Would a more open and regular evaluation of the monetary policy framework improve policy in the United States? Even when considering a relatively short time frame spanning the 1960s to the present, it is possible to point to many significant changes to the framework. Some of the changes were precipitated by acute economic conditions; others were considered and implemented only gradually, as a response to long-standing problems with the framework. But to date, the process for evaluating and changing frameworks has not always been transparent, and changes have not always been timely. Could a more formal, and open, review process improve how well we adhere to our current framework? Could transitions to a new framework be made more effectively? We conclude that such a review might indeed be beneficial, and outline one possible review process.