Peter Orszag’s decision to step down as the White House budget director didn’t get much press attention. The comings and goings of OMB chiefs is a particular bit of Washington wonkery and this installment had a hard time matching the drama of the McChrystal mess.
But the departure of a central player in the president’s economic team is a big deal, especially at this economic moment. Why is Orszag leaving? Does his exit mean anything for the country’s future economic course? The move prompts plenty of questions, but there are too few answers out there.
Bloomberg reported that Orszag thought about leaving back in April, but “stayed on after an appeal from the president.” Much coverage of the Orszag news noted that, if he was planning to go soon, then sooner was better. A new OMB director should be in place by fall, when the office is working on the budget proposal to be released in February. And yes, he’s getting married in September, after a much-publicized romance.
Before the news was confirmed, ABC’s Jake Tapper summed it up pretty simply:
The administration declined to comment, but Orszag was director of the Congressional Budget Office for two years before becoming OMB in January 2009. Eighteen months is approximately the median amount of time for the OMB director position, and Orszag is said to want to move on, having served in his position during the passage of the $862 billion stimulus bill and the nearly $1 trillion health care legislation.
Fine. But is there nothing else going on here? It’s a little hard to believe.
David Wessel, economics editor at the WSJ, provided a quick video analysis that seemed to make sense:
If Peter Orszag thought the president of the United States was going to spend the next two years embarked on an ambitious, once-in-a-lifetime correct-the-deficit-for-the-long-run program, he’d be sticking around. The fact that he’s leaving suggests it’s less likely that he thinks that’s going to happen and he’s going to go do something else.
Ahh. That’s interesting. Unfortunately, the story in the Journal didn’t do anything to fill out that line of thinking.
Instead, it put Orszag’s departure in the context of a debate within the Democratic party:
Mr. Orszag’s decision to resign as director of the Office of Management and Budget comes as the Obama administration—and the Democratic Party—begin to confront disagreements between those who believe near-term deficit reduction poses too much risk to the fragile economic recovery and those, such as Mr. Orszag, who say the deficit itself may be a more profound economic threat.
It’s true that Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill haven’t been able to deliver the help for local governments that the president wants. But the WSJ also points to a debate within the administration itself:
There is “a huge battle going on in the White House” between officials who want to focus on deficit reduction and those who want to be sure no steps are taken to further damage the economy, some with an eye on the November midterm elections, said Robert Reischauer, a former Congressional Budget Office director and head of the Urban Institute, a centrist think tank.
Oooh. Now we’re getting somewhere. Only then, there’s this:
White House officials say there are no divisions within the administration. The president and his team believe the top priority still has to be getting Americans back to work.
“There’s not a lot of controversy on the overall strategy: Return us to growth in the immediate term and confront the longer-run fiscal challenges facing the country,” said Austan Goolsbee, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
I’m not expecting the paper to get an on-the-record confirmation of a fundamental dispute over the president’s overall economic strategy. But it would be nice for readers to at least get a bit more background on who’s in what camp, and what they’re saying.
Journal readers just get a whiff of how Orszag may have been on one side, with that line about those “who say the deficit itself may be a more profound economic threat.”