Last weekend, the New York Times magazine profiled former Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, in whose office “hangs a hunk of wood — at least 4 feet wide — etched with his portrait and the words ‘The Shatterer of Glass-Steagall.’”

Of course, the repeal of Glass-Steagall — the Depression-era law that separated investment and depository banking — allowed Travelers and Citibank to combine and form Citigroup. The merger actually occurred in 1998, one year before Glass-Steagall was removed, but at the time Weill said that “we have had enough discussions to believe this will not be a problem.” And thanks to lobbying from Weill and Citibank CEO John Reed, it wasn’t.

While Weill remains unrepentant about his role in dismantling Glass-Steagall, there is a growing push among economists and elected officials to take a look at reviving the law and breaking investment banking away from deposit taking. Reed himself has concluded that some sort of separation “makes sense.”

And today that movement gained one more voice — Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig:

Responding to a suggestion made by University of Maryland Professor Carmen Reinhardt, Hoenig said “dismembering firms is a fair thing to consider.” He said regulators “have people who are experts who understand what’s going on inside institutions” who could figure out how to “carve out” some parts of a financial institution if they are taking undue risks with taxpayer backing.

“We do need to consider some activities that are in these largest institutions that probably should not be trading for their account, gambling,” he said. “That portion probably does need to be separated out.”

Hoenig has been a consistent critic of the government’s handling of the banking system, slamming Treasury for “drifting into a situation where institutions are being nationalized piecemeal with no resolution of the crisis,” and pushing for a takeover and dissolution of the very biggest failed banks.

Thus far, Treasury has not been receptive to a reexamining of Glass-Steagall, with one official saying that it would be akin to “going back to the Walkman.” But how much longer can it continue to poo-poo an idea that many smart people are taking quite seriously?

Since Democrats secured 60 votes to pass health care reform legislation — and passage became inevitable — prominent conservatives relaunched an under-the-radar campaign to invalidate reform through the legal system. On the eve of the final health care vote in the Senate, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Ensign (R-NV) invoked a “constitutional point of order” to allow the Senate to rule by majority vote on whether the “Democrat health care takeover bill” is unconstitutional. Legislatures in approximately 14 states — organized by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a “business-friendly conservative group that coordinates activity among statehouses — have also introduced initiatives to ratify constitutional amendments that would repeal all or parts of the pending health care reform legislation, and Attorney Generals in at least 13 states are challenging a deal secured by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to fund Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion for perpetuity.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the attorneys generals from South Carolina, Washington, Michigan, Texas, Colorado, Alabama, North Dakota, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Utah, Florida, Idaho and South Dakota “wrote that they consider the [Nebraska] provision ‘constitutionally flawed’ and demanded that it be stricken from the final bill.”

Yesterday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining “Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional.” “The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional,” he wrote, and went on to challenge the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the so-called sweet heart deal for Nebraska, and the requirements for states to establish health insurance exchanges and insurance regulations.

The effort may prove a strong political organizing tool for conservative activists, but the legal reasoning has little support beyond the right fringe of the Republican party and the health care industry. Several weeks ago, the New York Times reported, “The states where the [constitutional] amendment has been introduced are also places where the health care industry has spent heavily on political contributions.” The industry has also contributed heavily to the campaigns of at least 7 of the 13 attorney generals threatening to sue the federal government over the Nebraska provision. (Campaign finance data was not readily accessible for the other 6 attorneys generals.)

An analysis conducted by the Wonk Room of available campaign finance disclosures for AGs from South Carolina, Washington, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah and Idaho reveals that the health industry contributed heavily to their campaigns. For instance, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett (who is also running for Governor) accepted some $24,300 from the health care industry for his campaigns, including $10,300 from Pfizer PAC, $3,500 from Aetna Inc. PAC, and $2,500 from United Health Group Inc. Read the full analysis here.

In the last few months, a bunch of self-styled “deficit hawks” — led by Sens. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) — began pushing for the creation of a bipartisan deficit commission. The commission would, in theory, tackle the country’s budget problems by crafting a package of spending cuts and tax increases that would face an up or down vote in Congress. President Obama is reportedly “seriously considering” support for the creation of such a commission.

As many have aptly noted, far from being the solution to our budgetary problems, the commission merely sets more veto points into an already dysfunctional legislative process. (Just getting past the commission stage would require 14 of the 18 commission members approving the recommendations.)

But some conservatives have seized on the commission idea and crafted an even more ridiculous proposal: the creation of a commission that will attempt to control deficits while being explicitly barred from considering any sort of tax increase. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is leading the charge:

“We must address unsustainable deficit and entitlement spending, but not at the expense of economic growth,” said Congressman McHenry. “Raising taxes is not the answer. This bill takes a decisive step toward true structural reform to ensure that future generations are not saddled with crippling levels of debt. Thus far, Congress has shown itself incapable of making these hard choices; it’s become clear that an outside commission is necessary.”

Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist has an op-ed in the Washington Times today in which he praised McHenry for having a “grown-up idea – set up a commission that recommends spending reduction – and no tax hikes.”

But how, exactly, does taking taxes off the table from the outset represent a “grown-up” way to make “hard choices”? The whole premise behind a commission is that it will be empowered to make politically unpalatable suggestions (like raise taxes) that Congress wouldn’t normally touch. McHenry’s plan follows the same line of thinking that Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) employed when he said that California’s Proposition 13 — which is in large part responsible for that state’s budget misery — should be a “guiding light” for the nation.

Getting deficits under control on the spending side alone is economically impossible. Exempting interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending (which Republicans never agree to cut), “the rest of the budget needs to be cut by 51 percent to have a balanced budget in 2014.” So the numbers just don’t add up. Of course, from the outline of McHenry’s plan, it’s pretty clear that gutting those entitlement programs is his ultimate goal, as they are the only things that he cites as needing reform.

As Paul Krugman said, “it’s not really hard to give the economic numbers” that would bring deficits in line, but “all of this hinges on being able to actually talk about tax increases, even modest ones, without it being political suicide.” McHenry shows just how unserious — dare I say, child-like — the right’s approach to this issue really is.