Several months ago, the House Financial Services Committee approved an amendment that would quite negatively impact our economy’s future well-being. If passed, this change could hamper our growth for decades to come. Offered by Congressman Ron Paul, the amendment vastly expands the Congressional Accounting Office’s auditing powers over the Federal Reserve. Consequently, the Federal Reserve’s cherished independence would be drastically curbed. Every unpopular action the Federal Reserve made could be scrutinized by vote-seeking politicians. This would intertwine politics and the serious business of running the economy—and if the Soviet Union taught us anything, this is a terrible, terrible idea.

Fortunately for the Federal Reserve and the economy, Mr. Paul’s auditing amendment is not included in the Senate’s version of financial reform. Nevertheless, it is still worth addressing the dangers of such a change.

Imagine, for example, if this policy had been in place three decades ago during the ’70s and ’80s. The great economic challenge of those decades was stagflation, a ruinous combination of high inflation, high unemployment, and stagnant economic growth initiated by a rapid rise in oil price. Presidents from Nixon to Carter attempted to combat the demon, instituting policies that ranged from price controls to handing out WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons.

The problem with stagflation, however, was that defeating it required extremely unpopular action. Ending stagflation meant lowering inflation, and combating inflation reduces short-term economic growth, often leading to a recession. (If you find out a way to reduce inflation without curbing growth, you will revolutionize economics). No sane politician was willing to do this, and so the curse of stagflation lingered year after year, crippling the nation’s economy.

In the end, it was Paul Volcker and the Federal Reserve who defeated inflation. Mr. Volcker did something no politician would ever do—he started a recession. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates to a high of 21.5%, dramatically lowering the money supply to end inflation. Recession ensued, widespread protests occurred, and Republicans were roundly defeated in the 1982 congressional elections, but Mr. Volcker kept at it.

Eventually, the public became convinced that, regardless of the political pressures exerted on it, the Federal Reserve would not give in. Shopkeepers stopped raising their prices in anticipation of inflation. Companies stopped raising wages to match those price increases.

Inflation ended.

Unlike Congress and the President, the Federal Reserve had the will to do the unpopular but right thing. This ability is rooted in the Fed’s independence from the whims of politicians facing re-election.

Now imagine if, in 1982, the Federal Reserve had lacked such independence. Mr. Volcker raises interest rates; recession ensues. Then Congress, full of politicians facing uncertain re-elections, intervenes. Opportunistic congressmen hold hearing after hearing demanding that the Fed lower interest rates. The House begins investigative audits into the Fed, seeking to pressure the institution. Finally, Mr. Volcker buckles; he reluctantly lowers interest rates, sacrificing long-term economic stability for short-term growth. Inflation continues; the demon of stagflation remains—perhaps even to this day. Imagine the 2009 financial crisis occurring in a scenario of 10 percent inflation and 8 percent unemployment. That would be disaster indeed.

The 2009 financial crisis will not be the last. Economic bubbles will exist as long as humans do; humans always believe that “this time is different.” If and when the next bubble bursts and the next economic crisis hits, the United States will need an independent Federal Reserve. It will need an institution to do what is politically unpopular but necessary, as was the case last fall. The House’s amendment threatens to destroy this safety net and deprive America’s economy of an invaluable institution. The aggrieved sentiment behind it is understandable, but the Federal Reserve is not Wall Street, and Ben Bernanke was a Princeton professor of economics, not the CEO of Goldman Sachs.