back on the roost?

"Congress can't figure out what it is mad about with the Fed, but it is mad about something," said Fed watcher David Jones.

Congress looks likely to open up the Federal Reserve Act and change some of the operating procedures of the bank for the first time in its almost 100-year history. Many of the regulatory powers amassed by former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, a consummate bureaucratic in-fighter, could be stripped away.

Congress (and the American people) should be "mad about something", and frankly, if they're not sure "what", they're either insane, mentally retarded, or quite possibly both.

It appears that Mr. Shelby might have been reading some of the Tickers I have faxed to his office over the last couple of years:

Another point Shelby raised was that the Fed was the top regulator of the biggest banks, including Citicorp, which had to take $45 billion in taxpayer bailout funds.

"There are serious, serious...unexamined questions regarding the Fed's failure to fulfill its pre-existing regulatory responsibilities. With that in mind, I will view with great skepticism any move to give the Fed expanded authority," Shelby said.

It took this long to figure that out?

Then you have Fisher, who I usually at least somewhat like, spouting this nonsense:

His bigger concern these days would seem to be what he calls "the perception of risk" that has been created by the Fed's purchases of Treasury bonds, mortgage-backed securities and Fannie Mae paper.

Mr. Fisher acknowledges that events in the financial markets last year required some unusual Fed action in the commercial lending market. But he says the longer-term debt, particularly the Treasurys, is making investors nervous.