What Will a Second Term Obama Cabinet Look Like?

One of the predictable patterns in American governance is changes to the Presidential cabinet in the second term of an administration.  Very few department heads last the entire 8 years of an administration - the George W. Bush administration had only one (Elaine Chao at the Labor Department) and the Clinton administration had only four (Janet Reno at Justice, Donna Shalala at Health and Human Service, Bruce Babbitt at Interior and Richard Riley at Education.)

Note that for purposes of this discussion, I am only talking about department heads and not Presidentially-designated "cabinet-level" policy advisors such as the Chief of Staff, who attend cabinet meetings but don't have direct responsibility for governing and are not confirmed by the Senate.

The reasons for this are fairly obvious.  Eight years is a heck of a long time in any one job, but particularly one that is so high profile, stressful and subject to public criticism as running a large portion of the government.  And cabinet officials don't make a ton of money - current pay scales for cabinet-level positions are $191,300 per year - a lot of money if you are the average middle-class tax payer but a tiny amount compared to comparable executives in private industry, who would typically make millions for running groups that large.  So, most cabinet officials want out eventually.

If politics weren't involved, you'd see a distribution of cabinet officials leaving - some would leave after 2 years, some would leave after 3 and so on and so forth.  But obviously politics are involved and Presidents generally don't want to deal with high-profile cabinet appointments in the middle of an election season, so cabinet-officers are generally asked to stay at least through an election, which creates a pent-up demand for departures at the beginning of a President's second term.

President Obama's cabinet actually appears to be relatively more stable than most.  After George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, within the next year, he had changes at State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Energy, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, in addition to having already made a change at Housing and Urban Development.  President Obama isn't looking at nearly that level of change.  He has already made a change at Defense (Leon Panetta replaced Robert Gates, who was a holdover from the Bush administration) and has a current vacancy at Commerce (after the bizarre resignation of John Bryson, who was actually Obama's second Commerce Secretary, who was involved in a hit and run after an apparent seizure.)

Of all the cabinet seats, here is what is likely to happen in the next year:
The Big 4 (The 4 largest and most important departments - State, Defense, Justice and Treasury)
State - Hillary Clinton - likely to depart as she has repeatedly stated that she probably will not stay for a second-term.  Will President Obama pick a fight with John McCain and nominate Susan Rice over GOP protestations led by McCain or will he go with a "safer" pick?  This one could be a real filibuster fight.
Defense - Leon Panetta - also likely to depart although the President may be able to persuade him to stay on a little longer to sort out the other seats first - Massachusetts Senator John Kerry appears to be the leading candidate here.  I would be surprised if Kerry had an issue getting confirmed.
Treasury - Tim Geithner - likely to depart.  Jack Lew is the lead candidate to replace him.  He has both the private industry (Citigroup) and public sector (head of the OMB) experience and would likely be non-controversial.
Justice - Eric Holder - likely to stay.  He's not liked on the right at all, but Obama has shown a lot of loyalty to him and he doesn't need to be confirmed to stay.

