From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Keywords: appointments, qualified
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:36:37 GMT

In article <1219@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>Brown worked for the Urban League for 11 years, eventually becoming
>>the Deputy Executive Directory, Chief Counsel, and chief Washington
>>spokesperson.  Brown has extensive *international* commerce experience
>>from his duties in his Washington law firm since 1982.
>
>Well, that contradicts what I've been told.  I've heard he has none and you
>say his experience is extensive.  So, what exactly is this extensive
>experience in international commerce and what is your source?

Brown has had quite a bit of experience dealing with Japanese electronics
companies, and other foreign companies during his tenure at Patton,
Boggs, and Blow.  This has been discussed several times in the national
media.  I refer you to articles on Brown in December in the New York Times.
I'm not going to go type them in for you.

>
>>>Robert B. Reich, what are his qualifications to be Secretary of Labor?  He
>>>is a lawyer and lecturer on "political economy" (whatever that is) at
>>>Harvard.  What are his qualifications besides being a friend of Bill's and
>>>his economic adviser during the transition (in spite of the fact he
>>>doesn't have a degree in economics)?
>>
>>Reich has an M. Phil. in Economics from Oxford, where he was a Rhodes
>>Scholar.  Isn't that a degree in economics?
>
>Yes it would be if indeed it was economics he studied at Oxford.  And I'll
>concede he might have.

What do you think he was studying at Oxford, chopped liver?

>After spending two frustrating hours at two
>different libraries, I can neither confirm nor deny your claim.  Most of
>the usual references for checking that kind of thing apparently didn't
>consider Reich important enough to include at least not up to the most
>recent supplements that the Salem Library had.  "Who's Who in America"
>didn't list him until their 92-93 supplement...

Note the little swipe at Reich there.  "Not important enough to include..."
Well, Who's Who apparently doesn't consider Elizabeth Dole or Ray
Donovan important enough to include, either.  At least, they were not
in the volumes I looked at.

> ...and that didn't give his
>field of study at Oxford.  Neither did the little bio in the back of the
>only one of his books that wasn't checked out.
>I can list at least one reference that says that he has no training in
>economics [1],

A reference to the *National Review* ?  Really, Steve, you can do better
than this.  National Review is the home for disgruntled far-right conservatives,
who have nothing better to do than gripe and lie, now that the Clinton
Era has begun.  In private mail to you, I've already pointed out serious
misinformation in National Review, but you haven't responded.

>and I have heard at least two radio commentators give his
>lack of an economics degree as the reason he wasn't given a position on the
>cabinet that has more to do with economics, but it is possible that
>somewhere along the line "no Phd" got converted to "no degree".  If I have
>been mislead, it would seem to me that it is a forgivable offence.  What is
>your source of information?

My source is a bio of Reich on MacNeil-Lehrer, in addition to official
biographies of the cabinet nominees provided by the transition team.
Those biographies have already been posted twice to this newsgroup.
I guess you haven't been reading very carefully.

Now, let's compare Reich's formal economics training (M. Phil. at Oxford)
to that of previous appointments to be Secretary of Labor.   In fact,
Reich has more economics training than either of the previous two
appointments under Reagan and Bush:

Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor under Bush:
	no formal economics training.  She majored in poli sci at Duke,
	got an MS in education, and then a law degree from Harvard.  Whoops,
	I guess she must have been unqualified. [Source:  NYT, Dec 25 1988]

Ray Donovan, Secretary of Labor under Reagan:
	no formal economics training.  In fact, no higher degrees, period.
	Just a bachelor's in philosophy from Notre Dame Seminary.
	Gee, I guess he must have been unqualified, too.  
	[Source:  NYT, Dec 17 1980]

So Steve, did you object when these people were nominated?

I don't believe Dunlop (under Ford) or Brennan (under Nixon) had advanced
degrees in economics either, but I could be wrong.  Brennan was chosen
because of his links with organized labor.  Of course, if Clinton had
nominated someone associated with unions, Steve would have complained even louder.

>
>>Here's what Fortune Magazine [that bastion of liberalism-ha!] says
>>about Reich:
>>
>>        "No one is better than Robert Reich at describing the challenges
>>        facing America from the emerging global economy."
>>
>>Fortune named him among 25 individuals who are making this country
>>more competitive.  Reich has written many highly-praised books,
>>including "21st Century Capitalism" and "The Next American Frontier".
>>He was also Director of Policy Planning for the FTC under Carter.
>>
>>I'd say that was qualified.
>
>To be Secretary of *Labor*?  That's all fine and good, but what has it to
>do with being Secretary of Labor?  What experience does he have with labor?

