President Obama incorporated technology into his election campaign in an unprecedented way, became known as the YouTube president within the first week of being elected, and seems to be forward thinking in his views on innovation and technology, which is why we endorsed him last year. But now we are almost four months into his tenure as President and leader of the free world, and the Obama administration has yet to name a Chief Technology Officer. They have, I should note, appointed a Chief Information Officer, Vivek Kundra, the former CTO of Washington D.C., whose office is being investigated by the FBI for bribery and money laundering (which apparently occurred when he was the boss).
Still, it’s confusing as to why the President is taking his sweet time to appoint a CTO, when there are clear issues that a CTO could be working on. For starters, there are tech-centric issues like the FCC’s National Broadband Plan to give all American’s high speed internet access, and the DTV Delay Act, which was signed into law in early February. There’s the Open Government initiative, through Change.gov, which seems to be in a stalemate. And certainly a CTO could lend his or her expertise and leadership in incorporating technology into the President’s health-care, education and energy initiatives. Take a look at the technology issues page of the White House’s website for a more extensive to-do list awaiting our future CTO.
And there’s definitely no dearth of talent for this position. The names that have been bandied about for the position even before President Obama was victorious in November include Bill Gates, Microsoft founder; Padmasree Warrior, Cisco’s CTO; Eric Schmidt, Google CEO and longtime Obama supporter (but he apparently said no to the job); Vint Cerf, the so-called “father of the internet” and VP at Google; Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law professor and founder of the school’s Center for Internet and Society; Ed Felton, Princeton computer science professor and founder of Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy; Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and CEO; and Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s CEO.
Perhaps the Obama administration is being extra careful not to make another “Kundra” mistake and is carefully evaluating the backgrounds of each candidate. But this should hardly take 5 months. Regardless of what the holdup is, we need someone with true technology smarts in the White House soon. I mean, how hard can it be to find a technology exec that has paid his or her taxes? Give us your favorite candidates for America’s CTO in comments. Or take our poll.
It’s confusing as to why the financial crisis, the Middle East, the federal budget, and health care might be a bit higher on their list than this? really?
Heh. Yeah. And does someone really think that Steve Ballmer is (or should be) a candidate for such a post? Seriously?
Ballmer isn’t a candidate — nor Gates, nor Bezos. It’s all just speculation.
I continue to hear it will be Warrior. Regardless, the real clout is with Kundra, who has budget and policy authority.
Vint Cerf was just at Rochester Institute of Technology last week giving a talk on a variety of topics.
I spoke with him briefly afterward, and it appears he is involved in a ton of projects right now, and seems pretty content doing what he is doing.
Personally I think Lessig is best suited for the job, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard him turn it down when questioned before as well.
Follow me now @ http://twitter.com/IanMikutel
So um.. why can’t we vote for Al Gore? He friggin INVENTED THE INTERNET!
I’m dead cereal guys! It’s a man-bear-pig!. Half man, half bear, half pig.
Financial Crisis – Innovation in the tech sector is the only thing we have going for our economy.
Middle East – Green Tech oil replacements are the only thing that allow us to get out of the region (which is the only thing that will stop the violence).
Federal Budget – We can cut standard of living or increase revenues. Spurring the economy does the much-preferred later.
Health Care – Plenty of tech there. Digitizing hospital facilities and records saves money and lives.
I find it bizarre that people (tv, radio, now blog commenters it seems) keep bringing up that we have more pressing issues than this or that. That’s absolutely true and has always been true. But it is hardly a reason to ignore minor issues. Why not multitask and take care of minor things instead of waiting for them to become a serious problem?
thank you. that’s what I wanted to say after I read the first para
+1
-infinity
ha.
I’m all for critiquing Pres. Obama; however, it would help if you had a decent idea about the pace of appointments. The present administration has appointed people at one of the fastest paces in modern history.
Given Kundra is already in the position of CIO, worked on the transition, and is presumably hard at work now, what’s the rush?
Vivek grabbed the proposed CTO and ran from the store. He was caught after a brief footchase.
Who cares? At every company I ever worked for the CTO was a useless boob who hired cronies and/or overpaid and equally useless IT consultants (and was usually 20 years out of sync with what was actually happening in tech).
That says more about you and the companies you chose to work for than it does anything else.
Sounds like govt to me.
Hey Leena, the government has no role to play in the technology sector or in fact any industry. The private industries & enterprises will sort themselves out. This sort of state-worshiping (including lobbyists who lobbies for more government interference via legislation) from the likes of you is what holding all industries back.
The government should butt out of trying to meddle in the affairs of private industries.
Hey Falafulu – how do you think we got into the current global financial crisis? you think govt put us in this mess?
Ben, have been sleeping all these years and not realized that the current financial crisis was caused by government interference in private enterprises (including the part owned government institutions as Freddie Mac & Fannie May) by forcing them to lend to low income earners who were likely to default on their loans. Guess what? That exactly what actually happened. Here is a good summary about it:
Clinton Democrats are to blame for the credit crunch
Suppose you own a small bank for instance. Would you lend money voluntarily to someone (perhaps a low earner) whom likely not to keep up with the repayment of the loan according to your self-interest best judgment? I bet not. How about if the government steps in and says, hey Ben, we require (legislation) you to give loan to those low earners because they need to buy their own homes. You pretty much say no, would you? Otherwise, you might as well shut shop and close the business down. In this case you’re forced to do things against your self-interest (which you would refuse to lend to low income earners if it is your decision alone).
President Reagan was right, when he said that the government is the problem and not the solution.
You’re full of it.
My favorite quote from President Reagan was:
The government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
This is true. The more the government interferes in the affairs of private industries, the more problems it created.
My second favorite quote from Reagan was:
Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
This is the primary role of any government. Protect the rights of the people and not violate them. Anyone who doesn’t agree with President Reagan’s 2 statements above, is a socialist and a state-worshiper (ie, those who look to the state as a nanny to run their lives).
Exactly Falafulu the government should never invest in large-scale public interest or defense oriented projects like broad-spectrum anti-biotics or darpa net.
founder.umoja.com said…
…defense oriented projects … or darpa net
Founder, you’ve just agreed with me, without you knowing that you did so.
I’ll recap what I posted my previous message about what Reagan said:
Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Defense department (its personnels, darpa research, their projects, R&Ds, etc,…) is there in the first place to protect its citizens (ie, its people) against external threat. I support the establishment of defense and law enforcement agencies plus judiciary system to protect the people and this is the primary role that Reagan meant in his speech. The government shouldn’t step out of this primary role to become involve in running its citizen’s lives by way of nanny. Legislation here and legislation there, like that people don’t know how to run their lives.
Private industries can run themselves without government interference. Companies will rise and fall on their own and again without government interference. When private enterprises make the right decisions and run their businesses well, then they prosper and if wrong decisions are being made, then they fall. That how it should be in a free-market. Don’t blame someone if some industries failed and lobby for more legislation . Just simply allow them to fail and let the best fittest survive. Those who failed will no doubt come back and do better in their next business endeavour.
I have no interest in your explanations of “limited government” and sanctifying Reagan. You “explanations” have proven you are a partisan hack.
I agree with Falafulu, in general. However, banking system could be a different ball game, I guess. I was panicky when I realized the banks were falling like dead birds. I was very very happy when govt. interfered and increased the FDIC limits and assured they stay behind them, if needed.
The irony of getting to spout this nonsense on a government created/funded project
none of the canidates are worthy. a true cto to the president should be a person that is 100% committed to changing the world with digital broadband technology. problem…. the more you utilize tech the less gov jobs are preserved and or created. govt’s dont like efficiency. with failure theres more money, social control and govt jobs. nobody wants to truly revolutionize america with digital tech. because tech thrives on efficiency fully enforced it would remove alot of worthless govt, city county and state employees from employment. all city, county, state and federal agencies are scared of tech.
GovernmentLocator.com – abide yourself
Not going to happen
Presumably, the most qualified and obvious candidates have all paid their taxes during the last decade, thereby disqualifying themselves for inclusion on the Obama ‘team’?
Hey wait a minute… why isn’t Steve Jobs on the list?
Because he would never take the job.
“Taking his sweet time….”
What kind of journalism is this. The guys got enough to worry about. Maybe he doesn’t want to make a bad decision and appoint someone who can’t carry out the responsibilities of the role, just to appease people like you.
