No wonder the Obama Administration is clueless about the real world
[H/T The American blog and Red State…]
We’re all familiar with Barack Obama’s lack of qualifications to be president, particularly during a time of economic turmoil when real-world (i.e. private sector) experience is so important. As far as I can tell, he’s never during his adulthood had a job outside of academia or political activism. So it’s not surprising that he understands precious little about markets, business, capitalism, etc.
But let’s stipulate that not every president has been an expert on everything he needed to make wise decisions about. That’s why the president has a cabinet. Reagan was a great example. He was smart and principled but he knew what he didn’t know so he surrounded himself with smart advisors. (This is of course not to say that his advisors were all angels…) For example, members of Reagan’s cabinet included General Alexander Haig, George Schultz, James Baker, William Brock, and Bill Bennett. These are people for whom even Democrats generally had at least grudging respect.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is so certain of his ability to mold the world to his wishes and so certain the he can be The One to allow the triumph of hope over experience that – with the exception of the Secretary of Defense, a holdover from the last Bush administration – he has chosen advisors who generally share his naive view of the world and his statist aspirations for the smart chosen few to make all important decisions for us.
According to the American blog linked above, the following chart comes from a J.P. Morgan research report. It shows the percentage of the total work experience of cabinet appointments over the last century which was in the private sector.
You can see the average appears to be slightly over 40%, with the low points during Democratic administrations. Reagan’s appointees had over 50% of their work experience in the private sector. The Obama appointees’ work experience is jaw-dropping, with well under 10% being in the private sector. The second worst showing, under JFK, was close to 30%.
No wonder this is the gang that can’t shoot straight when it comes to anything other than spending other people’s money. After all, that’s the only thing the public sector does and it’s the only thing Obama’s cabinet knows.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 12/01/09 at 04:02:18 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
12/01/09 @ 08:12:27 am
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/obamas-well-qualified-cabinet-conservatives-hoaxed-by-j-p-morgan-chart-that-verifies-prejudices/
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
12/01/09 @ 08:23:13 am
Mark, I would bet $1 that the analysis at the blog you reference is wrong. Indeed, it's obviously wrong in my view.
That guy is simply counting how many of Obama's cabinet members have any private sector experience. I don't think that's the point of the chart.
My interpretation was not what percentage of Obama's cabinet have any private sector experience, but rather what percentage of the total work experience of Obama's cabinet (and other prior cabinets) was in the private sector.
For example, if there were three cabinet members:
ABC worked in the private sector for 10% of his career
DEF worked in the private sector for 35% of his career
GHI never worked in the private sector.
That blog's analysis would say that's 66% private sector experience.
I would say, and I think the point of the chart is, that aggregate is 15% average private sector experience. [10% + 35% + 0%]/3
So, when it comes to fooling people, I'd say it's clear that you and the liberal dimwits in that blog's comment section have demonstrated yet again that liberals shouldn't be relied on for statistical analysis.
12/01/09 @ 10:52:39 am
Ross, often it seems that your rational thinking consists more of name calling than statistical analysis.
Out of your list of respected Reagan Cabinet members like General Alexander Haig, George Schultz, James Baker, William Brock, and Bill Bennett, would you hazard a guess as to how much private sector experience they possessed prior to their appointments?
This administration limited its pool of potential candidates by restricting the appointment of recent former lobbyists and making appointees agree not to leave the administration and go right back to positions as lobbyists.
I also think that there are far less private sector candidates in general willing to brave the gauntlet of microscopic investigation (prostoscopy?) that a high level appointee has to go through these days. (Heaven knows I've got some damning skeletons in MY closet.)
12/01/09 @ 11:10:03 am
Mark,
I sort of mixed points in that note in the sense that I was pointing out that Reagan appointed respected and intelligent advisors. I don't think the general opinion of Obama's cabinet is nearly as high.
Also, do a little homework on the "restricting lobbyists" thing. The administration hands out waivers to that so-called policy like candy.
I do agree with your point about wondering who would want to go through the microscope though it's not clear to me why that process should be much more onerous for someone coming from the private sector.
12/01/09 @ 01:53:29 pm
I'm just assuming that someone already in the public sector may have already been examined and that their much of their actions are public by definition. (With the glaring exception of adulterous Senators from both parties.)
01/13/10 @ 09:36:38 am
Reagan's Cabinet members and close advisors were stellar - unlike the Obama group.
For the guy who foolishly compared the experience of the Reagan cabinet:
Before serving in the Reagan Admin, George Schultz ran Bechtel (1974 - 1982), probably the biggest private E&C firm in the world, he was Sec of the Treasury from '72 - '74, and he served in the Nixon and Eisenhower Admins.
Don Regan, who was Ronald Reagan's Treasury Secreatary from '81 - '85 was formerly CEO of Merrill Lynch, Vice Chairman on the NYSE, one of the original directors of SIPC, and a decorated Marine Corps combat vet in WW II.
Alexander Haig was the #2 ranking office in the Army, the head of the Supreme Allied command in Europe, a veteran of both the Korean and Vietman Wars, the recipient of the Distinquished Service Cross and a Purple Heart recipient. He was also Chief of Staff under Nixon and Ford. Haig was also, PRIOR TO JOINING THE REAGAN ADMIN, the CEO of United Technologies, one of the biggest aviation and defense companies in the world.
Casper Weinberger (Sec of Defense for Reagan) was General Counsel of Bechtel for 5 years before joining Reagan.
Nicholas Brady (Sec. of Treasury for Reagan) was CEO of Dillon Read (inv banking firm) and CEO of Purolator (big industrial company).
Brock and Bennett were fairly insignificant Cabinet members from a strategic perspective(Agriculture and Education) and hardly matter.
Reagan's top strategic Cabinet members were therefore top heavy in private work experience, and military experience. Both of those arenas are scarce territory for the Obama Admin.
To compare the two Admins is ludicrous and, quite frankly, just not true.