Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This bill, titled the Fiscal Accountability for Interest on Reserves Act (FAIR Act), amends the Federal Reserve Act by striking paragraph (12) of Section 19(b) (12 U.S.C. 461(b)). The change would take effect 180 days after enactment.
Whether the struck paragraph is primarily a fiscal subsidy to banks (benefit argued by conservatives and some progressives) versus a necessary operational tool for the Fed’s monetary-policy implementation (risk emphasized by centrists and some progressives).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is narrowly and precisely drafted to effect a specific change to the Federal Reserve Act but provides minimal supporting scaffolding.
This bill, titled the Fiscal Accountability for Interest on Reserves Act (FAIR Act), amends the Federal Reserve Act by striking paragraph (12) of Section 19(b) (12 U.S.C. 461(b)).
The change would take effect 180 days after enactment.
The bill text supplied does not reproduce the struck paragraph; it only directs removal of that specific provision described as relating to “earnings on balances.” No other changes or transitional details are included in the bill text provided.
On content alone, the bill is narrow and administratively simple, which helps. However, it targets a sensitive institutional relationship (Federal Reserve earnings/remittances) and contains no fiscal estimate, offset, or compensating features; such measures often face elevated scrutiny in the Senate and from executive branch actors. Without clear bipartisan support or accommodating language, the path to enactment looks limited.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is narrowly and precisely drafted to effect a specific change to the Federal Reserve Act but provides minimal supporting scaffolding.
Whether the struck paragraph is primarily a fiscal subsidy to banks (benefit argued by conservatives and some progressives) versus a necessary operational tool for the Fed’s monetary-policy implementation (risk emphasized by centrists and some progressives).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether the struck paragraph is primarily a fiscal subsidy to banks (benefit argued by conservatives and some progressives) versus a necessary operational tool for the Fed’s monetary-policy implementation (risk emphasiz…
Mainstream progressives would approach this bill with cautious interest.
They may welcome measures that reduce perceived giveaways to large financial institutions or increase fiscal accountability, but they would be concerned about any legislative action that could unintentionally undermine financial stability or weaken tools the Federal Reserve uses to implement monetary policy.
Because the bill text simply strikes a single paragraph without explanatory findings, progressives would want clear analysis of the fiscal and macroeconomic consequences before supporting it.
A centrist/technocratic observer would view the bill skeptically until there is clear, nonpartisan analysis of what paragraph (12) authorizes and the operational effects of striking it.
Centrists prioritize institutional stability and predictable policy implementation, so they would be wary of changing statutes that affect the Fed’s operational toolkit without detailed coordination.
They would look for evidence of concrete fiscal savings or improvements in accountability that outweigh potential costs to monetary policy implementation or financial markets.
Mainstream conservatives are likely to view the bill favorably as a step to limit what they may see as implicit subsidies or excessive payments involving the Federal Reserve and financial institutions.
Many conservatives who prioritize fiscal restraint and accountability would welcome statutory changes that reduce government outflows to banks or increase oversight.
Some conservatives who prioritize central bank independence might nonetheless want assurances that the change will not handicap monetary policy in ways that increase inflation or financial risk.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is narrow and administratively simple, which helps. However, it targets a sensitive institutional relationship (Federal Reserve earnings/remittances) and contains no fiscal estimate, offset, or compensating features; such measures often face elevated scrutiny in the Senate and from executive branch actors. Without clear bipartisan support or accommodating language, the path to enactment looks limited.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether the struck paragraph is primarily a fiscal subsidy to banks (benefit argued by conservatives and some progressives) versus a necess…
On content alone, the bill is narrow and administratively simple, which helps. However, it targets a sensitive institutional relationship (…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is narrowly and precisely drafted to effect a specific change to the Federal Reserve Act but provides minimal supporting scaffolding.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.