Paul Krugman, of the New York Times, had no problem with the Fed sacrificing the future of America for the benefit of his friends and neighbors on Wall Street. Heck no, as Manhattan goes, so goes the nation…except for the other 95% of us. Now though, he is up in arms in the New York times attacking what he expects to occur when Paul is in charge of a subcommittee in the House.

Krugman, in a piece particularly lacking in lucidity, prefers to name-call. He entitles the article ‘Paleomonetarism’. I believe this comes from the Beltway derivative ‘Paleo’ meaning if we don’t like to spend hundreds of billions on obscure adventures, we must be a misanthrope. For example, paleocons (of which I consider myself, btw) believe for example that we should fight wars when our country is in danger in order to remove that danger. This is in opposition to the view of Krugman and his friends’ viewpoint, Neocons, who believe that wars should last as long as possible, with no measurable goals, as long as nobody they know actually has to enlist to fight in them.

Paleo’s also hold the weird belief system that the Federal Reserve should actually do what it was intended to accomplish. A hundred years ago, the Fed was devised to separate Wall Street from Main Street, so Krugman got that part right. However, its goal was to keep the outrageous gains and losses investors were willing to incur separate from those of average people. That’s right, the Fed isn’t supposed to bail out Wall Street, that’s something that the lobbyist class has paid DC to do.

Imagine how cockeyed that would have been, if instead of bailing out a dozen huge investment firms and insurance companies, the Fed would have allocated the same amount of money to any local bank with the proviso that it actually lends money to people or firms. Wow, instead of his buddies in Manhattan blackmailing us for money, then buying T-bills with that money, so we get the joy of paying interest for the privilege of loaning them money, we might actually be creating jobs.

I’d tell the Nobel Prize winner not to worry too much, though. His buddies have paid off most of the Senate to do what they want. However, I can understand his fear. He thought John Boehner would be able to minimize Paul’s impact. But Boehner saw that his troops were willing to mutiny, so he caved in. What if the same thing happens in the Senate? OMG, people might actually have a voice in our government.