Paul Light, vice president, director and Douglas Dillon Senior at the Brookings Institution has written 13 books, including: The President's Agenda, Vice Presidential Power, the award-winning Artful Work: The Politics Of Social Security Reform, Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability, and The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work, 1945-1995. His most recent accomplishment is a report called, Government's 50 Greatest Endeavors. Paul Light will join washingtonpost.com Thursday, Dec. 21.
The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

washingtonpost.com: Good afternoon Mr. Light and welcome. What are your thoughts on the make-up of the Bush cabinet so far? Any surprises expected?

Paul Light: The Bush cabinet looks very impressive thus far, with a couple of real surprises. I was particularly surprised at Gov. Whitman's decision to join as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. That's a real coup for the administration, if only because it is very unusual for a governor of a big state (even one who is term limited) to take an administrator's slot. There's a lot of very significant managerial experience among this group, and equally impressive diversity.

Tucson, Ariz.: One of the governors not mentioned as a possible appointee of President-elect Bush is Jane Hull, Arizona's governor. Since Hull was a co-chair of Bush's national campaign with Tommy Thompson (who is being promoted for a cabinet post) and she took a huge political risk in Arizona by not supporting McCain, this is being seen as a big slap in the face to Hull. Any conventional wisdom on why Hull is being snubbed?

Paul Light: I'm not sure snubbed is the right word. I would say that McCain is an essential swing vote in the Senate. To the extent that he would take offense at her appointment, I think the Bush people have to take care. He would not wield a pure veto, but he's not to be ignored either.

Williamsburg, Pa.: What kind of leaders are Bush and Cheney? How effective of a team do you think they will be?

Paul Light: This administration is already shaping up to be very different in tone and style from Clinton. For one thing, you'll see a real predictability about scheduling and decision making here, a kind of order to match the disorder of the Clinton years. Clinton was very much of the FDR style of leadership--lots of competition among the staff, a great deal of purposeful confusion, great uncertainty about just who had the ball on major decisions. Bush is already showing an Eisenhower-esque style--very clear chains of command, a strong chief of staff, lots of centralization and control. I suspect he'll have more orderly staff meetings, more predictable decision points, and strong gatekeepers, of whom Cheney may be emerging as the most important gatekeeper, decision-shaping of all.

Cheney is already rewriting the book on the vice presidency. Usually, Veeps must serve a penance of a sort before being given substantial assignments. They often use the transition to prove themselves in some way, perhaps by leading a task force or two, or providing input on a handful of appointments here and there. Cheney has already passed through that portal and is obviously wielding extraordinary influence already.

Washington, D.C.: What are the two or three biggest challenges for a transitioning administration?
What are the most important non-cabinet positions to fill quickly?
Thanks.

Paul Light: Biggest deal is the appointments process, which Bush is handling very well right now. He'll make a mistake somewhere along the line--the odds of a bad appointment increase exponentially as he moves down into the sub-cabinet where there are dozens of highly controversial appointments to make. Watch out for Surgeon General, FDA commissioner, assistant attorney general for civil rights, director of the Census Bureau, the assistant secretary of labor for OSHA, and the head of the National Labor Relations Authority.

Next challenge is making the transition from candidate to president--the ceremonial things that make Americans comfortable waking up to Bush as a president. He had a very good visit to Washington, looked and talked presidential. That's as important in getting underway as any appointment.

Arlington, Va.: Are you impressed by the Bush team's speed in filling top jobs?

Paul Light: Yes and no. He's clearly benefited from the advance planning done by Clay Johnson and others down in Austin before the campaign ended. That's given him a pretty good jump. But he's now just about where Clinton was in 1993, which is rather like catching up to the tortoise at the start of a race. There's just so much left to do here. Remember that back in 1993, Clinton only had a quarter of his 600 or so cabinet and sub-cabinet jobs nominated at the end of his first 100 days! Bush will be lucky to meet even that mark. My guess is that we're still looking at a cabinet and sub-cabinet that won't be fully confirmed until early 2002, but I do think that Bush has done much better than even he could have hoped.

Casper, Wyo.: Do you think Cheney is likely to be the most powerful vice president in history?

Paul Light: You got it right. He might be there already.

Dunn Loring, Va.: Should liberals be horrified at the appointments Bush has sketched in so far? The ex-lobbyist chief of staff is a concern, but the others look fairly reasonable -- I'm mean, given the president-elect is a conservative, after all!

Paul Light: Liberals can't be too surprised here thus far, and clearly should not be horrified. The Bush team is looking pretty solid to me--a lot of folks who are well known around town and the country writ large. Bush couldn't have picked a Treasury Secretary with a better reputation as a good government type, for example. He was chairman of the board of the Council for Excellence in Government for years, which is a studiously nonpartisan, good government group (go to their Web site at www.excelgov.org to see what they believe), and is widely admired as a supporter of public service. Same for Card, same for Cheney, same for many of the folks being talked about.

