I wouldn't go overboard celebrating a Will column.

The Fed's mission creep has occurred in large part at the expense of the SEC, another creation of Congress. So there isn't really more regulation, rather a case of an annexation of regulatory turf by the Fed.

On the Bear "bail-out"... please let's call it what it is, a take-over subsidy for the benefit of JPMorgan (in the form of loss-protection insurance). Here's where Will loses the thread:

The purpose of the money was to give Morgan an incentive to buy Bear -- at a price so low that an incentive should have been superfluous.

This is misleading. JPM would not have bought Bear without the subsidy. Simple. The larger the subsidy, the more JPM would have been willing stump up. Without any sudsidy, the Fed would have had to pay JPM (or someone else) to buy Bear. It was a zero sum game; argue all you want about the ethics of the deal, but the objective was to ensure Bear did not collapse, and that's what the Fed delivered.

Another Will assertion:

Today's argument is that Bear Stearns was so connected to the financial system in opaque ways that no one could guess the radiating consequences of its failure

Not so much. Bear's connectedness came out of the trillions of dollars worth of derivative contracts it was a counterparty to. There's nothing really opaque about this, at least not to anyone in the industry. And whilst no-one could put a $ estimate on the cost of Bear's collapse, the consequences would have been huge. Trillions of dollars of counterparty-less derivative trades would have ensured that.

But here's the big omission. Will says nothing about who in government signed off on the Bear deal. Maybe he doesn't know, I don't expect many do. But if he's in a huff about oversight of the Fed, he might start asking who approved the most high-profile Fed intervention in living memory, because it sure as heck wasn't the Chairman flying solo.

And, finally, this is funny:

The Fed's mission is to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation. [...]The Fed should not try to produce this or that rate of economic growth or unemployment.

Except the Federal Reserve Act says the goal of monetary policy is:

“...to promote effectively the goals of maximum
employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."

Shorter George Will:

THE FED MUST ONLY DO WHAT THE LAW* REQUIRES IT TO DO.

*I AM THE LAW.

Posted at April 21, 2008 3:10 PM in response to George Will Moves to the Left of the Democrats

I wouldn't go overboard celebrating a Will column.

The Fed's mission creep has occurred in large part at the expense of the SEC, another creation of Congress. So there isn't really more regulation, rather a case of an annexation of regulatory turf by the Fed.

On the Bear "bail-out"... please let's call it what it is, a take-over subsidy for the benefit of JPMorgan (in the form of loss-protection insurance). Here's where Will loses the thread:

The purpose of the money was to give Morgan an incentive to buy Bear -- at a price so low that an incentive should have been superfluous.

This is misleading. JPM would not have bought Bear without the subsidy. Simple. The larger the subsidy, the more JPM would have been willing stump up. Without any sudsidy, the Fed would have had to pay JPM (or someone else) to buy Bear. It was a zero sum game; argue all you want about the ethics of the deal, but the objective was to ensure Bear did not collapse, and that's what the Fed delivered.

Another Will assertion:

Today's argument is that Bear Stearns was so connected to the financial system in opaque ways that no one could guess the radiating consequences of its failure

Not so much. Bear's connectedness came out of the trillions of dollars worth of derivative contracts it was a counterparty to. There's nothing really opaque about this, at least not to anyone in the industry. And whilst no-one could put a $ estimate on the cost of Bear's collapse, the consequences would have been huge. Trillions of dollars of counterparty-less derivative trades would have ensured that.

But here's the big omission. Will says nothing about who in government signed off on the Bear deal. Maybe he doesn't know, I don't expect many do. But if he's in a huff about oversight of the Fed, he might start asking who approved the most high-profile Fed intervention in living memory, because it sure as heck wasn't the Chairman flying solo.

And, finally, this is funny:

The Fed's mission is to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation. [...]The Fed should not try to produce this or that rate of economic growth or unemployment.

Except the Federal Reserve Act says the goal of monetary policy is:

“...to promote effectively the goals of maximum
employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."

Shorter George Will:

THE FED MUST ONLY DO WHAT THE LAW* REQUIRES IT TO DO.

*I AM THE LAW.

Posted at April 21, 2008 3:10 PM in response to George Will Moves to the Left of the Democrats

"Gas-tax holiday" is pretty well-worn political gimmick. Not surprising that someone has made it part of their electoral tool-kit. (It's at odds with McCain's environmental talking points, but hey, flip-flops happen.)

Stopping adding to the strategic reserve is pretty dumb, however; if it did happen, it would almost certainly trigger a spike in crude prices (traders would assume we would have to start buying again). In reality, I can't imagine the market would believe the guy who talks about bombing Iran would ever do such a thing. So I'd slap McCain for a foreign policy gaffe here, as much as for the economic naivity.

Posted at April 15, 2008 11:34 AM in response to McCain-Gramm Economics

"He sincerely wants to get out, but he also sincerely doesn't want to leave *too* much of a mess in Iraq, if we can avoid it."

I just about agree with this, but I also think this is a dangerous hedge.

However, I'm not convinced that framing the debate around defining "success" in Iraq is the way to go. I'd rather the debate be about whether we, and Iraq, would be better off if we withdrew and soon.

But this is not a question for Petraeus, it's one for McCain.

