Print this

Email this

Submit a Question

The biggest problem with the administration's economic voice is that until recently there hasn't been anyone to help shape or sell it.

People almost all year have been asking why President George W. Bush's economic gurus sounded incoherent, with recently-departed Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill bearing much of the criticism. Bush tossed O'Neill overboard and this week nominated John Snow to take his place, but Snow had better finish hiring people to work with him or else we might end up with the same question asked by Florida Congressman Mark Foley -- a Republican -- earlier this year: "When will we get an economic message?"

Snow needs to move fast. Ten months passed in Bush's tenure before someone was nominated for the office that supposedly oversees the Treasury's economic big picture, the Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy. That someone, Richard Clarida, didn't step into the job until January, and wasn't formally sworn in until the next month. It has taken even longer to find people who are supposed to back up Clarida; the latest official U.S. Government Manual -- last updated in June -- said it all:

A third job, Deputy Assistant Secretary for microeconomic analysis, is also listed as empty, but it was actually filled in January 2002. And the policy coordination position -- perhaps the most important one for creating a unified message -- was just taken by James Carter (no relation to the ex-president and Nobel laureaute) who moved last month from the National Economic Council, where he was assistant director. There is still no one in the macroeconomic post.

Given the delays in hiring, is it any wonder that O'Neill sometimes sounded like a mess? He had no one backing him up on economic policy for a year.

And the Bush team's holes don't stop with the Treasury. James Carter's shift means that there is no one at the head of the National Economic Council, since the group's director, Lawrence Lindsey, was forced out at the same time as O'Neill. And one of three spots on the Council of Economic Advisers is now open, since Bush this fall moved adviser Mark McClellan -- himself a former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy during the Clinton years -- to lead the Food and Drug Administration.

But Treasury has to be plugged first. The other groups mainly operate behind the scenes, while Treasury is supposed to be the agency out front leading the president's economic charge.

Empty jobs may seem like nothing more than another useless piece of bureaucracy -- "deputy assistant secretary" sounds like a title for the Politburo, doesn't it? -- but the reality is that someone has to help with forming and perhaps more important, promoting, an economic policy. After all, the treasury secretary also has other jobs to oversee: literally making money with the Federal Mint; collecting taxes; balancing the government's books; chasing gun runners, moonshiners and illicit cigarette sellers (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is a Treasury agency); and protecting the president, vice-president and other top officials (the Secret Service also works for the Treasury because it was originally formed to track down counterfeiters).

At least the new boss is an economist himself: Snow has a Ph.D in the field, while O'Neill, though his bachelor's degree was also in economics, wouldn't be described by anyone as a big picture guru. O'Neill was an administrator, rather than a skilled proponent or crafter of policy, which is probably why he was a more successful CEO than Snow; Alcoa's stock soared under O'Neill, while CSX's share price growth with Snow has trailed the overall market.

But even with his background, Snow needs people to help him push a strong message. When Brad DeLong left Washington, D.C. after two years as a deputy assistant secretary for economic policy under Bill Clinton, he recalled some advice from fellow economist Michael Boskin, who worked for President Bush the Elder:

"Before I came to Washington I had a brief talk with Mike Boskin. 'Brad,' he said. 'You'll have a choice: you can either be an analyst or a salesman.'

'What do you mean?' I asked.

'You will be most effective if you realize that your principal job is taking the work that the career staff have produced, and bringing it to the attention of the political appointees. And, on the other hand, going back to the career economists and telling them what lines of substantive work are likely to have an impact on the political appointees. There are lots and lots of good analytic economists working for the government. But too much of the time their work has little impact -- because low-level political appointees like deputy assistant secretaries think that they are analysts rather than salesmen.' "

Which is how any executive job works -- you filter the work that people bring you. Unfortunately, O'Neill did a poor job of getting data and advice, and it showed. Snow, an experienced Washington, D.C. hand, hopefully knows better.

-- Sergio G. Non is the online editor of Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE.