It says alot about the current Administration that fewer than 10% of the Cabinet-level appointees have been selected with a background in private-sector experience. In the midst of a recession of almost-historic proportions, we see a President who insists on actively ignoring any input from people whose experience gives them unique insight into the problem.
"You lost," as it were. Or, as the Great Uniter put it at another occasion, "Get out of the way." (No matter how you put it, it does give one the impression that he's keen on telling half of the country to "STFU.")
Anyway, I'm wondering what you think about this trend?
Nick Schultz, who posted the chart above online, finds the lack of private sector representation "Remarkable." My good friend Warner Todd Huston calls it "Statism."
Me? I think it's just a continuation of the unbounded arrogance that Barack Hussein Obama, The Only Man Who Has The Answer, has shown since day one of his neverending Presidential campaign.
Your mileage may vary... which is why I'll leave the last word up to you.
I saw this on Boortz's site today, but don't think it really means much. For instance, if Bush stocked 50% of his cabinet with lobbyists, technically he would have a minimum of 50% of his cabinet stocked with those with private sector experience.
Unless it can be parsed as to what is or isn't considered private sector (for instance, a CEO of a defense or other government contracting company versus a CEO of a goods producing company), I don't hold much stock in this chart. I do agree it's an interesting anomaly, but don't think it means anything more than Obama's belief that government is great on its own... and really, after all of this "What change?", it's refreshing to see something that actually makes the guy stand out.