Chicago, Ill.: Don't you see an irony here. Democrats after Democrats have been mentioned and passed for any significant posts. The press seems to be perfectly willing to play Bush's so call bipartisan game without showing any intention to offer any significant post. Even though Clinton owed Republicans nothing, he selected Mr. Cohen for Defense, one of the four real important cabinet positions. Since there are no major positions left, do you expect to see any Democratic appointment at all?

Paul Light: Remember that Cohen was not Clinton's first Defense secretary, though. Les Aspin was. I suspect we'll see a Democrat in here someplace, but it won't be a liberal and won't be someone who disagrees with Bush on basic policy questions. I think presidents should reach across party lines where possible, but not to the point of diffusing clarity about what they stand for. I'm actually pretty impressed by the diversity of the Cabinet thus far, but not surprised that they're all Republicans. Remember, too, that any Democrat who comes into a Republican administration in a tight time like this ain't leaving as a Democrat.

Livonia, Mich.: George Bush states, in his book of speeches and policy statements, that the layers of management in government have increased under Clinton. Bush believes that government management should be flatter, and he will eliminate some of the layers. What do you think?

Paul Light: I wish him every good thing in tackling the layers. He could start by deciding not to appoint most of the "alter ego" deputies that work for the Senate-confirmed appointee--e.g., the chiefs of staff, associate deputy assistant secretaries, deputy associate deputy under secretaries. Bush doesn't have to go to Congress to get rid of those layers--he can just decide not to appoint them in the first place. (Those are real titles by the way!)

Washington, D.C.: I've been reading the discussions relating to the transitions on Stephen Barr's Federal Diary Live and other discussions. One question that repeatedly popped up is whether political appointees are really necessary? 6,000 is too much and too high. Maybe less than 300 is better?

washingtonpost.com: Check out Stephen Barr's Federal Diary Live, every Wednesday at noon EST.

Paul Light: It all depends on how you do the counting. If you look at the number of appointees as a percentage of the federal work force of 1.8 million civil servants, it is hardly a stunning percentage. But if you look at appointees as the percentage of layers between the top and bottom of departments, watch out! It isn't the number of appointees that matters at all. Rather, it is the way they sort into layer upon layer of oversight and interference. By my calculation, appointees occupy between a quarter and a third of all layers the federal government. Cut a thousand of them and you'd reduce the layers down dramatically. But we ought to delayer in the career civil service as well. Our goal should be no more than 10 layers between the top and bottom of the federal government--right now we have 30-40. Wait until Sec. O'Neill confronts that. He's never seen that kind of layering at Alcoa, I can tell you.

Fairfax, Va.: Many people looking for positions in the intelligence and law enforcement agencies might be disappointed that only career civil servants work there. Are there other agencies where there are no political appointees? Like the IRS and SSA? How come all have no political appointees below the rank of director?

Paul Light: There are a number of federal agencies with long career traditions. The best examples are the Bureau of Prisons, FBI, Census Bureau, CIA, Coast Guard, and U.S. Mint. They developed those traditions out of concern that political leaders might try to influence investigations or other administrative activities to favor one party or the other. I'm very much against policizing those agencies, but I do believe that many of these career-dominated agencies suffer from the same over layering that I wrote about just a bit ago. A layer is a layer is a layer, whether occupied by a political appointee or a career civil servant. Accountability is not in having more politicals, but in having few layers. That makes it easier for citizens to see the top of government from the bottom.

Brookline, Mass.: How involved has Bush been in the vetting of these nominees? It seems like he plays more of a "sign off" role to Cheney's picks. Wouldn't a president-elect want to personally expose himself to a variety of views before settling on a nominee - with deference to the candidate's privacy, of course.

Paul Light: I'm not sure what Bush's role has been, but I think we're overestimating Cheney's role a bit. The role of a good transition process is to narrow the choices to a relatively small number that can then be put to the president-elect. There is some evidence, for example, that Bush just plain wasn't happy with the first few picks that surfaced in the Treasury search, and pushed for new names. O'Neill wasn't really on anyone's public list until a week ago, neither was Whitman actually, or Martinez. That could be Bush's hand, or just a general product of vetting several competing candidates along the way who pulled out of their own accord.

Washington, D.C.: The history of the Watergate cause me to believe that all is fair in love and war when running for president. President-elect Bush had the best weapons to win. His father the former president and former head of the CIA and his brother the governor of Florida. Why did Gore take so long to admit defeat?

Paul Light: Gore stayed with it because hope springs eternal, I suppose.

Apoka, Fla.: Rev. Falwell is reportedly paying close attention to the cabinet appointments, with the expectation of getting a pro-life policy body. If my count is correct, as of this date, all but one of the appointments is pro-life. Does Falwell’s interest confirm the notion that the "Religious Right," like the Democrats, recognize that the people advising Bush may be critical predictor of future policy and that Bush cannot be trusted to make principled policy decisions himself?