The Other Seats:
Commerce - Rebecca Blank (acting) - this is an obvious vacancy that the President has to address.  The role has been technically vacant since June with undersecretary Blank filling the interim role.  The President is actually a pretty big fan of Blank's and might look to make her role permanent.
Interior - Ken Salazar - likely to stay - at least for now.  This is Salazar's dream job.
Agriculture - Tom Vilsack - likely to stay - despite some earlier staffing controversies, Vilsack hasn't been particularly high profile and he seems to enjoy the work.
Labor - Hilda Solis - likely to stay for now - Solis doesn't have a resume that would land her naturally in a big private industry lobbing job and labor will be interesting in the next few years with Wal-Mart protests and such - plus President Obama is likely to look for her to stay, knowing that any appointment to this seat would be controversial.
Health and Human Services - Kathleen Sebelius - very likely to stay - if you are going to do this job, wouldn't you want to be around for Obamacare implementation?
Housing and Urban Development - Shaun Donovan - likely to stay - he is one of Obama's closest trusted advisors from Chicago and though HUD has not been a focus, I think Donovan enjoys the work.
Transportation - Ray Lahood - likely to depart - Lahood has basically said he is burned out and looking to move on.  The lone remaining Republican in Obama's cabinet would be an interesting role to replace.
Energy - Steven Chu - 50/50 to depart in the next year - Chu didn't really get the deal he bargained for - the brilliant scientist thought he would be overseeing implementation of meaningful global warming policy around cap and trade.  It hasn't materialized and Chu may want to get out of government.
Education - Arne Duncan - likely to stay - Duncan is another one of Obama's Chicago-era friends, has received lots of bi-partisan praise for his reform-minded approach to education and his willingness to incorporate Republican ideas.
Veterans Affairs - Eric Shinseki - seems likely to stay - I really have no intel on Shinseki, who hasn't been very high profile, but he hasn't given an indication that he is leaving.
Homeland Security - Janet Napolitano - 50/50 to depart in the next year - this is a burnout, thankless role and Napolitano has taken a lot of heat.  Obama is very loyal, however and if Napolitano wants to keep taking the heat, I'm sure he would let her.

It is very likely that none of the vacancies, other than the current one at Commerce will occur prior to the New Year as the President has likely asked his cabinet officials to hold on until after the debate on the fiscal cliff is resolved, which seems likely to stretch right up to December 31st.  But they will be front-and-center in 2013 as the President seeks to remake his cabinet.

One of the many reasons that second-term Presidents tend to get less done is that they burn out the A-players in their cabinet in the first term and are stuck with the B-team in their second term.  How much of that happens in the Obama administration remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that he will have some vacancies to fill.

Forget Hillary Clinton, How to Balance the Budget by Doing Nothing

It Isn't Going to Happen
It seems that not a week goes by that some journalist or political commentator finds the need to discuss the possibility of President Obama dumping Vice President Joe Biden to put Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the ballot as his VP candidate in 2012.

The case goes something like this - Biden is flub-prone and doesn't do a lot for the ticket.  Secretary Clinton is wildly popular, as evidenced by a myriad of polls that show her respect.  Plus, you get the bonus of having the still-beloved ex-President Bill Clinton out, more actively fighting for the ticket.

All interesting, but it isn't going to happen.  It is nearly unprecedented for a sitting President to stand for re-election with a new Vice-President.  FDR did it, but it was after two full terms in office.  Gerald Ford ran with a different guy (Bob Dole) than the sitting VP (Nelson Rockefeller), but that was an unusual administration, as neither Ford nor Rockefeller had stood for election for either office (Ford had been appointed VP by President Nixon after Spiro Agnew's resignation in 1973, Rockefeller was appointed by Ford after taking the reins from Nixon after his Watergate resignation.)  McKinley ran for re-election with a new VP (one Teddy Roosevelt) but his original VP, Garrett Hobart, had died in office. 

To find a situation where a sitting President ran for a second term with a new VP candidate when his first-term VP candidate was still alive, you have to go all the way back to Ulysses S. Grant in 1872.  Simply put, it isn't done.

And with good reason.  Vice Presidents have only a marginal impact on Presidential races - after all, can you name one race that was largely decided on the basis of the VP candidate?  And don't say 2008 - Sarah Palin isn't what sunk John McCain, a sour economy did. 

What would the upside to President Obama be?  He would look disloyal and weak.  And that big benefit that Clinton would supposedly bring to the ticket?  Can you name a single swing state he would win BECAUSE of Clinton?  Does Clinton fundamentally change the key issues or the reasons President Obama has high disapproval numbers?  And does anyone really think Clinton would be as popular as she is now if she were a candidate for public office, re-subjected to the scrutiny the press reserves for politicians? 

It isn't going to happen, Pete Dupont (the former governor of Delaware and one-time Presidential aspirant, who is the latest to purvey this theory), so let's just stop talking about it.