Posted at April 11, 2008 11:32 AM in response to Kondracke: Obama Wins ‘Petraeus Primary’

Obama didn’t, to his credit, say that no political progress had been achieved using the surge’s “breathing room.” He just said it “has not been taken the way we all would like it.”

David Brooks, Tuesday:

"At this week’s hearings on Capitol Hill, Democrats will declare that the surge has not produced political progress and therefore the whole thing is for naught. That’s wrong. There has been political progress. It just doesn’t look the way we expected it to."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08brooks.html

The cynical me could say this is all politics, that Obama is trying to triangulate on Iraq (with a view to a head-to-head with McCain).

The perhaps naive me, who does not see Obama as a typically cynical politician, thinks Obama is expressing what he in fact believes.

But this difference may be irrelevant. Paul Krugman has on several occasions criticized Obama for attacking the other candidates "from the right", especially on healthcare policy. Because, Krugman believes, that by doing so Obama would weaken his ability as President to implement progressive healthcare reform.

It's not unfair criticism, regardless of your view on whether it is helpful.

And I think Obama is creating the same problem for himself on Iraq. That should he become President, proponents of the Surge will be able to point to his arguments re. progress in Iraq to lobby against withdrawal.

Kondracke thinks Obama is trying to create his own window to "declare victory and get out". If Kondracke's correct, I reckon Obama's being too clever by half. Anything that might be described as "progress" (and God knows the government has an endless supply of gimmickry to show evidence of progress) and can be presented as a by-product of the Surge will result in a continuation of the Surge.

This is not to say Obama is being loose with the facts or disingenuous about his stance. It is just that the President that will end the Iraq fiasco will be someone with the conviction to call it just that. And it is not clear that, for all his other qualities, Obama is willing to do that.

Posted at April 11, 2008 7:52 AM in response to Kondracke: Obama Wins ‘Petraeus Primary’

"the traditional garb of Suriname"

Shouldn't that be the traditional garb of a Somali tribe?

Quite what a llama, or lama, was doing in northern Kenya - illegal immigrant, perhaps? - is beyond me. But I must ask, was this blog posted by Mister Answer Man's alter ego, Miss Malaprop?

Posted at April 2, 2008 10:53 AM in response to Obama's Lama Problem

I'll grant you this - your views have not undergone a "dramatic transformation".

But otherwise, your arguments here are contradictory or specious.

You say this:

"And I was assured that it complied with the law and that the senior-most officials in the Justice Department conducted a full legal review every 45-60 days."

My question then:

Was this assurance provided by people who claim that "America is in a state of perpetual war and this entitles the President to invoke his Commander-in-Chief authorities and ignore the laws Congress has passed"?

Moving on.

You say:

"The premise of strong congressional intelligence oversight is that Members will guard sensitive information."

The Church Committee, Book II, says:

"The resolution creating this Committee placed greatest emphasis on whether intelligence activities threaten the "rights of American citizens."

Moving on again.

You say:

The Gang of Eight was not told – nor did it occur to me – that the Administration was violating FISA

Church Commission again:

The three main departures in the intelligence field from the constitutional plan for controlling abuse of power have been:

(a) Excessive Executive Power - [...]

(b) Excessive Secrecy - [...]

(c) Avoidance of the rule of law - [...]

Reminds me of Condi Rice's favorite saying: "No-one could have anticipated".

Next.

You say: I refused to reveal classified information and expressed the view that the Times should not run the story.

You might have only been expressing your view, but where in your remit are you required to offer direction to journalists?

And finally, you say:

To this day, I have not been shown the memoranda produced by the Office of Legal Counsel to support the basis for the program!

So, how's that "strong congressional oversight" coming along?

Posted at April 1, 2008 6:56 AM in response to Jane Harman Comments on The Release of Bush's Law by Eric Lichtblau

What is a "fake avatar"?

A conduit for truthiness?

Posted at March 31, 2008 11:37 AM in response to Sinbad endorses Obama; calls on JJR, Mark Penn, other fake avatars to follow suit

This is disappointing. Disappointing that you would take one brief, grainy youtube clip and use it to form an opinion on the candidate.

You see, Sinbad has actually had a 20 year relationship with food. Probably more, we should let Sinbad tell us and take him at his word. Food has nourished him, he ate it after he baptized his kids, and he worships at the alter of three-course dinners at least once a week. His relationship with food cannot be defined by a momentary TPMtv clip, devoid of any context.

So the issue is not whether Sinbad ate a MRE in Tuzla, or ate Sushi at the next place. The issue we should be discussing is what food says about us, as much as what we say about food. The issue is to start talking about food as adults. That's what I understand Sinbad's Presidency to be about. Whether we have moved beyond food as fodder for the nightly news, or as spectacle such as at the

OJ

Are you ready for this new era? Is America?

Posted at March 28, 2008 2:05 PM in response to Sinbad's Bosnia lie

I saw this, it should be the last word on the subject but of course it won't because politics doesn't work like that.

Also, the lie's gone round the world that Wright is a crazy negro. And it went round the world because white America remains, deep down, (and erroneously) scared that black America wants revenge.

I haven't decided whether to be pro-Obama or pro-Hillary, and I am still undecided on who would make a better president. But what's so galling is that the issue of race is being used to damage the Obama campaign. Maybe it was always likely to come to this, it doesn't make it any less shameful.

Posted at March 27, 2008 9:27 AM in response to Martin Marty defends Reverend Wright