Frankly, I have to wonder how the Fed will spin this mornings  news about the surge in wholesale prices, which were lead by the largest jump in food prices in 36 years:

Wholesale prices jumped last month by the most in nearly two years due to higher energy costs and the steepest rise in food prices in 36 years. Excluding those volatile categories, inflation was tame.

The Labor Department said Wednesday that the Producer Price Index rose a seasonally adjusted 1.6 percent in February — double the 0.8 percent rise in the previous month. Outside of food and energy costs, the core index ticked up 0.2 percent, less than January’s 0.5 percent rise.

Food prices soared 3.9 percent last month, the biggest gain since November 1974. Most of that increase was due to a sharp rise in vegetable costs, which increased nearly 50 percent. That was the most in almost a year. Meat and dairy products also rose.

Energy prices rose 3.3 percent last month, led by a 3.7 percent increase in gasoline costs.

I suspect they’ll argue that food and gas prices aren’t part of “core” inflation, so they don’t enter in to their policy calculations. While that may be technically correct it ignores the practical reality; which is that food and energy prices are usually a leading indicator of rising inflation.

Sarah Palin was right when she urged Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to “cease and desist” his “pump priming.” back in November:

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings. And the worst part of it: because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.

We shouldn’t be playing around with inflation. It’s not for nothing Reagan called it “as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hit man.” The Fed’s pump priming addiction has got our small businesses running scared, and our allies worried. The German finance minister called the Fed’s proposals “clueless.” When Germany, a country that knows a thing or two about the dangers of inflation, warns us to think again, maybe it’s time for Chairman Bernanke to cease and desist. We don’t want temporary, artificial economic growth bought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings. We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It’s the only way we can get our economy back on the right track.

The simple truth is the effects of the Feds unconventional monetary policy have finally come home to roost, and we’re paying for it in the form of higher food and energy prices. It’s time for the Fed to turn off the printing presses and focus on restoring a strong and stable dollar. The rest of the economy will take care of itself.

Related

• Housing starts see biggest drop since 1984 – Reuters
• World Food Prices Jump to Record on Sugar, Oilseeds – Bloomberg
• Import Prices Rise in February – Wall Street Journal
• Let them eat iPads – Scott Johnson, Powerline
• The $4-Per-Gallon President – Sarah Palin

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was on Capitol Hill this week to answer critical questions about monetary policy, amid rising bond yields and sharply higher commodity prices. Mr. Bernanke showed no self-doubt, and Friday’s resignation of Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, one of the board’s inflation watchdogs, means that Mr. Bernanke’s easy-money inclinations will have even fewer internal checks.

Enter Charles Plosser, the president of Philadelphia’s Federal Reserve bank. A former dean of the William E. Simon School of Business at Rochester University, Mr. Plosser is widely known as an inflation hawk. And this year he has a vote on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which sets monetary policy. He’s now a man to watch.

One of the most perplexing questions for the Fed these days concerns the continuation of “QE2,” its second round of quantitative easing, which will dump $600 billion in new money into our banking system over the first half of this year.

Mr. Plosser doesn’t see a deflation risk for the U.S. economy right now. Even those who were worried about deflation six months ago, he says, have begun to change their tune. That means that, with moderate GDP growth and low inflation in the mix, the only thing left as an excuse for QE2 is high unemployment. Can lax monetary policy change that picture?

Mr. Plosser’s answer is unequivocal: This mess was caused by over-investment in housing, and bringing down unemployment will be a gradual process. “You can’t change the carpenter into a nurse easily, and you can’t change the mortgage broker into a computer expert in a manufacturing plant very easily. Eventually that stuff will sort itself out. People will be retrained and they’ll find jobs in other industries. But monetary policy can’t retrain people. Monetary policy can’t fix those problems.”

Mr. Plosser reminds me that when QE2 was first proposed last year, he wasn’t in favor. “I didn’t think it was necessary and I thought that the costs outweighed the benefits.” He says he thought that “it carried some very significant risks” that “would not be borne today but would be borne down the road when the time comes to unwind what we’ve been doing.”

But last month, when Mr. Plosser got his first chance to vote on the FOMC, he didn’t dissent. When I ask why, he launches into a summary of his four principles of good policy-making: “clear communication of objectives,” “credible commitments toward achieving those objectives,” “transparency” and “independence.”

I say disturbing because either Ms. O’Grady is deliberately trying to make Mr. Plosser look like he has no real idea what he and the Federal Reserve are doing… Or, Mr. Plosser really doesn’t know what he and the Fed are doing. I tend to think it’s the latter, I’ve followed Ms. O’Grady’s work for several years and always found her to be credible.

