This morning, Sen. Obama is scheduled to give a major address on the economy. Yours truly is scheduled to appear on CNBC’s "Power Lunch" (hey, I didn’t come up with the name) at 1:20 p.m. (Eastern Time). I may not have a chance to post the entire speech here before the CNBC gig but feel free to post your thoughts on what Sen. Obama has to say.

    I’m particularly interested in seeing comments that address the topic I’ve raised in the last couple of days (here and here): are either of the remaining candidates suggesting a different mix of people who would be in charge of a response to the current economic crisis who aren’t the usual suspects and/or actually responsible for helping get us into this mess?

UPDATE: So, my take on Sen. Obama’s economic speech. On the whole, I’d call it bland. One thing I try to do is not watch his speeches on policy–if I want to fall down in the aisle weeping, as so many people seem to do, I’d rather watch "Old Yeller." If you read the text, you get a fairly not-original description of the failings of the markets, mixed in with a little flowery rhetoric (that’s new, huh?). Then, there are a few proposals that are not particularly objectionable and are just fine:

1. "The Federal Reserve should have basic supervisory authority over any institution to which it may make credit available as a lender of last resort."

2. "There needs to be general reform of the requirements to which all regulated financial institutions are subjected. Capital requirements should be strengthened, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities that led to our current crisis." Fine.

3. "We need to streamline a framework of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies" Yawn.

4. "We need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. It makes no sense for the Fed to tighten mortgage guidelines for banks when two-thirds of subprime mortgages don’t originate from banks. "

5. "We must remain vigilant and crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation." Did Eliot Spitzer give him that line?

6. "we need a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system."

7. "To reward work and make retirement secure, we’ll provide an income tax cut of up to $1000 for a working family"

BLAND, BLAND, BLAND…

    Here are the worrisome parts of the speech–and the parts that show us that we aren’t really seeing a serious critique of the economic framework crushing Americans:

    Criticizing the Administration, he says, "A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting – coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement – allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long term consequences." So, the likely nominee of the Democratic Party is repeating the idiotic idea that we should embrace balanced budgets? That is sad. The problem is not that we should not have deficits–it’s how we spend it. As Obama rightly points out (and others have long before he has), the Iraq war will cost us at least one trillion dollars–likely two trillion dollars. Democrats should be saying, "we’d be happy to run a deficit if we were putting in place a single-payer health care system."

    More nonsense: "There were good arguments for changing the rules of the road in the 1990s. Our economy was undergoing a fundamental shift, carried along by the swift currents of technological change and globalization. For the sake of our common prosperity, we needed to adapt to keep markets competitive and fair" and "The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform – to foster competition, lower prices, or replace outdated oversight structures." This is just a sop to the business community–it’s the framing of the wrong problem. Our economy only underwent a fundamental shift in where power and wealth was located, not anything having to do with globalization that required the releasing of corporations from any control by our government.

    He also proposed his own "commission" to investigate the mortgage crisis–but no word on who would run that commission. Would it be, like the proposal submitted by Sen. Clinton, run by the same people who got us into this mess? The Robert Rubins and Alan Greenspans of the world?

    On the whole, I was underwhelmed. Read it for yourself.