We shouldn't have a Secretary of the Arts. Indeed, not only shouldn't we have a Secretary of the Arts, but we arguably shouldn't have a Secretary of Education, Interior, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, or Veteran's Affairs. And not only shouldn't we have a Secretary of Homeland Security, but we should get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, too. Oh, and stop letting the director of National Drug Control Policy in the front door.This isn't, of course, because I'm against education, or health, or the interior, but inflating the cabinet into an unwieldy collection of symbolic representatives assures that it's largely a waste of most everyone's time. And simply expanding it would be even worse. An agency's position in the cabinet is only meaningful if its presence is the will of the president. UN Secretary, for instance, will be cabinet-level under Obama but was not under Bush. This works as actual evidence of Obama's priorities: Susan Rice is in those meetings because her position is meant to rise in power. The nation's chief drug control officer is there because someone else put him there and no one has quite had the heart or the guts to tell him to leave.But there is precedent for culling the cabinet: Director of FEMA was cabinet-level until 2003. Director of the CIA was cabinet level until 2001. Postmaster was cabinet level until 1971. The problem, however, is that it's easy to elevate an agency to cabinet-level and hard to knock them back. What you need is a full reset with every presidency such that only a handful of cabinet and cabinet-level positions are permanent -- say, State, Defense, Treasury, OMB, Energy, and attorney general -- and then each president has discretion over the composition of the cabinet beyond that core. Once the president's term expires, however, so too do their choices, and the next president gets to build out his or her advisers anew. That would make for a more dynamic cabinet that's both more useful to the president and a more authentic expression of his or her priorities. DO WE NEED THIS MUCH CABINET?
We shouldn't have a Secretary of the Arts. Indeed, not only shouldn't we have a Secretary of the Arts, but we arguably shouldn't have a Secretary of Education, Interior, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, or Veteran's Affairs. And not only shouldn't we have a Secretary of Homeland Security, but we should get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, too. Oh, and stop letting the director of National Drug Control Policy in the front door.This isn't, of course, because I'm against education, or health, or the interior, but inflating the cabinet into an unwieldy collection of symbolic representatives assures that it's largely a waste of most everyone's time. And simply expanding it would be even worse. An agency's position in the cabinet is only meaningful if its presence is the will of the president. UN Secretary, for instance, will be cabinet-level under Obama but was not under Bush. This works as actual evidence of Obama's priorities: Susan Rice is in those meetings because her position is meant to rise in power. The nation's chief drug control officer is there because someone else put him there and no one has quite had the heart or the guts to tell him to leave.But there is precedent for culling the cabinet: Director of FEMA was cabinet-level until 2003. Director of the CIA was cabinet level until 2001. Postmaster was cabinet level until 1971. The problem, however, is that it's easy to elevate an agency to cabinet-level and hard to knock them back. What you need is a full reset with every presidency such that only a handful of cabinet and cabinet-level positions are permanent -- say, State, Defense, Treasury, OMB, Energy, and attorney general -- and then each president has discretion over the composition of the cabinet beyond that core. Once the president's term expires, however, so too do their choices, and the next president gets to build out his or her advisers anew. That would make for a more dynamic cabinet that's both more useful to the president and a more authentic expression of his or her priorities. 
