So, yes, we have a considerable federal budget problem, an unsustainable condition, a potential crisis in itself. And congress must start serious work on how that deficit will be brought back into reasonable balance and under control. And yes, that unsustainable problem was exacerbated by an "exceptional increase" in government spending necessary to lift us out of an extraordinary financial crisis that could easily have pushed us into a disastrous depression. Of course, as pointed out by a few friends, no mention was made of the now not-so-exceptional annual defense spending outlays, the now commonplace, seeming chronic condition of war in Iraq and AfPak which has contributed dramatically to the evolution of annual budget deficits. And yes, there are other reasons, too. There are lots of stones to throw.

Regardless, the problem has to be brought under control; the way out has to be thoughtfully, responsibly planned; and that plan has to be put into effect. But not just yet, says Bernanke. The Times article:

Mr. Bernanke suggested that the United States had a while longer — but not much — before it would have to pull in the reins. "This very moment is not the time to radically reduce our spending or raise our taxes, because the economy is still in a recovery mode and needs that support," Mr. Bernanke told Representative Bob Etheridge, Democrat of North Carolina.

In the next breath, however, he added that continuing deficits risked a "potential loss of confidence in the markets."

So, yes, it is also a little complicated. It is not just a question of how, but also, when? Democrats' tax increases and Republicans' social spending cuts will have to wait a little longer until the economy is a little stronger--strong enough to sustain itself with reductions in both individual disposable income (higher taxes) and government program spending. And the timing is critical: if effected too soon it will stall or reverse the recovery; if delayed too long, the deficit condition worsens, threatening more the longer-term health of the economy.

Not simple, to be sure, but clearly understandable if our concerns and purposes are something more than the polarized, short-term political power relationships between Republicans and Democrats. But, God help us, that is our regrettable situation, the circumstances that will likely limit our options and possibilities, and define our fate. Politicians on both sides of the aisle, it seems, would rather keep things misleadingly simple and properly cast for the ideologically faithful. That allows articulation of the circumstances in terms consistent with their respective social or economic views and values. As always, facts and context, particularly complex facts that call simple answers and views into question, are not often welcomed or shared by those who pass for statesman-leaders in our time.

But Chairman Bernanke refuses to be the stooge for either of these camps of political gamesmanship. Nor will he do their jobs for them. More from the same article:

In nearly two hours of questioning by the House Budget Committee, however, Mr. Bernanke gave potential succor to members of both parties, while refusing to side with either of them. To Republicans, he offered warnings about the fiscal perils of an aging population and the potential threat of soaring long-term interest rates. To Democrats, he made it clear that persistently high unemployment was a drag on growth and said that additional short-term stimulus spending might be needed.

All the while, Mr. Bernanke refused to endorse any particular spending cuts or tax increases, or even specify the balance between the two. And he was not subtle about his strategy.

"I'm trying to avoid taking sides on this because it's really up to Congress to make those decisions," he told Representative Michael K. Simpson, Republican of Idaho. "But we need your expertise on it," Mr. Simpson pressed. "Well, no," Mr. Bernanke replied. "Plenty of people have that kind of expertise, including the Congressional Budget Office and others."

I like and respect Ben Bernanke. Most of you know that. I liked the courage, honesty, and competence with which he managed and led us through the financial crisis we faced. I like the way he has now settled back into a strong, competent, and politically dispassionate interpretation of his role as Fed Chairman. I like his independence and unwillingness to be gamed or manipulated by Congress. Not surprising for a moderate Republican economist respected as much for his experience in government service as his expertise as a scholar, respected enough to be first appointed by a conservative Republican and reappointed by a liberal Democrat. I know he will not always be right; no one is. But for me, he is the only person in government I feel I can trust in matters such as these.