Dollar was up in the 1990s under Greenspan because of Rubin's strong-dollar policy, and down 40% in 2000s under Greenspan because of 9/11 and Bush-43 administration weak-dollar policy (same as Bush-41 policy) - essentially the same Fed, different dollar.
The government could not spend so wildly, if the Fed didn't print so wildly.
So the government fiscal spending is constrained by how much money the Fed "prints"? So what was the month-long debate about "10-year plan" and deficits and "ceilings" all about? Just order the Fed to stop "printing" money and all government spending/deficits/debt problems are solved!
Darn, if only we had the Fed who understood how much power it has over government fiscal spending / budget policies and deficits and debt. Poor Greece (and other PIIGS) - if only they had their own central bank they could stop their governments from "printing" debt. Japan and UK have their own central banks, but they also must be in the dark on this simple solution to debt and deficits, too... Just tell the government that CB won't "print" any more money and to "deal with it" - and problem solved!
Without a quickly growing money supply, interest rates would go up, and spending would be limited.
Private spending would be limited - as the consumers are generally interest-rates-sensitive - which would probably send the U.S. into recession already and only provide the impetus and the excuse for the U.S. government to do more in Keynesian fiscal "stimulus," i.e., spend more taxpayers money on "credit," not less.
Public spending is political and thus not really sensitive to the central banks' interest rates, as the politicians "do it for the people" and to reduce the unemployment with "shovel-ready and other such garbage programmes. The idea that the Fed / central bank(s) can stop the government from spending other people's money is an interesting one.
The other prime directive for the Fed is to maintain low unemployment. They fail at that too.
Ah, yes - it's the mandate from the Congress for the Fed to maintain low unemployment by the infamous Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 also derisively known as "The Law against Recessions"... (of course, names of Humphrey and Hawkins are now removed from the required semi-annual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress - to protect the guilty/stupid Democrats who created it, and the mandate itself is under consideration to be removed from the Fed, since the Fed never had any tools or recommendations on how to accomplish it). And, of course, the omnipotent Fed must have the power to nullify the business cycles, the Congressional and the Executive branches fiscal policies, the laws and regulations (like Obamacare, Sarbox/SOX, Dodd-Frank, increased minimum wages and mandated "free" services etc.) that kill the employment in the U.S. and send the capital and companies overseas...
The other prime directive for the Fed is to maintain low unemployment. They fail at that too.
Bernie Sanders, Sander Levine, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and the rest of Washington scoundrels love you. Low unemployment - our policies are responsible for that; high unemployment - blame the Fed, it's the Fed's fault for failure of the "full employment" mandate.
It's a perfect setup - first thing I would do as politician would be to set up a scapegoat (people or agency) by mandating the specific results which the persons or the agency have no possible way of achieving... Then I could take the credit when things happened to turn out well despite my incompetence or meddling, but blame the "failures" on the scapegoats who had no possible way of affecting the outcome.
Analyzing the Fed / CB policies is the important and great job for investors and monetary policy wonks... Blaming the Fed / CB for the unemployment, deficits and debt because they "print" the money is the job for failed politicians looking for bogeyman.
Up some years, down others. But since 1913, the goal of the Fed was to preserve the value of the dollar, and it's down by 98%. The institution is a complete failure.
If the Fed stop printing, I don't think the Treasury could sell short term notes for close to 0% as they do now. And we'd see the 30-yr returns closer to the rates of the 1980s, or over 10%.
The government can only spend what it can tax or borrow. And if what it borrows starts crowding out private investment, it won't get so much in tax returns. But when the Fed prints, there is enough money for everybody albeit with an inflation tax.
Public spending might be political, but you still have to borrow to spend at the current rates of spending, and driving interest rates high creates quite the political backlash.
I blame the Fed for killing the dollar. I don't blame them for unemployment so much, as they are pretty much a blunt instrument for that task. However, it is part of their job description and they failed to fix it. Like I said, it's a failed institution.
I don't blame the Fed for spending, that is a political choice. But it'd be a lot harder choice for the politician to spend if the Fed didn't print the extra money needed.
Letting the Fed off the hook for all blame is simply silly.