U.S. Senator Shelby says not committed to Yellen for Fed

WASHINGTON Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:04pm EDT

Janet Yellen (C), nominee to be the next chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, meets with Senate Banking Commitee member Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) (R) in his office on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 31, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Janet Yellen (C), nominee to be the next chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, meets with Senate Banking Commitee member Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) (R) in his office on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 31, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Senator Richard Shelby, a critic of the U.S. Federal Reserve, said on Thursday he was not committed to supporting Janet Yellen as the next Fed chair.

President Barack Obama nominated Yellen, the current Fed vice chair, to take the top job at the U.S. central bank when current chief Ben Bernanke leaves in January. Yellen's nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.

Yellen has lined up meetings with key senators, including Shelby, ahead of a confirmation hearing expected in mid-November.

Asked after meeting with Yellen if he supported her nomination, Shelby told reporters: "I am not committed to her."

"We talked about some things that concern me, such as the huge portfolio that the Fed is accumulating," said Shelby, who voted against Yellen's 2010 nomination as Fed vice chair.

The Fed has cut interest rates to near zero and has more than quadrupled its balance sheet to $3.8 trillion through its bond purchases to help stimulate the economy.

Shelby has said he has concerns about Yellen's "proclivity to print money" and her record as a bank regulator.

(Reporting by Jason Lange; Writing by Krista Hughes; Editing by Vicki Allen)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (7)
LoveJoyOne wrote:
So, BFD.

Another Son of No, from the Party of No, saying no.

What else is new?

Oct 31, 2013 12:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:
Just because the POTUS nominates someone, it does not mean you write-off the review and confirmation process. We did not elect an absolute monarch, even though this POTUS behaves as such “send me something I can sign” and his use of Executive Orders to implement programs Congress refused to consider (see his Immigration EO a year ago regarding deportations). He is (less than) one-half of the process, and it’s written in the Constitution that the Senate can affirm or deny. The process is there for a reason–notwithstanding all of the “czars” POTUS named without any Congressional oversight. (BTW, look up Aneesh Chopra, Obama’s technology czar. Where the hell was he when the ACA enrollment website was being deployed?)

If you want to live under an absolute monarchy, I might suggest you go to Saudi Arabia, that bastion of liberalism it is. But, be sure to take the car keys from your wife.

Oct 31, 2013 1:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:
Yep, with you it’s always about the “black guy” and not his policies or his blatant incompetence.

Give it a rest–that whole racism thing has outlived it’s usefulness. In fact, it’s gotten boring. Furthermore, it serves to only diminish any valid argument you (might) have.

You also do not know history, when it was a Democrat, Ted Kennedy to be specific, who single-handedly blocked the nomination of Robert Bork to SCOTUS. The same process that demands only and up-down vote. It works both ways, and it’s always political (regardless of the non-existent racial overtones you are inclined to promote.)

But it’s only an issue for the liberals when it’s their guy who makes the appointment or nomination. Remember all the hell that was raised over Bush2′s nomination to SCOTUS (Harriet Myers–a WOMAN, God forbid). But the issue was not the fact she was a female, it had to do with her experience and legal competency.

If Shelby disagrees with current Fed policies, and Yellen proposes more of the same, then he should vote against her nomination. It has absolutely nothing to do with the POTUS complexion.

Oct 31, 2013 2:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.