... Comes from Karl Kofoed, in the form of a letter to the editor:

"Conservatives" like Gil Spencer astonish me. He advocates following
the law on the local level but gives deregulation on the national
level a free pass. Let's think about following rules and creating a
fair playing field: There's not a soul in America who believes games
should be played without rules. In fact we are almost fanatical about
crime and punishment. It doesn't even matter if a baseball player
has one of the best records in baseball. Break the rules and he
goes. So why would they think that finance or capitalism should be
"played" without rules? That's what deregulation means.

This isn't rocket science. The Republicans, Teabaggers and
Libertarians are all about zero tolerance and big rules regulating
the public. So they are not really against regulation, just
selective regulations that really just boil down to them not wanting
to pay taxes. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that
ANYONE echoing their "philosophy" are liars, cheats and criminals...

Nice of Karl to be so "logical," but it sure sounds like he is calling me a "liar," a "cheat" and a "criminal."

As for some of us being against more and bigger rules to regulate the public, he is quite right. Some of us think the nation is over-regulated. Still, I haven't heard from even the most ardent libertarian, that we should have NO laws, rules or regulations at all.

In today's Wall Street Journal is an editorial about a new proposed regulation sponsored by Democrat Maxine Waters.

For 97 years the 12 regional banks of the Federal Reserve system have operated relatively free of political interference from Washington. The looming financial reform bill threatens that independence, not least through an effort to impose new presidential appointees at the regional banks.

The biggest underreported threat comes from Subtitle I, Section 1801 of the House financial reform bill titled "Inclusion of Minorities and Women; Diversity in Agency Workforce." Sponsored by California Democrat Maxine Waters, the provision requires each federal financial agency, the Fed Board of Governors and the 12 regional Fed banks to "establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

So what else is new, you say? Don't the feds already dictate racial and gender hiring? Yes, they do, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and assorted other federal laws. As a matter of racial and gender diversity, the Waters provision is at best redundant.

But Ms. Waters and the House are hunting bigger game—to wit, the political allocation of credit. They want to put a network of operatives at the highest level of government who are responsible for making sure that regulators put the hiring of, and lending to, minorities at the top of their priority list. The House provision makes that very clear by making each diversity officer a Presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate. The post, says the bill, will be "comparable to that of other senior level staff."

Should we assume Karl likes this new regulation? Does he think any proposed regulation is good for the simple reason it is being proposed by a Democrat? Based on his own logic it is. But I'll let Karl speak for himself. For me, I very much doubt that the state of the American economy can be blamed on the lack Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion at 12 regional Fed banks.