Rumor has it that [tag]Treasury[/tag] Secretary [tag]John Snow[/tag] will get the boot any day now. Part of the problem, apparently, is that the White House is reportedly “having trouble” finding someone qualified who wants the job. That’s not a good sign.
Bush hasn’t had much luck with Treasury secretaries, historically one of the Big Four cabinet posts. [tag]Paul O’Neill[/tag] was ignored and mistreated, leading him to help write a book that blasted the president. Snow was hired to be a cheerleader for economic policies that don’t make any sense, and he’s never been particularly good at it.
The Wall Street Journal reported that former Sen. [tag]Phil Gramm[/tag] of Texas has generated “increasing attention” for the job.
The thinking is that previous secretaries and other candidates have either too much politics and not enough economics or too much economics and not enough politics.
His assets: Credibility on Capitol Hill, strong on substance, good communicator, private sector experience at UBS. His liabilities: A reputation for being an independent thinker in an administration that wants an implementer rather than a policymaker.
I can’t quite figure out why Gramm, or really anyone, would want the job. As the WaPo reported the last time Snow had one foot out the door, top-flight economists don’t want to give up lucrative, serious jobs to become a Bush lackey.
One economist, who was rumored to be up for a position on the Council of Economic Advisers, said he could not take a job that has been steadily pushed to the sidelines over the past two years. “You can’t be attracted to a job where you’d be out of the loop,” he said.
Bruce Bartlett, before his was fired from the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis for criticizing Bush, said, “Why would you want to take a job where you have no influence? What’s the point?”
Still, the Gramm possibility is intriguing for a few reasons.
Would Gramm, who once fancied himself presidential material, want to return to Washington to become a Bush sycophant? To take a post that has lost its historical significance and join a team in which cabinet secretaries have little power and even less influence? I have a hard time picturing it.
For that matter, if the job is effectively that of a “cheerleader” for Bush’s economic policies, couldn’t the White House find someone with a little more…cheer? Gramm is one of the more dour, unlikable, and unfriendly people to serve in the Senate in recent memory. Gramm makes Dick Cheney look like Ned Flanders. When thinking about someone Bush could turn to in order to rally support for his economic plan, Gramm hardly seems like the ideal choice.
On the other hand, Gramm’s confirmation hearings could be highly entertaining. As Dan Gross once told Noam Scheiber:
Just this morning I was dreaming about the prospect of a CNN split screen with his confirmation hearing on the left, and his self-satisfied professional-economist warnings that the 1993 Clinton budget/tax hike would instantly lead to a recession on endless loop on the right.
It’s one thing to be an economic ignoramus if you’re a career bureaucrat. It’s quite another thing — and an altogether more amusing one — to be an economic ignoramus when you’ve got a Ph.D. in the subject.
That’s a good point. When it comes to economic policies, few have been as spectacularly wrong as Phil Gramm. That’s probably what helped him make it onto Bush’s short list.