Ezra Klein does everyone a huge favor by reprinting part of the the transcript from a debate (I'm being kind) he watched on MSNBC yesterday between CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo and New York Congressman Anthony Weiner over health care.

Here's the interview.

And here's the transcript:

This CNBC report from midday yesterday is as good of a summary as I've seen in a while in print, audio, or video on the state of the economic debate.

My one question: How does Steve Liesman always get to report with mountains in the background?

Has anyone else noticed how much CNBC now sounds and looks like ESPN?

They probably both have predominently male audiences, but is Wall Street really just a game?

And who is the CNBC equivalent of Howard Cosell?

It was a scene at the end of The Matrix Revolutions -- the third in the series -- when Neo defeats the machines and Link, the character played by Harold Perrineau, shouts to the people of Zion, "It's over.  The war is over."

CNBC today did the financial equivalent of what Link did when it shouted to its viewers that the recession is over. Take a look for yourself below.

Megan McArdle picked up on my post from yesterday about CNBC's use, or what I said was the misuse, of the phrase "death tax" as the headline for the piece it aired on the estate tax. I agree with Megan that CNBC's use of that phrase was a political choice that is worth noting and (at least from my perspective because I don't want to put too many words in her mouth) criticizing.

In response to what she wrote, Megan then received 82 comments (at least as of about 6 am EDT this morning) that mostly debated the theory behind the estate and gift tax.

As always happens when this tax is discussed, Megan's commenters were working far too hard.  A reason may have been stated for a tax on estates and gifts when it was first imposed, and that reason may have become the stuff political myths are made of since then.  But the estate and gift tax was imposed for reasons that had very little to do with anything other than the need to raise revenue.

The national debt is not usually news.

Except when it's not increased by the time the government's existing debt ceiling is reached and the Treasury has to do some interesting things to manage cash flow, federal borrowing is seldom widely reported. When it is, it's usually only of interest to Wall Street and mentioned mostly by financial outlets like Bloomberg, Marketplace, CNBC, etc.

This has been especially the case in recent years as the White House has tried to dampen public and media interest in anything having to do with the budget, fiscal policy, and federal finances. By not talking about it, the administration has tried to convince everyone that it's not an issue.

Pete started this. Let me add a few quick thoughts.

I'm a big CNBC fan, but the way they covered the Treasury secretary's formal announcement yesterday of a financial services reform plan after a weekend of informal releases was close to yellow journalism. Not only was there little new to report by the time Secretary Paulson stepped up the microphone, by then it was also clear that this was not going to be adopted this year, or perhaps ever.

First, you had a major proposal by a lame duck administration with very low approval ratings facing a hostile House and Senate controlled by a different political party.

Second, you had a very contententious plan that even its supporters agree won't do much to deal with the current situation before Election Day.

Steve Forbes' Monday (3/17/08) morning interview on CNBC deserves comment because he recommended ignoring market valuations and urged federal intervention in currency markets that would cost U.S. taxpayers a lot of money.

Forbes recommended suspending the SEC's "mark to market" valuation rules for U.S. financial firms because many products, mortgage-backed securities in particular, are not trading now, or are trading a unusually low valuations. The rules allow the use of computer model valuations when there are no market prices, which Forbes also dismissed. This is unusual behavior for a staunch adherent of the "free market."

The irony is unmistakable and almost unbelievable.

As you watch and read the reports about what Wall Street people are saying the federal government should do to make the current economic situation better and avoid an even worse problem, you can't help but wonder what happened to their capitalist and free market credentials.  The same people who, when times are good, not-so-politely insist the government must have as small a role as possible in the economy and criticize those who dare suggest that legislation and regulation are necessary, are now demanding that Washington get heavily involved because things aren't going so well.

Steve Forbes, who usually routinely rails against Washington involvement in the economy, yesterday became the poster child for this view when, during an interview on CNBC, provided a laundry list of things the government needed to do immediately.