What’s clear from Mr. Plosser’s comments is that neither Federal Reserve or Federal Government are willing take their medicine,  instead they’re trying to micromanage the economy.

To put it bluntly the Federal Reserve knows a lot less than it pretends, and controls a lot less than it assumes. In short, they’re  just guessing… or more accurately they’re making a lot of assumptions often based on conflicting data. Worse still if they guess right and what they’ve done coincides short term with improvements in the economy, it falsely leads them to believe their actions have had a positive impact on the economy… which encourages them to do more and more micromanagement, until what they do doesn’t work anymore. Then they start flailing around looking for complex technical reasons, when simple commonsense would tell them they can’t micromanage the economy by monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve’s primary responsibility is to maintain a stable currency, what they’re done is destabilized and devalued the dollar. It’s time for the Fed to take their medicine, stop the printing presses and focus on re-establishing sound money policies and strong stable dollar. The rest of the economy will take care of itself.

Related

• IMF calls for dollar alternative – CNNMoney.com
• Betting Against Bernanke – The New York Sun
• France wants new global finance system – RTE News

Rahm Emanuel was only giving voice to widespread political wisdom when he said that a crisis should never be “wasted.” Crises enable vastly accelerated political agendas and initiatives scarcely conceivable under calmer circumstances. So it goes now.

Here we stand more than a year into a grave economic crisis with a projected budget deficit of 13% of GDP. That’s more than twice the size of the next largest deficit since World War II. And this projected deficit is the culmination of a year when the federal government, at taxpayers’ expense, acquired enormous stakes in the banking, auto, mortgage, health-care and insurance industries.

With the crisis, the ill-conceived government reactions, and the ensuing economic downturn, the unfunded liabilities of federal programs — such as Social Security, civil-service and military pensions, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, Medicare and Medicaid — are over the $100 trillion mark. With U.S. GDP and federal tax receipts at about $14 trillion and $2.4 trillion respectively, such a debt all but guarantees higher interest rates, massive tax increases, and partial default on government promises.

But as bad as the fiscal picture is, panic-driven monetary policies portend to have even more dire consequences. We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years, and a concomitant deleterious impact on output and employment not unlike the late 1970s.

About eight months ago, starting in early September 2008, the Bernanke Fed did an abrupt about-face and radically increased the monetary base — which is comprised of currency in circulation, member bank reserves held at the Fed, and vault cash — by a little less than $1 trillion. The Fed controls the monetary base 100% and does so by purchasing and selling assets in the open market. By such a radical move, the Fed signaled a 180-degree shift in its focus from an anti-inflation position to an anti-deflation position.

The percentage increase in the monetary base is the largest increase in the past 50 years by a factor of 10 (see chart nearby). It is so far outside the realm of our prior experiential base that historical comparisons are rendered difficult if not meaningless. The currency-in-circulation component of the monetary base — which prior to the expansion had comprised 95% of the monetary base — has risen by a little less than 10%, while bank reserves have increased almost 20-fold. Now the currency-in-circulation component of the monetary base is a smidgen less than 50% of the monetary base. Yikes!

I really don’t have anything to add… Read the whole thing and then start asking your elected representatives some though questions about government spending, taxes and the economy.

Related

• 45% Say Cancel Rest of Stimulus Spending – Rasmussen Reports

Many commentators are interpreting Chairman Bernanke’s as bad news for Obamanomics and are arguing that deficit fears will force him to scale back his spending agenda. I disagree.

I suspect Pres. Obama and the Democrats in Congress will use Bernanke’s warning to push for broad tax increases to help reduce the deficit and fund his agenda.

James Pethokoukis explains why we should be worried:

WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) – Sorry, Larry Summers. It’s looking more and more likely that you’re going to be stuck in the West Wing for the duration.

See, if your boss fails to reappoint Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve chairman come January, it would be a public betrayal worthy of the television reality show “Survivor.” For President Obama has no greater ally: Bernanke is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

The latest evidence came on Wednesday during Bernanke’s testimony before the House Budget Committee. The Fed chairman offered a stern warning about America’s huge budget deficits.

“Maintaining the confidence of the financial markets requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance,” Bernanke said.

Tough, but hardly atypical Fedspeak.

Then Bernanke went a step further. He gave significant credence to the view that the recent rise in long-term Treasury yields and mortgage rates was caused by deficit jitters: “These increases appear to reflect concerns about large federal deficits but also other causes, including greater optimism about the economic outlook, a reversal of flight-to-quality flows, and technical factors related to the hedging of mortgage holdings.”

