Portman Picked for OMB, Suitable but Disappointing
By Boddington Posted in Breaking News — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Rob Portman, the current trade czar and former Congressman, is now set to begin his next assignment for the President of the United States. Portman will direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and fill the shoes left when Josh Bolten was promoted to White House Chief of Staff. The President is making a suitable choice, but not a surprising one. For conservatives, there is cause for some relief but also room for disappointment as an opportunity has been missed. More below.
Portman is smart, experienced, and well regarded on Capitol Hill. During his time representing the 2nd District of Ohio, he chaired Republican Leadership meetings and used his perch on the Ways and Means Committee to make the tax code simpler, more conducive to Americans who save, and an engine for economic growth. He was a strong and unwavering supporter of President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and therein lies his chief value to this Administration and the country. Portman will be a constant, articulate voice in support of extending those tax cuts into the future and locking in the economic gains they have created. He will not let the legitimate but parochial need to align the numbers and avoid deficits sway his judgment on that important matter. Conservatives, many of whom support a "starve the beast" strategy, will be able to rest easy from that standpoint. Portman will also have a unique expertise heading into next year's farm bill reauthorization—the next big spending bill—given that he has been negotiating trade deals with foreign countries very irritated with our generous farm subsidies; he will be credible when it comes to breaking the news to our farm sector that change must occur.
But Portman's nomination to head OMB is also something of a disappointment for conservatives. The Administration had privately floated such names as John Kasich, Pat Toomey, Paul Ryan, and Jeb Hensarling—individuals who have instant credibility with fiscal conservatives, who relish every opportunity to cut government, and spend nights fretting about its size and dreaming up ways to limit its reach. Conservatives wanted someone who would refuse to hang their hat on merely cutting the deficit in half as a percentage of GDP like Bolten so often did. We wanted someone new and fresh who would light up the OMB staff to look for waste, fraud, and abuse at all the agencies and then go head to head with Congress. Rob Portman, as sound of a pick as he is, is not that.
In the end, the Portman nomination tells us what we've always known about President Bush's fiscal policy. He loves tax cuts and wants to extend them because he thinks they work. And the country is richer and freer for it. However, Bush really has no interest in starving the federal government. He is at least comfortable with big government—he wants government to work, and in some areas, get bigger and better. After five years, conservatives were not foolish enough to expect this President to wake up one morning in his second term and decide to chart a radically different course. We had hoped though that when the White House signaled that they were finally ready to get serious about spending, with a new OMB Director, that they meant it.
The President found a steady and suitable hand to direct OMB. Mr. Portman deserves our respect and our well wishes; he has a tough job ahead. The President could have picked someone better, but a great deal of satisfaction can be taken in that he did not pick somebody worse.
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | Lucia Newman leaves CNN — Comments (9) »
Portman Picked for OMB, Suitable but Disappointing 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Portman just became trade czar last year. It was his appointment that made Paul Hackett's high profile moonbattery and his 48-52 "victory" over Jean Schmidt possible.
Has Portman actually had time to do anything as trade czar?
He is charged with negotiating the trade deals and then selling them to Congress. I know Portman did the recent Peru deal, but his predecessor probably negotiated CAFTA. Portman did the work to get it passed through Congress though.
Since I consider FTAA (which I would like to see include Australia) to be one of the most important policy goals of the United States to make the Western Hemisphere wealthier, reduce the influence of Cuba/Venezuela/China, and increase our influence in the hemisphere, I find instability in this position troubling.
Maybe Mr. Portman didn't find the job to his liking and requested to be brought back home?
One thing is for certain - we need a free trade zealot to replace him, and as soon as possible.
I think the President just stayed within his own comfort zone when looking for a new OMB director ....again.
This is another promotion for Portman, whose district was a significant factor in the 2004 election. President Bush has clearly identified him as someone from whom he expects Big Things in the future. Had Portman remained in Congress, as he probably could have for decades, he might have achieved one of the top chairmanships, but that does not rise to the level of Big Things that the president envisions. Furthermore, the next major elective office in Ohio that he might be expected to contend for would not be until 2010, when Sen. Voinovich is expected to retire.
If I had to guess, I would say that Portman is in a strong position to be the next Secretary of the Treasury should John Snow retire, and I would suspect that his name will draw consideration as a VP candidate in 2008.
It is not that the OMB position is an insignificant one, but rather that the president sees this as an opportunity to identify someone as a member of the Next Big Thing list, and in doing so influence the next decade of Republican politics.
About Portman, but I too was really excited by the idea of someone like Kasich or Toomey taking over. Those would have been bold, exciting picks. Portman is simply a safe, easy pick for Bush.
<rant>
I learned to bowl in Portman's OH-02 district. Learned well enough that I now have a PBA card. Bowling's big in SW Ohio. Please quit picking on bowling.
</rant>
Certainly not me. I'm all for it.
OH-02 is a good, solid red district. Most of the people there are conservative. I don't know all that much about Portman, other than he used to represent my Mom and brother, but I'm willing to give him a chance.
Do you remember Bush's 2004 rally at Voice of America Park in West Chester, Ohio? The one that drew 50,000 Bush supporters. That park is less than two miles from the boundary of Portman's district.
I also have a personal anecdote. During a visit in 2004, I stopped at a gas station no more than a couple of par 5's from VOA Park. They were selling Bush hats, Bush stickers, all manner of Bush paraphernalia. But Kerry's name was nowhere to be found. Why stock something that won't sell?
The people of OH-02 elect good solid conservatives. And many of them bowl.
Sorry, that is my attempt to mimic the Buckeye football cheer....
I've stopped doing bigger posts on the Portman nomination because I don't want to be accused of sour groups. Portman will be ok, if for no other reason than he gets tax cuts. Bush is the President and has the right to fill his slots with whomever so long as they are largely consistent with what he ran on (sorry Harriet). However, I do maintain that he is not a small government, Club for Growth-type conservative on spending--which is a bigger deal at OMB than it would be at say the Treasury Department. Oh well.
Yes, OH2 is a conservative district. I've done campaign work in Hamilton County (including being attacked by a large dog). But that doesn't mean the members they elect are de facto conservatives in the trenches. Portman normally sat on the sidelines in Congress when conservatives pushed for spending restraint. And lets not forget that OH2 just sent Jean Schmidt to DC and she has imploded in every way.
Forgive my ignorance, Boddington, but what have Portman's responsibilities been as trade czar? Has he been involved in the Latin America deals?