you do a search of papers one before June 2021 you see that mRNA therapy was
considered to be a form of gene therapy so I am correct too. The president
of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division in the talk was saying what he and
the audience know is true. When they started to work on the vaccine they all
saw it as gene therapy and as he pointed out it was necessary to not market
them as such.

All vaccines produce side effects in at least a few people
but I am not one of those that believe the vaccines are killing wide swaths of
people. I never look in the VAERS files.

Yes I meant prions. Take it as a typing error.

“You seem
to be saying that the messenger RNA can have transcription errors (presumably
while it’s doing the protein creation thing,) and will produce random
proteins.  I think you meant to say Prions and not Pions?  Diseases
like CJD?”.

Yes, that is my worry.

link to pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Prion diseases are caused by abnormal folding of proteins.
The worry I and others have is that the mRNA would through variation creation
give orders to the ribosome to fabricate proteins that are not a replica of the
spike but one that could become a prion and that the effects would only become
apparent after several years. For people of our age that is less of a problem.
For people much younger it is. Forcing everyone to take the vaccine is folly
because these possible effects have not had the time to be studied.

“The mRNA and the spike protein don’t last long in the body.”

Not important since the problem is not the spike protein but
possible manufacture by the ribosome of prion-like proteins.

“Gene therapy products are being studied to treat diseases
including cancer, genetic diseases, and infectious diseases.”

Till now they were used for people whose long-term prospects
were not good and not on a population of heathy people.

Seneff is right in that we have to look at the
risk/reward. Covid is above all a killer of people with two or more
comorbidities. Most of them are old like us. It is very rarely a killer of the
young and healthy nor of children. It doesn’t make sense to make them run the
risk.

It’s a tough decision we have. Those who want the vaccine are already vaccinated and covid is going through the still susceptible population. Apparently every six months we will need a booster but we can’t keep this up forever. At some point we will have to let it run and go for herd immunity. We should have enough data now to get a handle on it. It is a political football now and that is what is driving policy. Maybe treatment options at this point in time are better than the mRNA route and should be favored. What is your view?
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  az_dirt
Using “could” and “should” in a scientific paper is normal when you are discussing possible problems that you think are important enough to explore. We already know the bad effects of getting covid. We don’t know the potential long-term problems with the vaccines because by definition they appear later on hence the use of qualifiers.  
Thanks for the link. Have you read Dr. Gottlieb’s book “Uncontrolled Spread” ?
Webej
Webej
2 years ago
In a democracy, of course, people would make up their minds on the basis of public discourse with the nominee and their peers.
Sewing up the vote in advance makes the whole hearing & debate perfunctory performance, and signals this is an exercise in party politics and power, having nothing to do with democracy.
QTPie
QTPie
2 years ago
I think Biden was hoping that given enough time, inflation pressures would ease, which would provide him more leeway to nominate a more dovish candidate. However, in the meantime inflation has gone completely the other direction than hoped, leaving him no choice really but to nominate Powell.
Scooot
Scooot
2 years ago
Reply to  QTPie
Isn’t it Powell’s policies that have caused the inflation? 
QTPie
QTPie
2 years ago
Reply to  Scooot
It’s all relative. Powell is definitely no hawk, but he is perceived as less dovish than Brainard and that’s what matters.
 Plus, it’s not so much as what took place in the past as much as what’s gonna happen in the future which the market and politicians care about.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Scooot
The Fed didn’t issue trillions in new money. That was the US Congress. Let’s be clear on that.
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Congress doesn’t create currency. Only the FED does. The FED created currency primarily to pay for Congressional spending without causing interest rates to spike.
Scooot
Scooot
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T

Low bond yields and rates from The Fed’s QE has caused massive inflation, admittedly its most visible in many assets they don’t count, but the easy financial conditions have also setup the perfect environment for inflation to take hold on many fronts. 

anoop
anoop
2 years ago
what’s going on?  the preferred candidate is demanding more money because of inflation.
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
“Progressives rate to get their wishes for more regulation as well as more climate activism. 
Look for the supposedly independent Fed to turn markedly Left.”

The Fed is *expected* to be a regulatory body.   The fact is that from the days of Greenspan, they have completely abandoned that role.   

“It is most important to recognize that no market is ever truly unregulated in that the self-interest of participants generates private market regulation.” – Greenspan in 1997. 

How’d that work out?!

2019:  “The financial crisis even prompted the Republican Greenspan, a staunch believer in free markets, to propose that government consider tougher regulations, including requiring financial firms that package mortgages into securities to keep a portion as a check on quality. He said other regulatory changes should be considered, too, in such areas as fraud.” 

RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
“It is most important to recognize that no market is ever truly
unregulated in that the self-interest of participants generates private
market regulation.” – Greenspan in 1997. 
“How’d that work out?!”
Not so well. In 2005, Greenspan praised the bankers for getting people into homes they otherwise could not afford. After the bubble deflated and the mortgage fraud exposed, Greenspan lamented that he thought the bankers would have been more responsible. He was being disingenuous, just as Bernanke was when he lamented after his term, that he never referred anyone for prosecution.
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
It was really the GSEs that allowed people into homes they couldn’t afford. The banks wouldn’t have made most of the loans unless they knew they could offload them to Freddie and Fannie.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
“The Fed is *expected* to be a regulatory body”
Whatever the terminally dumb and gullible may expect them to be; the only thing which they actually can do, is to redistribute wealth. From productive people, to connected leeches. Anything beyond that, is just smoke, mirrors and rank stupidity.
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
Of course, it is obvious that the Fed is a banking cartel.   If it were not for the Fed, it would have become obvious very soon that Reaganomics was a fraud and a disaster, and not carry on for 4+ decades now.   The various asset bubbles, the easy money, the almost non-existent lending standards, turning houses into ATMs…  all these helped cover up that fraud for such a long time.  
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
The important being, though, that ALL THEY CAN BE, is a banking cartel. No possible central bank issuing fiat currency can, even in theory, be anything else.
Makes not a whit of difference if they are “private”, “public”, “Reagan” or “Socialist.” If your sole tool is to increase the money supply by credit pathways (aka printing money), the only real effect you can possibly have, is to transfer real wealth: To those with easiest access to newly created credit. From the rest. The former being the exact definition of a banking cartel/banksters/rent-seekers/what have you.
Yet the clueless, gullible and well indoctrinated dumb dupes who run around insisting they are somehow “against” “Reaganomics”, still keep clamoring for The Fed to not only continue to exist (which is a crime against even basic economic literacy to begin with), but indeed to print even more…. One couldn’t make up greater stupidity if one wanted to.
Just end the darned thing tomorrow. Or better yet, today. Let the Taliban treat it like they did those Buddha statues. Whatever supposed “chaos” may ensue by tomorrow night, will still be a near infinite improvement over the sheer destruction resulting from  keeping the band of nothing-more-than-trashy-thieves around for even one more day.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Other option: President Cluster Fudge is out to lunch and has no idea what day it is. Seriously, he seems to have a limited capacity for multi-tasking, and solving ‘problems’ of any kind generally makes them worse.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
OT……43% of Texans polled would vote for Mathew McConaughey if he ran for Governor of Texas…..to Abbott’s 35%. Not sure how I feel about this one, even though I don’t like Abbott. One thing is certain, Americans do vote for celebrities. 
I really don’t see McConaughey actually doing it……but who knows?
Business Man
Business Man
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
McConaughey is an empty canvas as of now.  Voters tend to project their views onto people they like — especially those who have done a good job masking their real opinions and intents (Obama is Exhibit A).
Once MM is forced to answer real questions about governance his popularity will come (or go) to wherever it really belongs.  There are forums, townhalls, debates, etc. that will help reveal who he is as a candidate.
Democracy isn’t perfect, but everyone has to play the game in order to win.  Abbott is a pro.  If he’s good enough, he’ll get it done.
Intelligentyetidiot
Intelligentyetidiot
2 years ago
What difference at this point doe sit make?
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
That’s what the WSJ said. link to wsj.com
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Not quite Tweedle Dee Dee 
One will actively pursue nonsense – the other will duck and hide 
That seems to make Brainard worse – But it’s possible she can do more damage as the vice chair of regulation – So I don’t know for sure
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
I really don’t think it makes any difference.   If there is a crisis, all central banks will do “whatever it takes”.   And that includes the Fed.  It doesn’t  matter who the chair is – Powell or Brainard or X or Y or Z.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
I think you nailed it. Biden does understand how the Senate works, and the Brainard votes are just short….and he’s hoping for a massive improvement in polling that would give him some kind of mandate……very unlikely in my view.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.