With Christina Romer departing her job as the chair of the President's Council of Economic advisers, there's been a steady burbling of potential replacements; among the top-mentioned candidates is Laura Tyson, who did the same job for Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Over the weekend, she had a piece in The New York Times laying out her economic agenda: "Why We Need A Second Stimulus." It's a sound agenda based on a correct assessment of the national debate, which Tyson says is "skewed, with far too much focus on the deficit and far too little on unemployment." It's hard not read this as something of a job application, reminiscent of White House NEC Director Larry Summers' 2008 campaign, often conducted in his Financial Times column, to demonstrate sufficient relevance to be tapped for another top economic policy job. The White House is hoping to find someone who can deliver their economic message to greater effect, and that's perhaps what they'll take away from Tyson's article and whatever reaction it engenders. Tyson would be a sound pick; as a woman, she has something of an advantage over other candidates: Romer's departure means that there will be no women in the highest-level White House economics jobs, so replacing her with another female economist seems likely. Unfortunately, it's not likely that Tyson -- or anyone else -- can do much more than Romer did in the job. Tyson's ideas in this article don't differ from what administration officials believe except in her willingness to argue for something that seems, at this point, politically untenable. Unfortunately, the problem in the administration hasn't necessarily been quality of ideas but the ability to translate them into law.
-- Tim Fernholz