The Solution: Do Nothing!
Think the deficit problem is incredibly complex and that the failure of the super committee just shows how intractable our deficit problem is?  Nonesense!

Let me show you how easy it is to balance the budget.  And our politicians don't even have to do a thing.

Here's the simple math.
This year's deficit is estimated to be around $1.099 trillion.

All you have to do is the following:
1. Let the Bush tax cuts expire (all of them) - $400B per year
That's right, the Bush tax cuts (really Bush-Obama cuts at this point) cost the treasury about $400B per year.  Of this, about $100B is associated with the cuts to the top bracket, the rest associated with the cuts to the Clinton bracket.  By doing nothing, and allowing the "temporary" cuts to expire at the end of this year, the treasury will collect approximately $400B more.

2. Let the Obama tax cuts expire - $110B per year
President Obama's "temporary" reduction in Social Security taxes by 2% for this year is costing the treasury $110B, as general revenues are being used to cover the gap in the social security trust fund.  Just allow the cut to expire, and that's $110B more in the coffers.

3. Don't extend unemployment benefits beyond statutory maximum - $44B per year
Under ordinary circumstances, people get unemployment benefits for 6 months.  Since the recession started, Congress has been routinely extending those benefits for 2 full years.  Stopping this practice would trim $44B in cost from the budget.

4. Allow the Iraq war to wind down - $159B per year
The Iraq war is costing us a lot of money in both direct costs to the military and costs to the contractors.  The troops are scheduled to leave.  This should be easy spend to wind down.

5. Don't "fix" the alternative minimum tax - $120B per year
The alternative minimum tax was created to keep the very wealthy from using loopholes to reduce their tax rate too far.  The AMT amount was not indexed to inflation, but Congress routinely passes "fixes" aimed to keep the AMT focused squarely on the very wealthy.  Allowing it to not index, as current law allows, would essentially take those same loopholes away from upper-middle class taxpayers.  This yields $120B per year in savings.

6. Allow the Sequester Cuts - $120B per year
Since the deficit panel failed, the automatic "sequester" cuts of $120B per year are scheduled to kick in in about 14 months, with 50% applying to defense and 50% applying to non-entitlement domestic spending.  These cuts happen automatically, unless Congress acts to change the law.

Total savings from doing nothing: $953B per year.

Okay, I didn't totally solve the deficit - there would still be a $146B shortfall.  But $146B is a mere 1.0% of GDP, a rate at which the overall debt would decline significantly (we can expect GDP growth plus inflation to be equal about 5-6%, even using conservative estimates, meaning a 4-5% reduction in the effective debt levels.)

The approach is balanced ($323B in spending cuts and $630B in tax "increases", with all the tax increases being the expiration of "temporary" cuts.)

And all the government has to do to make it happen is nothing.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

HRC for Supreme Court?, My Worst Votes

Why Hillary Would Make a Great Supreme Court Justice and Why It Won't Happen
Supreme Court openings are fun for us political watchers. There are few decisions that a President makes that have as lasting an impact on the country as his Supreme Court picks. Supreme Court appointees serve a lifetime, which can often span 30 or more years, and are basically immune from control or criticism (a Supreme Court justice has never been impeached in our long history.)

The Supreme Court rules on the expanding and contracting definitions of our bill of rights...do corporations have free speech? Can the FCC regulate curse words? Does the second amendment prohibit outlawing semi-automatic weapons? Does equal protection require legal gay marriage? Does requiring individuals to purchase health insurance constitute regulation of interstate commerce? And on, and on.

Therefore, properly, the political world zeroes in on potential appointees when an opening occurs. Who would be right to sit on the Supreme Court?

My strong opinion of the best available candidate is Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This may come as a surprise to regular readers, who know I have been critical of Hillary in the past. But her record speaks for itself. As a Senator, she was a hard-worker, not a celebrity. She bridged tough bi-partisan bridges. She took a pragmatic approach on national security. She was intellectual force without being an overwhelming ego.

