A few readers had responses to yesterday's publication of the FutureOfCapitalism.com review of Henry Paulson's book On the Brink. One made the point that Mr. Paulson's story is an example that makes a broader argument against government involvement in the economy: It so often ends up as a single individual with more ego than brains catering to those he wants to please. Another suggested linking to some of the New York Sun editorials at the time Mr. Paulson was committing his ambushes. So here are a few: Wealth Transfer, Bailout Baloney, Paulson's Pretext, and Paulson's Seizure.

Senator Schumer is the one heading up Congress's effort to rewrite the campaign finance laws in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the New York Times reports in an editorial today. The Times, which owes its continued existence to loans and investments controlled by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, is nevertheless free to endorse candidates in its editorial columns and campaign for or against them in its news pages. Without any reference to Mr. Slim, the Times editorializes in favor of "an airtight ban on foreign intrusion in federal elections" and warns, "The court ruling could open the door to abuse by domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Existing laws against foreign influence are porous." What hypocrisy. Nor is there any mention in the Times editorial of the point made by Justice Thomas in his remarks the other day:

Via Ben Sheffner's Copyrights and Campaigns blog comes this passage from Justice Ginsburg, joined by six other members of the Supreme Court in the 2003 ruling Eldred v. Ashcroft:

The government's Bureau of Labor Statistics announced this morning that in January, the American economy lost another 20,000 jobs, while the unemployment rate declined to 9.7% from 10%. One the surface, this seems contradictory -- how can there be both fewer jobs and fewer unemployed persons? One answer is that the numbers come from two different surveys. The jobs data come from the "establishment survey" that tracks business payrolls. The unemployment data come from the "household survey" that interviews family members. Another answer is that these data eventually get "revised" by the government to end up more in line with each other; as the New York Times article on this morning's release reports, "The government revised its job loss numbers for November, saying the economy gained 64,000 in that month rather than 4,000. But the numbers in December were much worse than previously stated; the economy lost 150,000 jobs rather than the 85,000 originally reported." If a business revised its earnings figures this regularly, the Securities and Exchange Commission would be all over them. But the government answers, or doesn't answer, to its own rules. And that doesn't even mention whether the numbers are "seasonally adjusted," which is a whole nother ballgame.

President Obama, who back in December was denouncing bankers as fat cats and suicide bombers and only weeks ago was denouncing them as "selfish" and their bonuses as "obscene," now tells Democratic Senators, "We've got to make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can't be demonizing every bank out there," the Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib notices. It's amazing what a stock market drop will do. And it only reinforces Richard Cohen's observation: "When, for instance, the call goes out to let Obama be Obama, I'm not sure what that is. For the moment, it's a tendentious populism, but the sound of it is tinny and inauthentic, a campaign tactic, nothing more." It's hard to tell which is more tinny and inauthentic, the populism or the lecture to the senators against demonizing the banks. When is Mr. Obama being authentic -- when he demonizes the banks and bankers, or when the tells the senators they shouldn't demonize the banks and bankers? Maybe Mr. Obama wants the senators to leave the demonizing of the bankers to the executive branch. There's nothing wrong with changing one's mind, but it's hard to tell if Mr. Obama has had a genuine change of heart about this, or if all along he's been acting not according to principle, but out of a search for political advantage. What does sound authentic to me is the "like it or not" part, the acknowledgement that, at core, there are probably some Democratic Senators out there who, left to their own devices, would prefer not to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning. The way Mr. Obama describes it, it's kind of a necessary evil. That, too, comes off as authentic.

The magazine of the American Automobile Association of New York has a scathing article about the Environmental Protection Agency's consideration of the ethanol industry's request to increase the required amount of ethanol in gasoline to 15% from 10%:

The debate has made strange bedfellows out of the oil industry and environmentalists who both oppose the increase. Environmentalists are crying foul because the E15 blend gets fewer miles to the gallon and is not a clean burning fuel, while the oil industry cites concerns over potential engine damage.

Henry Paulson's book, On the Brink, is one strange piece of work. The subtitle is "Inside the Race to Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System," but a better subtitle might have been "Confessions of a Guilty Bully."

