- The Washington Times - Wednesday, August 28, 2002

Almost since the day he took office, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has drawn attacks from both liberals and conservatives.
In Washington, this is often taken as confirmation that one is doing something right. If both sides are against you, it is assumed, then it must be because you are a man of principle, who does what is right regardless of the political consequences.
Sometimes this is true, but not always. Sometimes liberals and conservatives agree with each other because both are right.
I suspect this may be the case with Mr. O'Neill. According to an Aug. 23 report in The Washington Post, even the career staff at Treasury have given up on Mr. O'Neill and are leaving in droves.
As it happens, I know many of the people mentioned in The Post's article. From 1988 to 1993, I was deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury. Many of the staff people named as leaving due to frustration with Mr. O'Neill are people who used to work for me. Over the last two years, they have expressed to me directly many of the same concerns highlighted in The Post's article.
The basic problem is that Mr, O'Neill seems to have little interest in economic policy. Consequently, there really wasn't much work to do for the people who worked in that area.
Eventually, they left for other agencies or simply retired, rather than do nothing.
In most other agencies, the opportunity to get paid to do absolutely nothing is the ultimate goal of the career staff. I remember hearing from a friend at another agency who observed a colleague using Federal Express to deliver an urgent letter from one floor to another in the same building. The person involved was too lazy to walk the envelope to its recipient. Apparently, this was a widespread phenomenon, because the director of the agency had to send a memo around telling people to stop doing it.
Thankfully, the departmental offices at Treasury were largely exempt from this all-too-common attitude. They tended to get the best and brightest of those who work in the federal government. I always found the professional staff to be highly competent and hard working. They were there for the same reason I was: to try and improve economic policy.
Historically, the Treasury Department has been the central economic policymaking agency. Although it shares responsibility with others, such as the Office of Management and Budget and Council of Economic Advisers, the Treasury secretary is always the president's principal economic counselor and spokesman.
Obviously, the Treasury's fortunes rise and fall to some extent with those of the secretary. Some are well known to be close friends and confidants of the president Nicholas Brady and Bob Rubin, for example. Others are there solely for political reasons. Both Presidents Nixon and Carter ended up firing their first choices.
It has never been clear why Mr. Bush hired Mr. O'Neill. They didn't know each other previously, and the latter lacks the Wall Street background normally considered standard for those in this position. The recent stock market sell-off, resulting from accounting problems at many major corporations, illustrates why it is helpful to have someone with Wall Street experience. Mr. O'Neill has clearly not known how to properly communicate to the financial community during this time he simply doesn't speak their language adding unnecessarily to the stock market's woes.
Those with previous careers in finance also understand better than Mr. O'Neill does that psychology is important. The Treasury secretary's words matter to Wall Street. Yet, Mr. O'Neill has had a habit of making ill-timed and ill-considered comments about exchanges rates, interest rates and international debt problems since day one. He also exhibits a frivolous attitude toward serious issues within Treasury's purview, as shown by his silly African tour with rock star Bono.
The result has been a shrinkage of the Treasury as the administration's key economic agency. This has created a vacuum that has been filled to a large extent by the White House National Economic Council. Unfortunately, this is a very small organization without the staff, resources or experience to deal with the broad range of economic issues facing the nation. The Treasury is better suited to this task, but appears to have abrogated that role.
I think it is only a matter of time before Mr. O'Neill departs either on his own or under pressure. I hope Mr. Bush uses the opportunity to reinvigorate the Treasury by appointing a secretary with the stature and the wisdom to know how to use this agency properly in pursuit of the president's goals. I believe that man is Fed-eral Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide