Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Turns Down Position In Obama’s Cabinet
Reports indicate that Eric Schmidt was offered a position in the President’s cabinet and turned it down:
Mr Schmidt, 57, was offered the job of Treasury or Commerce Secretary or a new “Secretary of Business” slot, according to the Washington Examiner.
An anonymous strategist for the Democrats told the newspaper: “Nobody’s better positioned for a Cabinet job, if he wants one.”
Mr Schmidt’s rebuttal was swift, however, as he told the Wall Street Journal in an interview yesterday: “I said last time and I’ve said again that Google is my home. I have no interest in working for the federal government”.
Mr Schmidt played in a key role in the re-election of President Barack Obama last month, helping to oversee Google’s $700,000 donation to his campaign.
Since Mr Obama took up the US presidency in 2008, he and Mr Schmidt have maintained a close relationship, appearing together at the company’s Montain View, California headquarters in 2007.
The one interesting thing about this news is that the Obama White House is apparently going forward with the rater silly “Secretary of Business” idea that was floated during the campaign.
I don’t think we can afford the salary we’d have to pay Mr. Schmidt. Not to mention that the working conditions in Washington are not really up to the standards of Mountain View. I think they give out free massages. Try that at Commerce.
Schmidt’s no dummy.
Insider share selling on Wall St. has reached literal panic levels across all major industries. And if you focus on actual leading indicators, rather than lagging and coincident indicators, it’s entirely possible we’re already in a recession. Normally reported GDP figures take 2-4 quarters to catch up to realities on the ground.
Schmidt would know all this. And he would not want to be caught sailing on the US Economy’s Andrea Doria when she goes under the waves.
@Tsar Nicholas:
So then why did he give so much money to Obama?
the Obama White House is apparently going forward with the rater silly “Secretary of Business” idea that was floated during the campaign.
Why is it silly? A lot of state governments have officials specifically charged with bringing new businesses into their state. You could argue this is partly the role of the commerce department but it has myriad other responsibilities which make calls on the Secretary’s time. Admittedly there’s an element of symbolism about it but a lot of government and politics is about symbolism.
@Tsar Nicholas:
it’s entirely possible we’re already in a recession.
I’m not sure whether its you or Doug who has the record for forecasting the most recessions during the last three years but if you believe this why not sell all thou hast and then leverage that by trading on margin and start shorting all the major cyclical stocks. However I should tell you that only this morning did I receive a very bullish forecast from a leading financial institution which recommended overweighting on stocks. However, I’m sure they’re wrong and you are right. So go for it Nicko.
@michael reynolds:
If he was offered a job it was likely commerce not Treasury.
@Brummagem Joe:
I suspect just about any sane person would look at the snake pit in Washington and think, “I’ll pass.” I honestly wouldn’t take the job if they offered it to me. (Incidentally, if they do offer it to me? It’s definitely time to move to Canada.)
You or us?
@michael reynolds:
I can see what you say applying to Schmidt who is basically an engineer and therefore probably intensely logical. My comment was really more based on his lack of background in financial markets and public finance. Really you need heavyweight financial market experience in that job. The mind boggles if Snow had still been at Treasury when the typhoon hit. If I was Obama I’d offer the Treasury job to Mikey Bloomberg.
@Franklin:
All Americans. Because, really, things will be very, very bad by that point. And I would make them worse.
@Brummagem Joe:
Could Bloomberg’s ego fit inside the Treasury building? Not a bad suggestion. He has the knowledge and he has the respect.
@michael reynolds:
Mikey Bloomberg would love it and his resume is a perfect fit. He’s at a dead end in NYC and basically he agrees with Obama on most things. The left of the Democratic party would whine a bit but then they want Paul Krugman or some such nonsense. Not that I’ve anything against Krugman in his right spot. The WH could do worse than giving him sort of economic advisory job since he’s largely been right about the economics of the last six or seven years and the left of the Democratic party would be ecstatic while Krugman would have to deal with some political reality.
The Washington Examiner? “Secretary of Business”?
WTF am I reading?
@rudderpedals:
Doug’s favorite free sheet?
@Brummagem Joe: Agreeing wih the President should not be a primary concern in regards to a highly technical job requiring knowledge Mr. Bloomberg almost certainly does not have.
@Ben Wolf:
Agreeing wih the President should not be a primary concern in
Actually broad philosophical agreement is quite an important concern if you want some degree of collegiality, trust and unanimity in the govt. This would be true at any time but particularly so in the light of Republican intransigence. The notion of putting someone in one of the three or four primary cabinet positions who doesn’t share the same broad worldview as the president is totally preposterous. Bob Gates and Roy LaHood are Republicans but their outlook as it relates/related to their offices is/was broadly similar to that of the president and the same would need to be true of anyone he appointed to the treasury or indeed in any job in his administration.
@Tsar Nicholas: From the Conference Board: “The U.S. LEI increased slightly in October, the second consecutive increase. The LEI still points to modestly expanding economic activity in the near term.”
My take? Eric probably took a look at the Republican House, and then sized up the 38 Republican senators who recently voted with Rick Santorum to not ratify the U.N. Treaty on Disabilities, and figured he’d rather hang out with the smart people in Silicon Valley.
@Brummagem Joe: I don’t agree. One doesn’t have to agree with the President’s policies to execute them effectively. Bloomberg’s approval of a tax increase or the ACA will not help him effectively coordinate with the Fed, or to understand the banking system in which he has little experience. Schmidt was an equally poor choice for that very reason.