As Secretary of State, she has shown many of the same admirable qualities. She has shown no bruised ego over not being selected as VP. She has worked hard, expressed herself clearly, and built the admiration of foreign leaders. She has been a star in Obama's cabinet, but not an overshadowing or self-centered one.

In short, in spite of all the predictions from both the right and many mainstream Democrats, every public job that Mrs. Clinton has held, she has buckled down and gone to work.

She is a lawyer, she is smart as hell and she exercises good judgement. I can't think of a better set of traits for a supreme court nominee.

Alas, it is highly unlikely that it would ever happen.

In the modern era, politicians rarely get named to the Supreme Court. Judicial experience seems value over life experience, so Court of Appeals judges get picked over lawyers who have lived in the real world. The last significant political appointment to the court was Earl Warren, the former Governor of California, who ushered in an era of court activism, so conservatives are very wary of any politician. And politicians have long public records of things people can find to disagree with or criticize.

No, President Obama will probably play it safe with an Elena Kagan or someone of that ilk. Ms. Kagan would likely win confirmation with 65 or 70 votes without a real fight from the right. Hillary would be a dogfight. And I think the President is probably tired of dogfights.

But think for a second -- wouldn't it be great to have at least one pragmatist amongst that great body of judicial theorists?

My Worst Votes
It isn't too often that I regret votes that I cast in elections, but two have come to mind recently that I wish that I had back. Neither candidate won when I voted for them, but both fall into the "what was I thinking?" category.

In 2000, I was a strong advocate for John McCain for President. I donated money to his campaign. I registered as a Republican to vote for him in the primary. I cheered on his pragmatic moderate views, his ripping of the "agents of intolerance" on both sides of the aisle and his appeal to a rational, fair America. I had every intention of voting for him in the general election against Al Gore, if he had won the Republican nomination (as it stood, I wound up voting for Gore, as Bush was a completely unacceptable choice to me.)

That John McCain of 2000 is no more. He started to disappear in 2008, when John McCain started sucking up to the very agents of intolerance that he had derided 8 years prior, including the Rev. Jerry Falwell, an architect of hate if I ever met one. It continued with his choice of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate, when everyone knew that the choice of his heart and mind was Senator Joe Lieberman, a moderate, qualified voice.

Then he essentially abandoned his support for comprehensive immigration reform, again caving to the interests of a right wing of the GOP that never supported him anyway. He threw his support behind the Bush tax cuts, cuts he had opposed on his long-held principle that the government should pay its bills before giving money away.

Since President Obama took office, he has completely abandoned his role as a deal-maker between the left and the right, a role he used to play for perfection. I don't begrudge him opposing the stimulus plan or health care reform...he has always been a fiscal conservative and the same reason he originally opposed the Bush tax cuts, that America should pay for what it spends, are fair reasons for opposing those bills. But then he voted against a deficit commission that he had originally helped design, purely out of partisan spite. He supported filibusters against judicial nominees, a practice he had long opposed. He announced that he wouldn't work with the White House on anything the rest of the year, even issues they agree on, purely because his feelings were hurt that he didn't get his way on health care.

What a waste of a man that I used to consider principled. Shame on me for voting for a guy who would sell out his principles so easily.

But my primary vote in 2000 was not my worst vote, not by a long shot. I got it even more wrong in the 2004 primary, when I switched my party registration to vote for John Edwards on the Democratic side.

Out of fairness, I had initially supported Joe Lieberman for the nod in 2004, but Lieberman was out of the race by the time that the primary got to me, leaving me a pretty clear choice between blue-blood John Kerry and populist Edwards.

Still, John Edwards, the man who I would've had become President, has turned out to be about as offensive a human-being as you'll find. It wasn't the politics with Edwards that changed, just my knowledge that he is actually a disgusting human being, worse than the most outrageous accusations from the right would make you believe.

So, all of this is to say, we all get it wrong sometimes. But learning why and how you missed it can help you evaluate future election choices in a reasoned way. I'll keep this all in mind in 2010 and 2012.

Do you have a vote you would really like back? Write me and let me know.