As is pretty common when it comes to the traditional media and the political insiders talking about the Federal Reserve Board, there is way too much deference given the Fed. Today, The New York Times has a story raising the question about whether Ben Bernanke should be reappointed as the Fed chair:

In Washington and on Wall Street, it would be a surprise if President Obama did not nominate Mr. Bernanke for a second term, even though he is a Republican and was appointed by President George W. Bush

But the White House has remained silent. And despite Mr. Bernanke’s credibility in financial circles, both he and the Fed as an institution have come under political fire from lawmakers in both parties over the handling of particular bailouts and the scope of the Fed’s power.

He has been frustrated that many in Congress do not give the Fed what he believes is enough credit for what it has accomplished. Indeed, Mr. Bernanke has met privately with hundreds of lawmakers in recent months to explain the Fed’s strategy.

   If you ask me, given the possible options being weighed, I’d say reappoint the guy (even though he either had no clue or did very little to stop the financial casino on Wall Street or the housing bubble)–not because he is any better than the rest but because a leading replacement for him would be Larry Summers, who would be a disaster: arrogant and, most important, with very solid ties to the Rubinites who are littered throughout the Administration and on Wall Street–the very philosophy that got us here in the first place. I’m not moved by this Democratic appointee versus Republican appointee red herring–on the managing (or lack thereof) of the pirates of Wall Street, there isn’t much difference.

   But, if were to step back and say we need a Fed chairman who has no ties to the banks and Wall Street, now there is a discussion worth having and, then, I’d say there are plenty of people who would be worth of the job–how about, for example, any of several labor union economists who understand that the job of the Fed is not just to promote price stability but ALSO FULL EMPLOYMENT and who would define full employment as something approaching a humane level that would mean truly that most people would have jobs (that is usually seen around 4 percent because, for example, at any given time, there is some movement among jobs that means some people are temporarily considered out of work).  

   So, what is wrong with this framing?