Ridiculous post.
+1
Who should be the CTO of the USA?
…
The proper answer would be: None of the above.
A CTO? OMG. You socialists are freaking me out
You mean you believed everything both candidates were saying during the political race? I didn’t believe either of them a single bit.
Mike Arrington for CTO!
I second that!
Thank god that would never happen. He doesn’t have any of the experience required for such a role.
@New001 . Dude you surpass charlie chaplin
Google’s interview process takes longer than 5 months. Why should the government move any faster?
LOL you endores the least experienced candidate!? No economic background, no military background, and no executive background. LOL Obama bows in the presence of the Saudi King! The 9/11 terrorists were Saudis! http://www.yout...player_embedded
To: RecycledBottle.
Do you think that you’re a judicious beyond the realm of human comprehension?
One should stop living by the medium of the “internet” and step into a reality of culture differences including (ones’ habit and costumes).
While you might think that Obama bows in the presence of the Saudi King is case of disdain, you’re a completely sick, freak, lunatic, ill educated American and probably one who doesn’t possess a passport.
It is not uncommon for one regardless of their socio-economic state in a given society to bows in the presence of Kings or Queens.
Jorge W Bush has done so in the past in the presence of the Queen of England and so are other leaders in regards to other aristocrats around the world.
Have a nice day!
wrong… no US President has ever bowed to the Queen of England, and it is totally inappropriate for the US President to bow to a head of state of another country, especially Saudi Arabia. It was a major gaffe.
So, if Obama did bow and it is a gaffe — waht do you say when Bush bowed and held hands with the Saudi king?
You might probably be one of those Americans who think that London is the capital of Europe and are unable to name any African or Latin America head of state.
You should watch, read and be acquainted with the world social and economic affairs. Sometimes I think that Americans are living in a socio-Marxist and elitist associate.
You are led to believe everything you do or think is good and should be superimposing upon others regardless? Wrong.
I’m not trying to be pragmatic I just want you to learn and think concisely outside the American sphere.
I recommend you to be more intuitive in foreign affairs.
Note: don’t forget that Saudi Arabia and China equally hold approximately 3.5% of American GDP.
You shouldn’t be surprised if your president or any head of state for that matter bows in the presence of the Saudi King.
@founder.umoja.com
Bush did NOT bow to the Saudi king.
The video that purports to show that is of a reward ceremony (or something like that) and Bush is bending down so that the Saudi king could hang a medal around his neck because Bush is a lot taller than him.
@aristocrat
Maybe you aren’t American, and so cannot understand. The whole point of American independence was so that no American ever had to bow down to another.
If the Saudi king had bowed first, then a slight bow may have been considered polite. But a deep bend at the waist from our president to the head of another country (and, if you notice, all the Queen of England got was a slight nod of the head…) is NEVER acceptable as it says “You are ‘above’ me”.
Also, holding “approximately 3.5% of American GDP” is NOT a reason to bow to anyone. Do you bow to your mortgage holder? Of course not.
Bush not only held hands with the Saudi king but he kissed him on the cheek. Also, after 9-11 he made special arrangements for the Saudis in the US to fly out of the States while other planes were grounded. So clearly this means that your beloved Bush is a terrorist supporter. Asshat…
I agree, probably the last thing on his mind right now!
AND… you didn’t mention anyone associated with Apple!? Al Gore is on Apple’s Board of Directors… You would think that the one company that has revolutionized technology in the 70, 80s, 90s, and 2000s would have someone on staff at one time or another who knows something about technology.
I say it should be Kevin Rose, or Steve Jobs.
Bill Gates???? Really???
Do we really want someone with such a conflict of interest? Quite frankly, almost all of the candidates listed present the same problem. Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric Schmidt (Apple & Google), Jeff Bezos (Amazon) & Steve Ballmer (Microsoft) all own large stakes in industry leading corporations. It would be nearly impossible for any of these people to take on political roles effectively.
I voted for Vint Cerf, yet even he presents a minor conflict with his role at Google.
Welcome back Cheney’s no-bid contracts…
Since I like the tech field very much and would hate to see layers of red tape added to it, my vote would be NO ONE.
