Global Markets, Federal Reserve Can't Be Wrong Almost overnight, the masters of the universe have converged on a consensus that the U.S. economy is headed for -- or already in -- a recession. U.S. markets were closed yesterday for the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday as major indexes fell 7.2 percent in Frankfurt, 7.4 in Mumbai and 5.5 in London. The Dow dropped 400 points in the first hour of trading today.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has confirmed that President Bush will outline the principal elements of his economic stimulus later today. Capitol Hill aides involved in crafting a congressional package have described the components of the President's plan, as follows:

• tax rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for couples above the 10 percent tax bracket; those in the 10 percent bracket would receive no rebates
• a one-year elimination of the 10 percent bracket; families of four earning between $24,900 and $41,000 would paying no taxes in filing year 2008

The Washington Post reported this morning that congressional leaders have asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the use of no-bid contracts to hire businesses and corporations to oversee and monitor other businesses and corporations. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) apparently thought something smelled fishy when a federal prosecutor steered a no-bid, 18-month contract worth between $28 million and $52 million to his old boss, former Attorney General John Ashcroft. The contract is for overseeing an out of court settlement the Justice Department reached with a knee and hip replacement company called Zimmer Holdings, Inc. from Warsaw, Indiana. Apparently Zimmer Holdings was accused of bribing giving kickbacks to doctors who used their knee and hip implants. Now the way these types of settlements work is that the monitoring company is paid directly by the offending business that it is supposed to be monitoring. Therefore, Ashcroft's consulting firm will be paid directly by Zimmer Holdings - the very entity he is supposed to be overseeing to make sure, if you can believe this, they don't make more illegal payments or bribes. It's hard for me to even begin to describe the gut-wrenching, mind-boggling irony of this situation. First off, how can Mr. Ashcroft be expected to monitor a company in an independent manner that is paying him directly? Second, it's not like Zimmer Holdings was accused of union-busting or providing unsafe working conditions for its employees. They were accused of bribing doctors! Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe they could continue to attempt to offer illegal bribes? And how would the public know if they were doing that? Because the monitor company's bills are not subject to an independent review, are we just supposed to take Mr. Ashcroft's word for it?