I came across the following chart (the link to the original can be found here). The same chart was emailed to me through another source. Now, I’ll admit that I haven’t verified this completely, but you can go to Wikipedia and check out the cabinets of all US Presidents (The link can be found here). I’ve checked out a few (I forgot that Truman actually had the “progressive” Henry Wallace as his Commerce Secretary as a holdover from FDR – ouch). Kind of a fun history exercise, actually.
Anyway, I also assume that the creator of the chart gives a nod of acceptance to private sector attorneys. But, it is clear that the balance between private sector input and government sector input is badly skewed in the Obama Administration. What makes it even more troubling is that these folks think that they can run banks, auto manufacturers, energy companies, and the health care industry — even though they’ve never run anything.
[The chart] examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes Secretaries of State; Commerce; Treasury; Agriculture; Interior; Labor; Transportation; Energy; and Housing & Urban Development and excludes Postmaster General; Navy; War; Health, Education & Welfare; Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security — 432 cabinet members in all.
The chart shows GWB with high marks for private sector cabinet officials, yet GWB recorded the first net job loss since Hoover while simultaneously overseeing the Great Financial Collapse of 2008.
Clinton ranked lower, but created the most jobs of any President as well as the longest stretch of prosperity in modern times.
There’s a huge difference between running a business versus creating public policy, governing.
The former CEO of GM was all private sector. The folks running Lehman, Washington Mutual, AIG, etc. etc. etc. are of course all private sector experienced. Recent events question the competence of the private sector, not the other way around.
I still remember GWB in that Special Emergency Address to the Nation in October of 2008 telling us the only way to save the private sector from a financial collapse panic was for the Government to purchase troubled assets. He wanted $700 billion immediately. Treasury Secretary Paulson, formerly of private sector Goldman Sachs, helped engineer that disaster.
“high marks for private sector” — actually, they are not marks, just percent of representation. I think having a balanced set of opinions is a good idea. When one side dominates, we all suffer. Sorry you disagree & advocate for a single, biased viewpoint.
no disagreement, not advocating anything much except I don’t think anybody in the current administration thinks they can . .
“run banks, auto manufacturers, energy companies, and the health care industry” . .
Like most of us, they’re just playing the hand they were dealt.
Funny, your response seemed to advocate a lot. You just got caught.
As for “like most of us, they’re just playing the hand they were dealt.”
It is true that they were dealt the greatest economic power in the history of the world with a highly educated & motivated work force and some of the greatest business minds on the planet.
However, they chose to play the hand by themselves. They chose to have no broad-based, diversified group of advisors to help. They chose to have a cabinet that is unique in its lack of private sector experience in the history of the country.
If the administration didn’t think that they could “run banks, auto manufacturers, energy companies, and the health care industry”, then the solution is simple… don’t. They chose otherwise.
The trend does warrant comments. It would be interesting to hear the white house response.
Also, I am not sure if the absolute number of cabinet members has changed. If so that could affect graph.
Also, does this data include all the Czars.
One thing about the graph, it does illustrate that something has changed. I would truly like to hear Mr. Obama explain the data and justify why it is so different than any other leader in the last 100 years. I wonder if he realized it?
Weren’t you just complaining about the private sector experience of the Treasury Secretary a few weeks back? you called him the “consummate insider,” right?
Would you like some more corporate insiders in the Cabinet? Maybe a few executives from oil companies, pharma, insurance?
… or maybe some executives from the failed banking or auto sector?
Here are some answers on who knows how to create jobs, and who doesn’t.
Interesting that if you compare your graph with the actual jobs creation record, there is actually an *inverse* correlation to the private-sector experience of the Cabinet.
Carter – looking’ good! I was surprised to find that Jimmy Carter’s job creation rate was better than either of Reagan’s terms (that’s what I get for believing the hype).
And Bush’s towering spike of private sector experience resulted in a miserable 0.3% jobs increase in 8 years.
It is pretty clear that if we want to create jobs, we need to give these private sector executives a rest from Cabinet duty for a while.
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General. Not sure where all the private sector experience comes in.
It was GOP neoconsocialist GWB who created Homeland Security, appointed career politician non private sector guy Tom Ridge first HomeLand Czar, nationalizing airport security into TSA in the process.
The previous GOP neoconsocialist administration authorized Treasury purchase of troubled assets, equity in banks, as well as bail out auto makers.
If, as you say, the Obama team was “running” industries, I think they would have more to say about the new Chevy Camaro being underpowered as well as the discontinuation of Burnt Ebony in the GM color palette
.
If you’re disappointed that realtors, bankers, brokers, homebuilders, car makers can’t make it without taxpayer money maybe we should welcome a new class of policy makers to Washington. I voted Obama because of the way the “private sector” ate our surplus, drained us dry, then begged for socialism.
There are obvious conflict of interest problems when too many private sector folks get into public positions deciding what’s “good” for the industry they came from. Former anti-big government Vice President Cheyney made his fortune in taxpayers money via huge big government contracts. His private public Haliburton no bid military connection is a prime example of somebody transitioning private sector experience into personal windfall.
The new administration does appear to have fewer foxes (or maybe a different breed of foxes) running the henhouse.