February 5, 2026

February 4, 2026

INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION: How the Fed Politicized Itself—and What a New Chair Can Do to Fix It. How did the Fed politicize itself? Gradually, then all at once.

In September 2022, about a year after Joseph Wang left his job at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, he came across an odd new research paper from his former employer. Wang had been a senior trader on the Open Market Trading Desk, carrying out the Fed’s monetary policy. In his five years there, the usual Fed research covered
topics like inflation, labor markets, and bank capital. This paper, though, was titled “800,000 Years of Climate Risk.”

“I thought that was very strange,” Wang recalled. “The Fed writing about CO2 concentrations.”

Wang wasn’t the only one to notice what looked like mission creep at the Fed. Just before Thanksgiving in 2021, a tweet from the St. Louis Fed suggested replacing Thanksgiving turkey with “a soybean-based dinner.” The post drew thousands of replies, many of them demanding that the Fed get back in its lane.

Getting the Fed back in its lane is likely one of the toughest tasks ahead for Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Fed. If confirmed, Warsh will command an institution that made itself a political
and ideological player during the tenure of outgoing chair Jerome Powell.

That shift matters because economists’ frequent defenses of the principle of Fed autonomy rely on the idea that its leaders are essentially technocrats. In practice, though, the Fed has moved well beyond that model, inserting itself into politically laden policy issues only tenuously connected, if at all, to its mandates of stable prices and low unemployment.

Indeed.

Posted at 10:15 pm by Glenn Reynolds

OPEN THREAD: Hump Day.

Posted at 9:30 pm by Glenn Reynolds

HUGE FRAUD, MISMANAGEMENT EXPOSED IN RED AND BLUE STATES: State and local governments are required by federal law to permit outside auditors to conduct comprehensive “Single Audits” of how officials are administering federally funded social welfare benefit programs. Media coverage of these audits is typically meager at best.

So Truth-In-Accounting (TIA) is digging deep into the most recent such audits (2024) and uncovering all kinds of costly, long-running waste, fraud and corruption. And the garbage is showing up in both Blue and Red states. Check it out here. 

Posted at 7:00 pm by Mark Tapscott

JULIE BURCHILL: Celebrities for illegal immigration.

A cynic once said that the reason people become artists is so they can have wealth, attention and beautiful lovers, and it’s equally true of the other branches of the creative and performing arts. Though they can talk about their ‘craft’ until the cows come home, most people go into showbiz so they can be recognised as special – not as ‘civilians’, as Liz Hurley memorably called non-creatives. Showbiz celebs sleep with each other and holiday with each other. Their children become friends and form icky little nepo-baby gangs. Still, no matter what big Jessies they appear by doing so, that’s their own business.

When the behaviour of celebrities becomes a matter for the rest of us, however, is when they take it upon themselves to pontificate on politics, as politics is in the public, not the private, arena. Of course, it’s fine for them to speak out in favour of whatever candidate they fancy during elections. Although, after Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump, you would have thought they might have learned the lesson that when the rich and famous lecture ordinary people, it tends to end very badly for them. Not only do celeb endorsements not work, but they can also have a repelling effect. Beyoncé and Bruce ‘The Boss’ Springsteen sure helped cook Kamala’s goose. She also won endorsements from – deep breath – Oprah Winfrey, Taylor Swift, Megan Thee Stallion, George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ariana Grande, Barbra Streisand, Olivia Rodrigo and Charli XCX. But she lost every swing state.

I find it splendidly sensible that ‘ordinary’ people are able to see through celebrity endorsements. It was F Scott Fitzgerald who famously said, ‘The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function’. Regular people are able to admire, even idolise, a singer or an actor – and then totally do the opposite politically to what that performer calls for.

A few mummers appear to have got the memo, but the Grammy awards last weekend reminded us of the unreconstructed arrogance on the part of the famous. Many now appear to believe that far from democracy being about one person one vote, it’s about preventing policies that the ‘civilians’ have voted for from ever being carried out, if they offend the famous. It’s preposterous, but the likes of Billie Eilish really do seem to believe in this moderated, mutilated version of democracy.

But how else can they virtue signal that they’re in the club, and not one of those icky “civilians?” Acting the Fool: Adam Corolla Says Some in Hollywood Are Not the Radical Leftists They Appear to Be.

Posted at 5:45 pm by Ed Driscoll