Struck by the near unanimity of the view that the Paulson blueprint is beside the point--something that Paul Krugman and the Wall Street Journal, for heaven's sake, have been able to agree on--I attempt a limited defense in this column for National Journal (the link expires in a week). The document is not a waste of time, and I do not see it as a cynical political maneuver. Most of what the Treasury proposes actually makes sense, and it would be good to see the plan acted on. The problem is that the blueprint fails to ask the most pressing and important questions. As I noted two posts ago, it is more about form than content.
"I'm exploiting the maximum of what you can ask a piece of metal to do."