The former Harvard president continues to show that Harvard is paying him $400k or so a year for doing virtually nothing other than campaign for a return to Washington in an Obama administration.

(Whether that’s a reasonable investment for Harvard is, actually, an interesting question.)

In this Washington Post editorial*, Summers argues that it’s good for the government to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, although there’s room for argument, but “no one should suppose, however, that the issue is satisfactorily resolved, even for the short term.”

The editorial proposes a plan under which the government would place strict operating conditions on these government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs.

…The government would operate the GSEs as public corporations for several years. They would then be in a position to extend credit where appropriate to support resolution of the housing crisis. Once the crisis has passed, the federal government would divide their functions into government and private components, the latter of which would be sold off in multiple pieces. The proceeds could be used to fund the low-income housing support activity that was previously mandated to the GSEs.

I don’t know enough about this issue to evaluate Summers’ plan. What strikes me, though, is how much better he seems speaking out about economic issues than about social issues generally. Is that because he knows less about social issues than he does economic ones…or because I (and much of the public) know (or think we know) more about social issues than we do about how the economy works?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

* This is actually Summers’ regular column from the FT, which, somehow, he placed in the Washington Post as well. Hmmmm….that’s sort of unusual for both organizations. What does it mean? Probably that Summers really wanted it in the Post…..