Gee, Steve, what is it that you think the Secretary of Labor does?  Labor
means jobs, and this is precisely what Reich studies, lectures on, and
writes on.  His book, The Work of Nations, discusses how the US can keep and
attract high-paying jobs.  

The Secretary of Labor is in charge of enforcing OSHA regulations.
It also oversees pension funds.  Reich is a lawyer -- that's certainly
a plus for these two tasks.  Under Donovan, OSHA regulations were ignored.

>Moreover, as Secretary of Labor he will be over seeing a department with
>more than a couple of people in it.  What management experience does he
>have?  What qualifies him to be the head of such a department?  This is
>just a question.  You say he is qualified, well fill us in on the details.
>His qualification for this post are not obvious.

Steve, you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole here.  Reich
was Assistant to the Solicitor General in the Ford Administration.  He
was Director of Policy Planning for the Federal Trade Comission in the
Carter administration.  I'd say that qualifies for management and
government experience.  Reich's government experience is similar to that
of Elizabeth Dole when she took the post of Secretary of Labor under
Bush.

>
>As for his books being "highly-praised", it would be more accurate to say
>that they have been widely criticized (and justly) in economic circles, but
>no matter.  They have been praised by some.
>
>>>But to say, now,
>>>that Clinton's appointments "have the unusual merit of being qualified", as
>>>compared to even the (admittedly) poor appointments of Reagan or Bush, is
>>>to be blinded by partisanship, to baldly have a double standard.
>>
>>Yeah, right.  If you got your facts straight, we *might* be able to take
>>you more seriously.
>
>You strongly implied that all of Clinton's appointments "have the unusual
>merit of being qualified."

Steve's favorite tactic here:  the straw man.  I never said "all" of
Clinton's appointments.  I certainly agree that some of Clinton's appointments
are more qualified than others.  But I don't feel Reich or Brown are
unqualified.  And *certainly not* unqualified in the way that Reagan's
appointments of James Edwards [a South Carolina dentist] for Secretary
of Energy, or Bush's Manuel Lujan [who doesn't believe in evolution] for
Secretary of the Interior.  Taken as a whole, Clinton's appointments are
indeed *unusually* qualified compared to the Reagan and Bush appointments.

I'm unhappy about Mike "NRA Poster Boy" Espy for Secretary of Agriculture,
but I don't think he's unqualified either.

>All it takes for that to be shown false is for
>one of his appointments to be unqualified.  I mentioned four appointments
>and you defended only two.  Do you admit error?  Again, what are Zoe
>Baird's qualifications to head the department Justice?  What qualifies her
>to manage thousands of fellow lawyers?  What about respect for the law?
>Wouldn't that normally be considered a qualification for Attorney General?
>What qualifies the new chief of staff?  You have to answer those to be
>taken seriously.

Oh, I see, I *have* to answer *all* of your questions to be taken seriously.
Get real.  Taken seriously by whom?  By you?  You're the one spouting
misinformation about Reich's economics degree, not I.

Do I feel Zoe Baird is qualified?  Well, until a few days ago, I did.
As Chief Counsel for Aetna Life & Casualty, I think she has extensive
experience in law and management.

But the revelations about her hiring illegal aliens has made me think twice.
I believe the law requiring employers to verify that new employees are
working legally is misguided.  It's a bad law.  But the way to get rid
of bad laws is to pass new ones, or in extreme circumstances, to use
Martin Luther King's nonviolent means of protest, where the law is
publicly broken and then the punishment is taken.  It's not right to just
ignore the law, the way Steve's friends in the NRA do with California's
assault weapons law.  She *knowingly* broke the law.  As Barbara Jordan
remarked last night on MacNeil-Lehrer, we cannot have the nation's highest
law enforcement executive in the position of breaking a law for
his/her own convenience.  

Zoe Baird should *not* be confirmed.  She should withdraw herself from the
process.  But then, Ed "if a person is innocent of a crime, then he is
not a suspect" Meese shouldn't have been confirmed either.

>
>[1] "Who's On Next [after John Kenneth Galbraith]", by Alan Reynolds,
>National Review, August 26, 1991.
>--
>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef		I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
>uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .	        Deer are for Dinner
>

Jeff Shallit
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton