Michael Gerson urges Barack Obama not to touch three explosive issues that could blow up in his face, stirring up big controversies that would thwart all these good feelings and his desire to unify the country. Many of his supporters, though, want him to go after these issues right away. The potential landmines are:

(1) abortion & bioethics. (Don’t make taxpayers pay for them!)
(2) the fairness doctrine (Don’t try to silence conservative talk radio!)
(3) abolishing the secret ballot for union decisions (Don’t allow union coercion!)

I’m not convinced that the people who care about these issues have enough clout left to make any kind of explosion. I don’t see anything hindering Obama and his Democratic majorities from doing all of these things. Do you think they will?

So says Charles Morris, who points out that the current palliatives are trying to get us back to what caused the problem in the first place; namely, too much lending and borrowing:

All these frenzied attempts at staving off recession seem to be aimed merely at jump-starting the consumer borrowing-spending binge that underpinned the ersatz growth of the 2000s. But the real need is to shift to a more balanced system that’s less addicted to high-leverage finance.

Pouring money from the Fed into the banks just delays the day when banks — and now we taxpayers — will have to tally up our losses. The Fed is exchanging Treasury bonds for bundles of subprime mortgages at 98 cents on the dollar. But in the real world, those bundles could barely fetch 30 to 50 cents on the dollar. Does the Fed seriously believe that subprime mortgages are going to recover their value? The Japanese tried papering over bad assets during their 1990s credit crunch, and their economy has barely budged in 20 years.

At the same time, Congress and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. are insisting that banks increase lending. To whom? House prices are still falling at double-digit rates. Credit-card defaults are spiraling upward. Companies are weak. Banks know how fast their loans books are deteriorating, and they desperately need cash to build up their reserves against all the bad loans they’ve made. Forcing them to ratchet up lending now is just pushing them back into the quicksand they’re struggling to climb out of. It’s financial folly. It would also be political folly for the new Obama administration.

Morris says getting the economy back into shape will mean some version of what Paul Volcker did when he dealt with the Carter recession by jacking up interest rates, which wrung out inflation and set up the Reagan revolution.

You must fill out a 63 page questionnaire that, according to Rich Galen, includes these requirements:

The very first question requires you to submit “all resumes or biographical statements” you’ve put out in the past 10 years. Who keeps those things?

Question four requires that you”chronologically list activities … from which you have derived earned income (e.g. self-employment, consulting activities, writing, speaking, royalties and honoraria) for the past ten years.”Are they kidding? Go back 10 years and reconstruct every speaking fee, every project, every consulting gig? Right.

Question eight: “Briefly describe any controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.” What constitutes “a controversial matter?” And who is the Obama transition team “controversial matter” maven?

Question 10: “List and, if readily available, provide a copy of each book, article, column or publication … you have authored.” The problem with this one is it appears to be potentially a First Amendment issue. The Obama transition team must have not just a controversial matter maven, but a Democratic Orthodoxy referee.

Question 13 requests a copy of every e-mail, text message or instant message which “might be a cause for embarrassment for you, your family or the President-elect if made public.” Are you kidding me? Who HASN’T sent an e-mail, text message or instant message which “might be a cause for embarrassment?” In the past week!

It goes on and on in that vein including requiring a list of anyone you have ever had a close enough relationship with to be considered a “cohabitant.” . . .

The final question is the most insidious: “Provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could … be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family or the President-elect.” Who doesn’t have someone in their family who doesn’t embarrass the rest of the family by simply being a member of their family? I know that in my family we have such a person. It’s me.

Would the best and the brightest want to go into public service if they had to fill out a form like that?