• news
  • SATURDAY MAY 27 2006 12:00 PM

A Parrot in the Cabinet Room

Whether or not you agree with their policies or politics, the men who served as Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton were both qualified and competent. Lloyd Bensten, Robert Rubin, and Lawrence Summers all had more than a seat at the table, in many cases, they were able to convince Clinton to do things that were unpopular and extremely politically risky when circumstances warranted.

The same certainly can not be said about Paul O'Neill and John Snow, the two men to hold the job under George W. Bush. O'Neill lasted less than two years on the job, ultimately shown the door for the high crime of voicing his policy opinions on issues such as tax cuts and the projected cost of the war in Iraq. You know, the kinds of subjects in which a Treasury Secretary might have some expertise. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and advisor Karl Rove wanted O'Neill to be little more than a parrot, repeating platitudes he heard in staff meetings with the weight of a Cabinet seat. (Plenty of proof here for the doubters.)

When railroad executive John Snow replaced O'Neill, he worked very hard to prove that he had learned the lessons his predecessor had not: do not try to set policy, simply relay the message emanating from the White House. Despite staying almost completely on message, rumors of Snow's sacking have been circulating almost from day one, as he never quite became the "Crazy Eddie"-style salesman that the administration was looking for.

And now, after more than three years of holding the title of Treasury Secretary absent the position's power or influence, Snow has either signaled or been shown the signal that it's time to move on. Who's going to replace Snow? It looks like cronyism will win out once again:

President Bush is leaning toward having one of his oldest friends take over the Treasury Department after a fruitless effort thus far to woo a star from Wall Street.

Republicans with close ties to the White House said on Friday that Donald L. Evans, the former commerce secretary and a longtime Texas friend of the president, was a leading contender to succeed John W. Snow...



Why can't they woo a Wall Street heavyweight? Because economic policy, like every other Bush policy, is run out of Rove's political shop. When everything begins and ends with supply-side tax cuts, there is very little room left for honest debate and first-hand knowledge.

Administration allies said that senior officials had made overtures to prominent executives on Wall Street, including Henry M. Paulson Jr., the chairman of Goldman Sachs. White House strategists had been hoping to appoint a big name from the finance world that could help promote positive news on the economy that is being overshadowed by high gasoline prices and a generalized anxiety about the country's direction.

But Mr. Paulson and other executives expressed little interest in taking the post, in part because neither Mr. Snow nor his predecessor, Paul H. O'Neill, had any substantial role in shaping economic policy.

The real power to set priorities, whether it was cutting taxes in 2001 and 2003 or the failed effort to overhaul Social Security in 2005, has always been held by a small circle of advisers in the White House, including Vice President Dick Cheney.



As always, we're left with the same system that brought us Mike Brown at FEMA, loyalty and the old boy's club over substance and competence.

 
Comments
palacemuse

palacemuse

Phoenix, AZ
March 2005

MAY 27, 2006 12:32 PM

No snarky comment to post about this, so I'll simply thank you for posting it. Thanks.

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

MAY 27, 2006 12:40 PM

I don't think I blame Rove for this as much as Bush himself.

It's the hallmark of someone in a position they are utterly unqualified for: he can't deal with criticism or dissent. People telling him he's wrong and he might want to do something else seems like a personal insult to him. It's a defensiveness of the truly dumb.

politicalsuicide

politicalsuicide

I'm lost
May 2006

MAY 27, 2006 12:52 PM

jake_lex said:
I don't think I blame Rove for this as much as Bush himself.



Well, as "the decider," Bush is ultimately responsible. But:

Paul O'Neill, Bush's former treasury secretary, gave an account of a pivotal cabinet meeting in late 2002 to discuss a second round of deep tax cuts, at which the president apparently had second thoughts about focusing so much of the benefits on the wealthy. "Didn't we already give them a break at the top?" Bush asks, according to O'Neill's account. Rove brings the president back in line, urging him to "stick to principle". Rove won the day, and O'Neill was forced out of the cabinet.

Aaron

Aaron

Shakopee, MN
July 2004

MAY 27, 2006 02:49 PM

palacemuse said:
No snarky comment to post about this, so I'll simply thank you for posting it. Thanks.



+1 Thanks for the posts so far, this is the second newswire post from you I've seen today.

No adolescent hyperbole, well done.

[Edited on May 27, 2006 4:50PM]

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

MAY 27, 2006 06:37 PM

"little more than a parrot"

Give the parrots some credit.

Sheesh.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAY 27, 2006 06:41 PM

The mendacity of the Bush administration, and the weaknesses of Bush in his role as "Decider" are so well documented by now, I don't have much to add. I mean, if jake_lex is right, Bush is a one-track-minded insecure "twunt" who can't abide criticism and dissent, and by contrast if polsuicide is right, and Bush is capable of moments of reflection, he's not capable of standing up to Rove.

Screwed either way.

It's worth noting there are three key positions in economic policy-making in the US system. One is Treasury Secretary, second is head of the Council of Economic Advisers, and third is the head of the Federal Reserve.

Bush has appointed well-credentialed people to the second role (Hubbard, Mankiw) but they have been criticised for being too subservient and willing to stay "on voice" when they should be being brutally honest. (By this, I mean more subservient and on voice than their equivalents in previous administrations.)

Greenspan had been Fed Chair "forever", so replacing someone in that position is something not many Presidents have to deal with. It's also a position designed to have a strong degree of independence from day to day administration politics. Bernanke is well respected but how he deals with the mess Bush has created is something we'll have to watch play out.

The Treasury Secretary position is the most explicitly political appointment, and where Bush has concentrated his efforts in appointing time-serving hacks.

If I can have a couple of I-told-you-so moments, I wrote about the mangled Bush economic policies right here and again here.

Also note: The Coming Generational Storm.

Subnatural

Subnatural

Milwaukee, WI
June 2004

MAY 27, 2006 08:08 PM

Damn. I wish I had made friends with the slow kid in my classes. One day, he could've made me a Supreme Court justice, or Attorney General.