Ben Bernanke has been confirmed by the Senate for another four-year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. But at the same time, rumors are swirling that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will soon "resign" -- which is to say, be fired. One Washington source tells me that a deal has been made between the Senate and the White House. Bernanke gets confirmed, but Geithner has to take the fall.

I guess that's what separates the current populist frenzy in Washington from a common lynch mob. If this were just a lynch mob, they'd hang 'em both. But this is politics. So the president gets to choose which victim dies, and which victim lives.

While this has all played out, stocks have been in a sharp correction. It s like I explained last week. After the upset win by a Republican in the special U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts earlier this month, Washington has been in a frenzy trying to figure out how to play this sudden apparent realignment of political fortunes. The reaction has been to revert to a dangerous anti-Wall Street populism, in which bankers -- and government officials like Geithner and Bernanke, who help save Wall Street last year -- are vilified.

If you're reading this column, chances pretty strong that are you are an investor. So make no mistake about it. When some politician rails against Wall Street, he's railing against you.

No wonder a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that people with investments support Ben Bernanke's confirmation, on balance. Those with no investments at all oppose confirmation. The same poll shows that people with a college education support Bernanke's confirmation. Those with only a high school education oppose it.

I don't mean to be an elitist here, but

OK, I can't resist. Here's what it means. People who have accomplished something in life support Bernanke, which means they probably support Wall Street. People who have accomplished less in life oppose Bernanke, and probably oppose Wall Street.

So is it any wonder that politicians are trying to lynch Bernanke? And failing that, Geithner? They always play to the lowest common denominator. Especially now that they're panicking, they assume it's easier to pander to the poor and the less-educated than to try to persuade the middle-class and the educated.

What would you do to get attention and look like you're in control? Most of these politicians don't have anything constructive they can do, or even propose. They're utterly clueless. So just distract the mob with a show trial and an execution -- just like in ancient Rome.

Bernanke's confirmed. And let's assume Geithner hangs in there, too. Would that be good for stocks? Yes, for several reasons.

First, they're both good men. Agree or disagree on specific decisions they've made, there's no doubt in my mind that both are loyal Americans who gave every last ounce in the crisis of 2008 and 2009, and did so with fairness and integrity.

Second, they're both very capable. In fact, because of their experience at the very center of the crisis, they are probably the two most capable men in the world to see us through the aftermath and on into recovery. If we were in more ordinary times, I'd prefer other people in their positions. But not now.

Third, if they both survive that sends a signal that the political process in this country isn't screwed up beyond all recognition -- that it's really a process, a fair process, not a lynch mob. That's an important signal. Because if people as powerful as Bernanke and Geithner can be brought down by an angry crowd it can happen to anybody, or to any company. Who'd want to own stocks in a world like that?'

Even if you'll grant me that Bernanke and Geithner surviving is good for stocks, that begs another larger question -- is it good enough? Perhaps not. Stocks have become very overvalued, as prices have jumped way ahead of the actual recovery in the economy and the business environment. So stocks are vulnerable, which means that even if all the news is good, they're going to struggle for a while.

And all the news is definitely not good. In his first State of the Union address on Wednesday night, President Obama made it pretty clear that he's not going to do anything this year that will help the economy. Well, maybe I'm being unfair. He did say one thing that might actually make a positive difference. He said he was open to building more nuclear power plants in the United States. It's about time. But other than that, in a speech that was billed as being all about jobs and growth, there was nothing that will make a positive difference for either jobs or growth.

Remember, this is the president who though ramming through a careless $787 billion stimulus bill was a good idea for creating jobs. Since the bill was passed, the unemployment rate has soared and millions more Americans have lost their jobs. That's because the costs of unemployment benefits promised in the stimulus bill soared too. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the tab is going to be an additional $75 billion. That's right. You got it. The stimulus bill failed, and yet it's costing extra. Less accomplishment, more cost.

So what's your next brilliant idea, Mr. President? According to Obama s speech, budget-busting health care "reform" will reduce the deficit. Saddling business with a gigantic "cap and trade" carbon tax will create growth. And we should imitate China's success story by investing in clean energy. Uh, Mr. President, I hate to tell you, but China is just about the worst polluter in the history of the world.

So thank God for Ben Bernanke. He'll pull us through with zero interest rates as far as the eye can see. And hopefully Tim Geithner will be there, too. That should be enough to give stocks at least a moderately positive year, after we endure a healthy correction.

After that -- and after the November elections in which the Democrats could lose both the House and the Senate -- we'll give President Obama another chance to come up with some ideas for growth. I'll bet his mind will be a little clearer then than it was on Wednesday night.