Bigger Economic Role for Washington by Jackie Calmes and Binyamin Applebaum

Fed officials will consider several options when the central bank’s policy-making committee meets for two days next week. The leading contender is a plan to shift the composition of the Fed’s $2.6 trillion investment portfolio, selling short-term Treasury securities and using the money to buy longer-term securities.

If it works, the shift should modestly cut credit costs for businesses and consumers. Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the Fed could raise gross domestic product by about 0.4 percentage points over two years, increasing jobs by about 350,000 over the same period.

An impact of that magnitude would be roughly the same as the Fed achieved through its recently-completed purchase of $600 billion in Treasury securities, popularly known as QE2.

Under the new plan, the Fed would be absorbing more risk for each dollar it invests; 10-year Treasury securities are riskier than one-year securities because the investor makes a longer commitment. By shifting its portfolio, the Fed would seek to drive investors into even riskier assets, reducing borrowing costs.

Charles Evans, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said in a speech in London last week that the central bank had an obligation to ratchet up its efforts. With an unemployment rate of 9 percent, he said, Fed officials should be "acting as if their hair was on fire."

But Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said Monday that the Fed already had "filled the gas tanks of the economy," that he doubted its ability to do more, and that the responsibility now fell on the rest of the government.

via quasi-monetarist Scott Sumner, a National Review piece advocating that the Fed target nominal GDP.

Finally, a nominal-income target not only has economic advantages but is also politically feasible. Replacing the Fed’s dual mandate of promoting low inflation and full employment with an inflation target would be met with strong resistance by left-leaning politicians. However, a nominal-income target would implicitly respond to fluctuations in both prices and real output (and therefore unemployment) in the short run while maintaining a commitment to low and stable inflation over the long run.

Congress has the power to change the Federal Reserve’s mandate. It’s time for conservative politicians to be bold and serious about monetary policy and not simply use rhetoric to capitalize on a popular view of the conservative base. Republican presidential candidates would do well to seize the opportunity of the public’s dissatisfaction with the Federal Reserve and make it part of their campaigns to push for significant and meaningful reform of monetary policy. It is time that the Fed had an explicit target for policy, preferably one for nominal income.

Talk of replacing the Fed's dual mandate makes me nervous. A call for Republican politicians to focus on the Fed makes me nervous. Granted, if the Fed had an explicit target it could be held accountable for not meeting that target and the target itself could be democratically debated.
-----------------
Update: Reading the comments to the National Review piece reassures me that at least the quasi-monetarists are better than Ron Paul and the Austrians. One commenter says, "Certainly the fed shouldn't be worried about unemployment."  Another pissed-off commenter writes

I see that Ponnuru finally got his guru a guest spot on NRO. His arguments still suffer from the same flaw when he delivers them himself as when Ramesh repeats them: An increased demand for money balances is not a demand for a certain number of pieces of paper with presidents on them; it's a decision about how to allocate one's (limited) wealth. If this shift is economy-wide, then the economy *should* shrink temporarily, until there are enough positive-net-present-value investment opportunities that people choose again to deploy their cash reserves.

and

Most irritating is the dishonesty of it. Hendrickson doesn't come out and say, "We should manipulate people into spending or investing now, against their better judgment, by scaring them with the threat of future inflation". Instead, he talks about a "deviation between actual and desired money balances" as though it's some sort of distubance in the Force that we need to correct. Monetarists like Hendrickson are manipulators just like Keynesians; the only difference is that they want to use monetary instead of fiscal policy.

So what should the Fed do? Assuming we have to have a Fed, it should increase the money supply mechanically, with zero discretion, to match long-term average growth rates determined in advance according to a set formula, regardless of short-term fluctuations.

It sounds like the Treasury view and the view held by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon who supposedly advised Herbert Hoover to "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."