The U.S. Federal Reserve has an important job for its top dog: be able to say with a straight face that it will be able to control inflation. Bonus points are available if you can claim the ability to do this over the long-term. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke showcased his skills yesterday, claiming that the Fed has everything at its disposal needed to stem inflation for the next few years.

Specifically, he laid out five ways that the Federal Reserve can keep money supply and inflation from spiking, with interest rate management the primary tool. It looks like he's trying to get out in front of inflation concerns early, but only time will tell if he can deliver the goods. For now, keeping inflation contained remains a "top priority."

Federal reserve chairman Ben Bernanke continues to float his raft of economic strategies upon a wad of fake money. His song and dance has provided us with no real relief. Someone at some point must have convinced him that lowering interest rates is fun and exciting. He believed those lies and now it's his hobby. Has it provided any positive benefit of any real consequence in terms of the long term picture? I think not.

Today and tomorrow, the Federal Reserve Chairman shall be addressing congress. He's expected to tell them about how he has our economy under control. The fact is that it's near completely out of his hands. The one possible exception is that he's handily turned our dollars into wads of toilet paper. His major concern seems to be avoiding recession, which is an admirable goal, but someone forgot to wake the dear man to tell him recession is already here, aided by the fake dollars Bernanke keeps spewing upon the ground.

This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

You could make the argument that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is the second most important man in the world. (On Sept. 18 the Fed is expected to cut interest rates to mitigate damage done by recent problems in credit markets). It is true, that when the Fed Chief talks, the WHOLE world listens -- and reacts -- so everyone was a bit apprehensive when long-running Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan finally stepped down last year to be replaced by Ben Bernanke.

While it is still way to early to try to compare the old with the new, there have been some signs that the "new kid on the block" is going to be taking a different route in his role as Fed Chief. Greenspan, aka the "Maestro," was viewed as a genius while in office, but as time has passed, week by week the Greenspan legacy seems to be eroding little by little. The general impression of the "Great Inflator" Greenspan has definitely shifted to where most people recognize that he was an instigator for inflation who was afraid to let the markets correct themselves to avoid forming bubbles.

It is also true that Greenspan managed to remain in control of the Federal Reserve for 18 long years (a record for the position), but the question really is how? How did Greenspan manage to remain in the seat of one of the most powerful positions in the country for such a long period? The answer to that question is that he pleases every president that he serves. How did Greenspan manage to do this? By dropping interest rates whenever any hint of trouble hit the market. Think back to 1998 when Greenspan cut rates three times after the collapse of Long Term Capital Management LP.

The current president has done at least one good thing -- appointing Ben Bernanke as Fed Chair. Bernanke has so far managed to keep the economy from plunging in response to the decline in the housing market and high oil prices. But what really intrigues me is his speech in Omaha yesterday in which he politely bashed Bush's economic policies.

I say politely because Bernanke didn't actually criticize Bush's tax and industrial policies that since 2001 have led directly to the income inequality which Bernanke enumerated in his speech. According to Bloomberg, Bernanke avoided talking about the income growth of the top 1% -- focusing instead on the lower economic level where the disparities are still bad. He noted that families earning more than $103,100 grabbed 48.1% of aggregate income rise in 2005, from 46.5% in 1995 while those earning between $45,000 and $68,300 lost ground -- with their share dropping from 15.8% to 15.3% during the same period.

Bernanke also put his oar in the water on executive pay, noting research that says the economic value of skilled leadership has increased as firms have grown larger. He cited my beloved -- and pain-inducing -- Boston Red Sox to illustrate the income disparity between star athletes and others, citing the 2004 $22.5 million pay package for Manny Ramirez. At the same time, he noted research that points to weak corporate governance as a source of high executive compensation.

How have Bush's policies contributed to the income inequality?