In testimony before the JEC:
Monetary policy can be a powerful tool, but it is not a panacea for the problems currently faced by the U.S. economy. Fostering healthy growth and job creation is a shared responsibility of all economic policymakers, in close cooperation with the private sector. Fiscal policy is of critical importance, as I have noted today, but a wide range of other policies–pertaining to labor markets, housing, trade, taxation, and regulation, for example–also have important roles to play. For our part, we at the Federal Reserve will continue to work to help create an environment that provides the greatest possible economic opportunity for all Americans.
He really wants to “spread the blame”!
If MP is a powerful tool, and the economic situation is really “desperate”, why does he keep mentioning the “power of MP” but doesn´t make full use of it?
He proposes a “sharing and planning society” forgetting that good economics is based on the principle of the “invisible hand”. Why does he say that the Federal Reserve will continue to work…if almost 3 years ago he appealed to the Treasury to “take over” because MP had reached the end of its tether? After all, weren´t interest rates at the ZLB?
He doesn´t seem to realize that the main role of MP in “fostering healthy growth and job creation…” is to put the “train back on the track”, i.e. stabilize the economy so that it can concentrate on the business of “healthy growth”.
Update: Surprisingly the market still listens, albeit only to pare losses:
“We were looking over the edge of a precipice this morning,” said Peter Kenny, managing director at Knight Capital Group. “People were ready to jump. But surprisingly, Chairman Bernanke had a very therapeutic effect on the market. I don’t think people were expecting that.”
Historinhas 
At the risk of blabbering, I can only comment that there are times when ideas or causes seem to upend rational thinking. There was a time when the USA poured incredible resources into Vietnam, led by people with very high IQs. With the benefit of hindsight and less emotionalism, we see today that Vietnam was an obvious and colossal error–how could we spend so much to gain so little (and ultimately worse than nothing)?
Today it is taken for granted that inflation is Satan, and even a small amount of it is somehow an ethical, moral and economic failing. Even at huge costs, we must contain inflation.
Really? If we had, say five percent real growth for five years, and four percent inflation, we would all die? We would be de-based? Capital would become scarce? The White House would become a gay brothel?
In some regards, today’s obsession with inflation is even less rational than Vietnam. Back then it was thought defeats might be permanent. The Commies would control SE Asia forever, and spread from there across to Indonesia etc.
No one suggests that inflation cannot be tamped down at some point–if we were so lucky as to have five years of robust growth, we could then start tightening the money supply.
I actually think the Bush whitehouse was a frequent venue for gay prostitution. Google it