So should we be worried that Alan Grayson of the House Financial Services Committee, got taken in by a ponzi scheme? Does this render him unfit for the position, as I've seen some conservative commentators claim?
You heard a lot of this during the Edmund Andrews brouhaha, and I don't think it's useful in either case. Certainly, their personal feelings about regulation might be influenced by their history, but that's true of everyone. The more prevalent claim was that badly managing their personal finances somehow disqualified them from having opinions on financial policy.
But being good at analyzing policy, and being good at managing your personal finances, are not at all the same thing, just as you can report on the science of obesity, and nonetheless find yourself unable to risk that second eclair. Having impulse control problems, or being excessively trusting, in one area of your personal life doesn't really have much to do with your ability to analyze the macroeconomy. I don't know whether Ben Bernanke's a spendthrift or a tightwad. But I'd still rather have him in charge of the Federal Reserve than the CouponMom.