Mr. Paulson is admirably, even stunningly forthright about much of this. He acknowledges that his decision as Treasury secretary in the Bush administration to "seize control" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was an "ambush" that was "to the disadvantage" of the companies' shareholders, who "we'd basically killed." He acknowledges that this ambush took place just days after the firms' federal regulator had issued a letter judging them to be adequately capitalized. He acknowledges the ambush took place less than a month after Mr. Paulson himself had issued a statement saying he was focused on supporting the firms "in their current form as shareholder-owned companies," a statement he writes "hoped to calm market fears of a government takeover that would wipe out shareholders."

Bloomberg News has a story reminding readers that the transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, who is the bumbling general in the Obama administration's war on Toyota is a Republican former congressman. The article recounts Mr. Hood's various conflicting and contradictory statement on the situation, including his statement, subsequently retracted, that people shouldn't drive their Toyotas. It's a reminder that the problem in Washington isn't the Republicans or the Democrats, it's the politicians. The Toyota situation also going to be interesting to watch from a sheer foreign policy/diplomacy standpoint. American relations with the government of China are deteriorating over the Google hacking, the American weapons deal with Taiwan, and President Obama's scheduled meeting with His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. All good reasons, one might argue. But not the context in which you want to pick a big fight with the other big power in Asia, Japan, either.

On February 2 we wrote here about Toyota's supposed sudden acceleration problems: "With Uncle Sam owning 60% of General Motors and also having loaned billions of dollars more to Tesla, Nissan, Ford and Fisker — all to compete with Toyota and its industry-leading hybrid motors — is the transportation secretary advancing a consumer safety interest or a government financial outcome interest? How can anyone know with any confidence? It's certainly a murky area." Now at least two other outlets are picking up this theme. Canada's National Post, February 3: "The attack on Toyota, at this time of U.S. economic weakness and populist excess, is fast turning into a great American nationalist assault on a foreign corporation, an economic war... The owners of union-dominated Government Motors can spot a strategic economic opportunity without waiting for the memo from head office." And the Washington Examiner, in a February 4 editorial headlined "Gangster Government Targets Toyota," writes, "Given the Obama administration's catering to one of its favorite special interest groups, the United Auto Workers union, during the government's bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler last year, it is difficult to avoid wondering whether Toyota has become a victim of the Chicago Way of dealing with competitors."

"You don't have to look around much to see why the average New Yorker is disgusted with State and Federal government and why the 'so called' political class has made a basket-case of the once greatest state in the Country. ... New York's so-called 'political class' is driving this state into the toilet. Crushing income and property taxes pay for sweetheart public employees union compensation deals with the State. The unions, in turn, give money and manpower to re-elect the very same politicians who gave them this deal and everybody benefits -- but the taxpayers." Sound like the Manhattan Institute or a New York Post editorial? Nope, it's the Manhattan Madam.

Even the New York Times's reliably leftish columnist Gail Collins is now mocking Senator Schumer:

Before the budget document even went out, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York had issued a scathing press release attacking plans to eliminate $5 million in grants to manufacturers of worsted wool.

"I will fight to make sure this proposal never sees the light of day," said Schumer, who claimed that dropping the grants could ruin "Rochester's iconic Hickey Freeman," a men's clothing company. It turned out that Hickey Freeman gets a different wool-manufacturer break entirely. Rochester is saved!

FutureOfCapitalism.com has been on Russian state television and mentioned in the National newspaper in Abu Dhabi. But so far as we know we hadn't been written about in Serbian before, until today's article (pdf) in Ekonom:east.

The Heritage Foundation has a video interview with Robert Willington, who spearheaded online outreach for Scott Brown's Senate campaign. Mr. Willington is also involved with a site called rebuildtheparty.com. There's more on Mr. Willington here.

From the YouTube interview with the president:

from Aloha Tony, your home state of Hawaii. He says, "Mr. President, our deficit is higher than ever at $12 trillion. Will you consider allowing the private sector to buy and take over the most troubled government-run agencies such as the U.S. Postal Service?"

THE PRESIDENT: Bad idea most of the time. There are examples where privatization makes sense, where people can do things much more efficiently. But oftentimes what you see is companies want to buy those parts of a government-run op that are profitable, and they don't want to do anything else.