Better to focus on her argument, that the Fed is backward focused, than impugn the motives of the person making the argument.
Let’s go to the source and not the editorial about the source:
Her argument that commodity prices are a leading indicator and that, absent food and energy, they have all peaked and started to come down is valid.
There is the real risk that if the Fed is too aggressive, they will make the coming recession so much worse - that the cure will be worse than the symptoms that currently ail us. We of course saw this in the summer of 2006 when the Fed was still hiking rates based on lagging data (got to as high as 5.25%) and again waited WAY TOO LONG to start to lower rates in September of 2007 and had to drop them by .5%, followed by a couple of quarter point drops, then a 75/50/75 cut. If they had stopped increasing sooner, and started decreasing sooner, the financial crisis would not have been as bad.
Absent a black swan event, the Fed should NEVER have to move rates more than a quarter per month. They should have started raising rates last year at this time by a quarter - and I am of the opinion that their is a greater risk of harm in jacking them up by another .75% in one month instead of simply doing .5% in November and tacking on another .25% in April/May next year if it just isn’t quite enough (heck, they waited from this time last year until March to start even .25% so what is another month). You end up at the same rate but you do it more measuredly.