Paul Light: I'm not sure what Falwell's role is. I'm sure he likes to believe it is great and encompassing, but I rather suspect he's a minor player in all this. Better to think a bit about the role of folks who aren't on the news programs. What's Ralph Reed's input (former head of the Christian Coalition)? Where's Grover Norquist in all this (current head of Americans for Tax Reform)? My hunch is that they are having a much greater impact through quiet lobbying than folks like Falwell. There's an old saying from the transition crowd: those who say they know what's going on don't know, and those that do know what's going on don't say. That's good advice all the way around.

Washington, D.C.: I suspect that there will be a great deal of jockeying for the lower-level, more specialized commission seats - agencies that do important work but aren't always in the public eye, like FERC, CFTC, etc. Any thoughts on whether Bush/Cheney will have preferences, or will the usual methodology - Lott picks - be employed?

Paul Light: Take a look at the organization of the transition teams, which was announced yesterday for input on this one. Many of the people who show up on the specialized transition teams will find their way into the agencies later on. I'm not an enthusiast regarding the value of most of these teams--they are more important to the members of the team than they are to the eventual cabinet officers. But there are places, especially at places like FERC, where you'll see some names pop up that lead directly to appointments. Most of the time, these teams do their work and are never heard from again.

Baltimore, Md.: I am a retired Coast Guardsman, and I can tell you that our commandant has always come from the ranks of the Officer Corps, and almost always a current flag officer in the rank of vice-admiral or rear admiral. I believe that a more junior officer was appointed during the time of FDR. Anyway, no one within the CG could ever fathom the thought of slapping a uniform on an outsider and making him/her the boss, but is it something that would be given serious thought in this administration?

Paul Light: No one's thinking about it, but again, there's always a temptation to politicize career agencies in the hopes that they might be more responsive.

Washington, D.C.: I recall that in January '89, one of the first speeches George W. Bush gave was to senior government executives, and that he stressed how important they were to accomplishing his policy objectives. How tuned-in to the policy management of the federal bureaucracy is the current Bush transition team?

Paul Light: The Bush people have a pretty good graps of the federal bureaucracy, and I think they share President Bush's general respect for the public service. I haven't heard a word about the key management jobs. Key signal to come with the naming of the OMB director. I've been arguing that Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith should go to OMB, but obviously have no influence whatsoever.

Washington, D.C.: Do you see any front-runners for secretary of education? Might this be 'the' Democrat.

Paul Light: Doubtful that a Democrat will be named to Education. Former NJ Governor Tom Kean would have been great, but it's not clear that the Cabinet can hold two former NJ governors.

Sarasota, Fla.: Given that many polls show that the population at large as well as Chairman Greenspan believe the the surplus should be devoted to paying down the national debt rather than for a tax cut, how do you account for Bush's insistence on proceeding with a cut? I know he campaigned on the issue, but what do you think is the real reasoning behind this position?

Paul Light: There's nothing more popular than a tax cut. Democrats and Republicans love 'em. It's not clear that a cut of more modest size would do great harm to the economy, but there's a lot more than economic theory driving this.

Fairfax, Calif.: I remember Brookings, where my father, Norman B. Ture, spent some time. . .

What will it take to get the United States to sign on to the Kyoto Protocols, promote wind and solar energy, and practice economic policies of Paul Hawken's Natural Step, or Amory Lovins' conservation theories?

Martha E. Ture
Sr. Editor
Native News Online

Paul Light: How nice to have your question.

Short answer: it will have to get a whole lot hotter before we'll get the Kyoto Protocols approved.

Washington, D.C.: Has there been any talk of who might be candidates for transportation secretary?

Paul Light: I thought for a while that the Heritage Foundation's Elaine Chao was a lock for this job, but am no longer sure. She was Andrew Card's deputy secretary over there under Bush, Sr., so he clearly knows her well. Cleck the rumor mill and Al Kamen's column to see what's up.

washingtonpost.com: Check out Al Kamen's "In the Loop" column.

Washington, D.C.: When was the last time anyone cared about the secretaries of agriculture, commerce or HUD?

Paul Light: All three are considered important appointments for specific stakeholders. You might have thrown in VA and Labor, too. All are departments where a good appointment is likely to help a president less than a bad appointment will hurt. You've got to cover your political bases, make sure you reach the target group, and avoid a major controversy. Bush exceeded that threshold in both of his appointments, and broke with historical precedent in nominating the first woman ever at Agriculture. Don't expect that gender breakthrough at Defense, however.

washingtonpost.com: That was our last question for Paul Light. Thank you to Mr. Light and to all who participated.

Automatically Update Page    |    Get New Responses    |    Submit Question