The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Gordon L. Weil formerly wrote for the Washington Post and other newspapers, served on the U.S. Senate and European Union staffs, headed Maine state agencies and was a Harpswell selectman.
A dozen people will meet behind closed doors this month and make a decision that will heavily influence the presidential election and might even decide it.
They are not politicians. They are a group of almost anonymous economists and bankers who will set the interest rate affecting everything from mortgages and housing to credit cards and pensions.
Its decision will have an immediate and nationwide impact. That’s more real change than most economic policy actions by the president. And it could also determine the election.
The group bears a technical sounding name: the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC. But its effect is hardly technical. It is coldly practical, and its decision will cascade through the economy the minute it is announced at 2 p.m. on Sept. 18. This will come at the end of the only FOMC meeting scheduled before the Nov. 5 election.
The FOMC is poised to lower interest rates. That’s a big deal, and is expected to be politically popular. Coming while a Democratic president holds office, the lower rates could boost the Democrats’ election chances. Yet the decision will be a judgment based on economic factors, information available to the public and not on politics.
The FOMC supports the Federal Reserve, which has two major tasks — keeping employment high and inflation low. It’s a balancing act, because promoting one goal can produce negative results for the other.
Many people have faced a higher cost of living and assign blame to high interest rates. Whatever the underlying factors, a majority holds President Joe Biden responsible, with inflation being a key contributor to his unpopularity. Lower rates and resulting lower prices could boost the chances of Vice President Kamala Harris.
Donald Trump has been an advocate of lower interest rates, a position that has political appeal. He has come to dislike the rate policy of Jerome Powell, the person he had appointed as the Fed chief. Recently, Trump has favored waiting to lower rates to deny political help to the Democrats.
Trump backers have suggested that presidents ought to take part in setting interest rates. If the president played such a role, it would be like their having a say in Supreme Court decisions. Now, the president’s role with both the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve Board consists of appointing their members.
Presidents are supposed to keep away from these economic decisions. Otherwise, short-term politics can seriously harm the national economy. Leading central banks around the world, like the Fed, are kept independent of political leaders by law.
The Federal Reserve has traditionally kept its distance from presidential politics, especially following a major crisis about 50 years ago when Fed policy got too close to a campaign. Since then, they have been a carefully reserved Reserve.
The FOMC is composed of 12 members: the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, appointed by the president for 14-year terms, plus five representatives of regional Federal Reserve banks. The FOMC votes are made public, and, unlike the Supreme Court, there is remarkable agreement among the members, no matter their political affiliation.
Following the Great Recession of 2008 and the COVID crisis beginning in 2020, employment fell, eventually leading the FOMC to stimulate the economy by setting interest rates at zero. Then, as the economy improved, it raised rates to block inflation by slowing business investment.
Its policy worked. First, unemployment was sharply cut. Then, the FOMC raised rates back to traditional levels. Price increases have slowed, but so has employment growth.
Here’s where politics comes in. People had grown accustomed to the low interest rates used to stimulate the economy. When the FOMC increased rates, it intended to slow economic growth and reverse inflation. But many people liked low rates, so grew unhappy with the FOMC interest policy.
The Fed has tried to bring about what is called a “soft landing.” In dealing with both employment and inflation problems, it had to avoid pushing too hard either way, because it wanted to avoid a recession. That’s a tough challenge, not always popular, and it seems to be working. But the Fed has struggled to get the right timing for its moves.
If, by its decision this month, the FOMC lowers costs in the economy, almost everybody will take that as good news. The new optimism, probably accompanied by higher stock market values, could have a political effect. With Trump now holding a slight lead on his ability to handle the economy, it could help Harris.
The cut won’t be huge, either a quarter or a half percent, but it will produce lower costs for people and businesses. In this short campaign, that could be a big influence on how people vote. Let’s see how the hot politics of a cold economic decision play out.