Bingo! We have Fed confirmation: those inflation-hating “bond vigilantes” have time warped to 2009 from 1994 and are hot on the hunt for countries that can’t manage their finances.

Now when talk about the return of the bond vigilantes got louder last week, some were quick to declare it bad news for Obamanomics.

Rising rates, the theory goes, could force the White House to trim its future spending plans and return more quickly to a sustainable fiscal path. So long, universal healthcare. Bye-bye, green investments. And Bernanke playing deficit hawk only adds to that momentum, right?

Not really. Chatter about budget deficits and fiscal responsibility is exactly what Team Obama needs right now.

Here’s why: If you buy the theory of bond vigilantism — that credit markets will force interest rates higher in reaction to unsustainable national budget deficits — then you also have believe the White House needs to raise taxes sharply to pay for all its spending programs or risk a bond revolt.

Indeed, plenty of White House staffers, particularly if they worked for Bill Clinton, probably do believe in the theory. It was Clinton, after all, who chucked his investment agenda in favor of a “bond market strategy” to boost growth by persuading credit markets that the administration would balance the books. Read the rest…

Regardless of how you choose to interpret Chairman Bernanke’s remarks the bottom line is the same: Pres. Obama can not pay for his agenda without finding new sources of revenue. He’s going to have to tax rates across a broad swath of Americans, and not just the top 5% as he promised during the campaign. Bernanke’s warning gives him the opening to do just that.

Related

• Our High-Tax, Low-Growth Future – Francis Cianfrocca,  Contentions

Last October, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson ordered nine banks that the Treasury Department described as “healthy” financial institutions to surrender ownership interests to the government or else face regulatory action that would force them to surrender ownership interests to the government, according to an internal Treasury Department document.

Paulson’s extraordinary threat culminated in one of the most sweeping government intrusions into the free-enterprise system in the history of the United States.

Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan watchdog organization, used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the internal Treasury Department “talking points” that were prepared for Paulson to use at his Oct. 13, 2008 meeting with the chief executive officers (CEOs) of the nine banks.

At the meeting–to which the bankers were called at short notice–Paulson made a conspicuous display of potential government regulatory power.

Paulson was flanked by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke; current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (who was then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairman Sheila Bair and Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan.

While none of these regulators have responded to inquiries by CNSNews.com, the talking points mention each by first name.

Putting aside for the problems associated with the Federal Government bailing out failing private enterprises… Government officials should not under any circumstances be forcing healthy institutions to surrender ownership stakes to the government. It wreaks of socialism!

In short the report says that although Congress limited the Treasury Dept. to spending only $700 billion on TARP  the program’s partnerships with the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation could bring the total cost 2.9 trillion:

(CNSNews.com) – For many Americans, the $700-billion financial bailout was a tough pill to swallow, but the cost to taxpayers could reach $2.9 trillion – nearly on par with the entire federal budget – according to the watchdog agency charged with oversight of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).

Although the Treasury Department is only authorized to spend the $700 billion approved last year by Congress and signed by the president, the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will invest up to $1 trillion each in partnering with the Treasury Department’s TARP.

So the “total projected funding” for TARP is estimated to be between $2.47 trillion and $2.97 trillion, according to the TARP special inspector general’s report released on April 21. That’s not so much less than the Obama administration’s proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2010 of $3.6 trillion.

Related

• TARP: The Looming Debacle – John Hinderaker, Power Line

March 31 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.

New pledges from the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. include $1 trillion for the Public-Private Investment Program, designed to help investors buy distressed loans and other assets from U.S. banks. The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation. The nation’s gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008.

I don’t know what’s more frightening, that our government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion or that they want to spend more?

The federal government agreed Sunday to take unprecedented steps to stabilize Citigroup by moving to guarantee close to $300 billion in troubled assets weighing on the bank’s books.

Treasury has agreed to inject an additional $20 billion in capital into Citigroup under terms of the deal hashed out between the bank, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Treasury officials will charge a higher interest rate for the capital injection — 8% for the first few years — than it has charged to dozens of other banks now borrowing money under the government’s the $700 billion rescue package approved by Congress last month.

Here’s my prediction: It’s not going to work…  Sure it’ll make everyone feel good and stocks will rise in the short term but once the euphoria wears off and reality sinks in we’ll be right back where we started.

Michelle Malkin says:

Crap Sandwich 2.0 is morphing again.

We’ve gone from the toxic assets purchase plan to the capital injection plan to the throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-whatever-the-hell-sticks-sticks non-plan plan.

And there in lies the problem, at least from my perspective… We rushed into this bailout business without really understanding the full scope of the problem and are now groping around in the dark trying to find a way out.