An op-ed in today's Washington Post, Fallout from a Bailout, examining the consequence of the Federal Reserve bailout of Bear, Stearns in March, breathlessly exclaims, "The world has changed because of a few snap decisions made one weekend in March." Maybe it takes someone with the unique perspective and insight of a former director of the Division of Monetary Affairs at the Federal Reserve Board to appreciate and alert us to this global cataclysm: "the Fed's action tipped the political balance toward providing direct subsidies to households having trouble meeting their mortgage payments." Dreadful. Author Vincent Reinhart is right in this one narrow respect: the Fed's action in March may have helped clarify how politically untenable in Congress the Bush administration's laissez-faire approach to the mortgage crisis was. His question, "Given that the government has provided funds to an investment bank, do you think government aid should also be given to households failing to meet their mortgage obligations?" became a no-brainer. Whether the Fed's move really portends the ideological consequence Reinhart seems to fear is debatable. But once denizens of Club Fed stop hyperventilating, they probably should consider this question before debate begins in earnest on absurdly long-overdue and inevitable financial institution regulatory reform: should Bear-style Fed intervention with fiscal policy consequences (putting taxpayers on the line for the Bear bailout) be sanctioned going forward, and, if so, does that argue for an oversight and advice-and-consent role for Congress? This may be the central question emerging from the Bear bailout. If the Fed wants license formally to expand its mission and effect fiscal policy, we will need to bear in mind that, as the late Sen. William Proxmire famously noted, "the Fed is a creature of Congress."