We will certainly remove that stimulus in time. And we are committed to price stability and we will make sure that it happens.”You know, next year could turn out to be quite a test for the Fed chairman, assuming he gets nominated for another four year term later this year.

With an economic recovery possibly gathering steam in the fall or next year, energy prices are sure to be on the rise (if the events of spring have taught us anything it is that commodity prices will be bid up in advance of any recovery, real or imagined) and, during the run-up to important mid-term elections, it will be Bernanke's job to do what his predecessor did not do about six years ago - raise interest rates more than a few basis points.

That could turn out to be some test.

Over at the Deal Journal blog they live-blogged the entire hearing, apparently hanging around for the entire three hours. This part looked kind of interesting...

11:45: The questions return to the “threat/no threat” debate. Bernanke say if the Fed wants to remove a CEO, it will do so. Just look at AIG, where the Fed fired the CEO as a condition of the insurance giant’s bail out. But I didn’t threaten to fire Lewis.

11:52: Rep. Cummings: Did you think that Ken Lewis was competent (at time of the Merrill deal)?

Bernanke: That’s not a yes or no answer. (Ben just won’t bite)

High noon: Rep. Clay.: Shouldn’t you have disclosed what you knew about the mounting losses at Merrill to the shareholders and to the broader public.

Bernanke: Again, he punts. “It was up to Bofa to disclose those losses.” Our job was to make sure the system was stabilized.

That preserving "system stability" or "preventing a systemic collapse" argument seems to be a reliable ace-in-the-hole for the Fed Chairman, a virtual "Get Out of Jail Free" card it seems, even though they failed to prevent a collapse last fall.

Aside from committing a crime (and maybe not even in that case), is there anything that this "Get Out of Jail Free" card would not be effective on?