U.S. Treasury under BushCO has taken dangerous back seat to politics...

[whistle]

<snip>
The New York Times Editorial Section
March 23, 2005
EDITORIAL
Who's Minding the Store?

Don't be fooled by the location of the United States Treasury, right next door to the White House. The department has suffered a steady diminution of prestige and influence during the Bush administration, starting with the unceremonious firing of its first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, less than two years into the job, in part for suggesting that deficits do, in fact, matter.

Things have been downhill ever since. Last December, Republican power brokers made no bones about wanting to oust the current Treasury secretary, John Snow, only to find that the administration couldn't entice anyone better to take the job. Of course, it is always difficult to lure people with Hamiltonian intellect, expertise and reputation away from the private sector. But Mr. Bush has a particularly hard time doing so.

The reason in large measure is that from the start of his administration, tax policy and economic policy - the purview of the Treasury - have been handmaids to politics and ideology emanating from the White House. Without the clear-cut opportunity to drive policy making, the best and the brightest aren't exactly clamoring for jobs at Treasury. And Mr. Snow is still in his post, reprising his first-term performance as cheerleader for Mr. Bush's tax cuts in his current role as salesperson for Mr. Bush's misbegotten plan to privatize Social Security.

<snip>

To attract the people the Treasury needs, the White House must assure the best candidates that they will exercise true power and influence. The administration must also work in good faith, and with all due speed, to reach consensus with the Senate on its Treasury nominees, which would streamline the confirmation process and, in so doing, begin to restore the Treasury to its vital place and function.

<more>
<link> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/opinion/23wed2.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&position=

[htuttle]

1. Why not?

Bush has given domestic partisan politics a leading role in our foreign policy, our military strategy, our tax structure, decisions about tarriffs and trade, judicial nominees, cabinet appointments, contract awards, education, and even science itself.

Why NOT add Treasury policy to the list?

[fasttense]

2. It's hard to believe b*sh can't attract some right wing nut job

to the post. Why does the administration want someone with Hamiltonian intellect, expertise and reputation? They have a bunch of idiots in just about every position from president on down. I'm sure if they looked hard enough, someone from bizarro world could be found to kiss b*sh's agenda.

[mcscajun]

3. I'm pretty sure it's the Times that wants the Hamiltonian intellect, etc.

Bush wouldn't recognize one if it came up to him and trod on his toes.

[whistle]

4. meatballs attract meatballs