Happy Birthday to Sergio Romo, 30.
Plenty of good stuff:
1. All about Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who will reportedly be nominated to fill the vacancy at OMB that's been there for over a year. From Dylan Mathews. My reaction: if all goes well with her stint at OMB, she would be a logical short-list candidate for a future White House Chief of Staff opening.
2. Do Republican Party taboos wind up just transferring more influence to...Barack Obama? Dave Weigel makes the case.
3. Health care and sequestration, from Sarah Kliff.
4. Sean Trende makes the case for why sequestration politics may favor Republicans.
5. And I loved this one: Annie Lowrey on the people who actually think Congress is doing a good job.
Showing posts with label OMB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OMB. Show all posts
Monday, March 4, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to Rip Torn, 82. Has played Judas. And Nixon. But as far as I know, even though the bulk of his career has been in dramatic roles, he'll be remembered forever because he was a regular in one of the top-five sitcomes of the 1990s and then a recurring character on one of the top-five sitcoms of the 2000s. Just totally wonderful in Larry Sanders.
A little good stuff:
1. John Sides on social science.
2. I keep forgetting that OMB is (still) vacant, too. A little more important than Commerce! Catherine Hollander has the rundown on cabinet and other top posts that need to be filled.
3. And if it's February, it's time to be reading Little Known Black History Facts.
A little good stuff:
1. John Sides on social science.
2. I keep forgetting that OMB is (still) vacant, too. A little more important than Commerce! Catherine Hollander has the rundown on cabinet and other top posts that need to be filled.
3. And if it's February, it's time to be reading Little Known Black History Facts.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Daley Out/Lew In
Bill Daley has been on his way out as White House chief of staff for some time now, but he's now out for good, to be replaced by OMB director Jack Lew. I'm not going to say that WH CoS is as important as who gets presidential nominations, but it's awful important, and it's not entirely clear that the difference between Daley and Lew couldn't be close to as large as the difference would be between Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as president.
Beyond that, a nice point over twitter from Ryan Lizza, who notes that "Patience pays. Both Gene Sperling and Jack Lew, who were passed over for top WH jobs during '08 transition, are now NEC dir. and WH CoS." That also suggests that for all the attention that we pay to these decisions in November and December every four or eight years, the first WH team or cabinet isn't likely to be the last one, and may not be the most important one. And an excellent post on the transition from Ezra Klein, who reports that Lew is as popular in both the White House and Capitol Hill as Daley was not.
Meanwhile, OMB is a very important job, which will now have to be filled once again. And that one requires confirmation, so there's that headache. What I don't know: what can't an acting director do that a confirmed presidential appointee do? I sort of think that with OMB the answer is no very much, at least by statute, but that an acting director won't have the clout within the executive branch that a confirmed director would have, but I don't actually know the answer to that one. See too Stan Collender's comments about who can serve as acting director, as well as his speculation about who will get the job.
Beyond that, a nice point over twitter from Ryan Lizza, who notes that "Patience pays. Both Gene Sperling and Jack Lew, who were passed over for top WH jobs during '08 transition, are now NEC dir. and WH CoS." That also suggests that for all the attention that we pay to these decisions in November and December every four or eight years, the first WH team or cabinet isn't likely to be the last one, and may not be the most important one. And an excellent post on the transition from Ezra Klein, who reports that Lew is as popular in both the White House and Capitol Hill as Daley was not.
Meanwhile, OMB is a very important job, which will now have to be filled once again. And that one requires confirmation, so there's that headache. What I don't know: what can't an acting director do that a confirmed presidential appointee do? I sort of think that with OMB the answer is no very much, at least by statute, but that an acting director won't have the clout within the executive branch that a confirmed director would have, but I don't actually know the answer to that one. See too Stan Collender's comments about who can serve as acting director, as well as his speculation about who will get the job.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Jack Lew
The biggest news of the day is probably the selection of Jack Lew to replace Peter Orszag at OMB. Jonathan Cohn scooped the world with a profile of Lew over the weekend; see also reporting on the selection from Joshua Green. Green quotes the National Journal's Alexis Simendinger, who said that the administration was "seeking an overlooked miracle worker who understands budgeting, Obama's agenda, politics, Congress, the media, management; is perhaps an economist, would go mano-a-mano with economic adviser Lawrence Summers, has no Wall Street or big-bank taint, and is not just another white male."
Which of those is crucial? My guess is that the big one there is management. We're probably entering a period of relative stalement on Capitol Hill, at least after the elections this fall, so while dealing with Congress is always important, it's probably less so than it was this year. I think media savvy is far overrated in general within the White House (or the larger presidential branch); really, it's overrated in the president, and it's very hard to believe that an OMB director is going to affect public opinion at all. Obviously, understanding the budget and the president's agenda are necessary, but one would imagine those are threshold requirements.
Management, however...my guess is that that's the key one. I think there's a very, very good chance that there are still at least a handful, and perhaps dozens, of MMS-type scandals still to be uncovered and, more importantly, fixed. Or, if not true scandals, just plenty of agencies that received little if any supervision during the Bush years, beyond a general understanding that the best way to have the White House ignore them (and mostly that's what bureaucrats want) was to not upset any major GOP-aligned interests. That is, there was little reward in actually doing their job well. However, this administration is supposed to care about government working well, and while they may have been aggressively attacking such things below the radar, my guess is that it hasn't been on the front burner so far. It should be, now, and it certainly should be, if there is legislative stalemate, next year and in 2012 -- if for no other reason that scandals uncovered in that year aren't going to be plausibly blamed on the last administration. And the one spot that the president can use to make sure that the various agencies and departments are reasonably well-run, and are actually implementing his policies, is the OMB director.
So I have no idea whether Lew is the right person for that job, although previous experience is almost certainly a Good Thing, but I would say that a lot of the job that needs to be done is more about management than about policy per se (although of course a lot of management is policy. And vice versa).
Which of those is crucial? My guess is that the big one there is management. We're probably entering a period of relative stalement on Capitol Hill, at least after the elections this fall, so while dealing with Congress is always important, it's probably less so than it was this year. I think media savvy is far overrated in general within the White House (or the larger presidential branch); really, it's overrated in the president, and it's very hard to believe that an OMB director is going to affect public opinion at all. Obviously, understanding the budget and the president's agenda are necessary, but one would imagine those are threshold requirements.
Management, however...my guess is that that's the key one. I think there's a very, very good chance that there are still at least a handful, and perhaps dozens, of MMS-type scandals still to be uncovered and, more importantly, fixed. Or, if not true scandals, just plenty of agencies that received little if any supervision during the Bush years, beyond a general understanding that the best way to have the White House ignore them (and mostly that's what bureaucrats want) was to not upset any major GOP-aligned interests. That is, there was little reward in actually doing their job well. However, this administration is supposed to care about government working well, and while they may have been aggressively attacking such things below the radar, my guess is that it hasn't been on the front burner so far. It should be, now, and it certainly should be, if there is legislative stalemate, next year and in 2012 -- if for no other reason that scandals uncovered in that year aren't going to be plausibly blamed on the last administration. And the one spot that the president can use to make sure that the various agencies and departments are reasonably well-run, and are actually implementing his policies, is the OMB director.
So I have no idea whether Lew is the right person for that job, although previous experience is almost certainly a Good Thing, but I would say that a lot of the job that needs to be done is more about management than about policy per se (although of course a lot of management is policy. And vice versa).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