Let’s not cripple the goose that lays the golden egg.
hah exactly… Why do people want the government involved in anything? It fucks up everything it touches!
This is the wrong time to care whether Obama appoints a CTO. I couldn’t care less until we solve the current financial issues. Besides, like you said, he did appoint a CIO.
And yet, he hasn’t even filled out the 20 or so spots in his treasury dept…
THIS. How many of Hussein al-Chicago’s nominees for various positions have had to step aside because of tax problems (though that didn’t stop Tax Cheat Timmy at Treasury), conflicts of interest, or other problems that we were assured should have been caught in the Most Thorough Vetting Process Evar?
Obama needs to get all the EXISTING jobs filled before he worries about filling a NEW one.
Bill Gates
Silly billy…. Al Gore is the father of the Internet
Who is that guy in the top left corner?
Why would any of these people want to subject themselves to the ridiculously misdirected scrutiny we put on politicians?
They can all do more good in the private sector.
Misdirected scrutiny???? These people legislate our lives. They deserve every bit of scrutiny the people of this county give them.
Meanwhile millions flock to TMZ to see where Angeina Jolie and Brad Pitt are shopping…
There is a reason the best of the best stay out of politics.
Generally, politicians are morons for the most part. To become one when you have proven yourself quite worthy of private enterprise would be foolish. Those types shape the industry from the private sector, not from the heavy hand of a red tape govt.
And people think it’s hard to get a procurment through Nationwide’s IT dept? Try the govt. Ugh….
Anyone who accepts that CTO job is likely a moron himself or altruistic to a fault (thereby making him a moron).
I am all for journalists making rational arguments and writing good pieces that criticize the government. However, I didn’t find this one to add much value or substance, but instead it was written in a way that made me doubt the writer is aware of the current big picture we face today esp. when she says:
Still, it’s confusing as to why the President is taking his sweet time to appoint a CTO, when there are clear issues that a CTO could be working on.
I’m sure the president isn’t picking his nose and taking his sweet time. As far as I remember too, he is the one that came up with the idea of a CTO, so I’m sure he comprehends the importance of the issues a person in that position will come to address. I believe the topic of the article is valid to bring up, but the angle taken and the approach just made it sound amateurish.
Just a bit of honest feedback
Leena, math isn’t your strong suit is it now? Obama took office Jan 20 and at the time of posting this article it is April 11. Now how do you figure that is almost four months? Try almost three!
You know…
Obama COULD have gotten a jump on it and started vetting people BEFORE Jan 20…
He obviously couldn’t post them, but he could have started the vetting process…
I agree with other commenters here. Those issues definitely don’t sound as urgent as getting the economy back on track.
It’s simple, the messiah is a liar and you all bought into his crap. I gotta say this before he bans speech critical of the government.
On a strategic level, security should be the number one priority, especially for the CTO as opposed to CIO. Cyber-defense plus the whole range of technically and socially based issues – some of which are rooted very deep – that are causing accelerating damage and widespread/accelerating FUD right now. The ideal CTO in this climate would be Richard A. Clarke.
Give it to Lessig. He and obama are a perfect fit. And when its all over they can do a buddy cop drama for television, Lessig and Obama in “The Clown and the Con Man”.
Is America a corporation? Isn’t a CTO something that corporations have? Should America be run as if it was one big corporation? Does every important job in the country need to be raised to the Federal level? Surely there are some tasks that should be left in the private sector?
What, no Jerry Yang?
LOL! LOL!
Ya whats with that? Question: Is there anyone making good money wking from home right now??? I need to know, looking for a way and a route to fallow. Can you help? HUGH
How about none of the above?
They all have their own agenda’s that have nothing to do with whats good for the USA. Why the hell would you put a Microsoft anyone in that office? Vint? He’s a good guy, but I wouldn’t call hm the leader of the new technology.
None of these guys are who I would want as a CTO for the USA. Especially not some academic from Princeton or anywhere else.
Find me some person (and where are the women in your list?) who knows their shit, and has the cred to do the JOB. I will be behind that for sure.
Wake up and Smell the Coffee…
The obvious answer to everything is more government oversight and intervention. That’s what the English Crown said in 1775. What could possibly make something better than government involvement? Those Founding Fathers must have been a real bunch of imbeciles creating an atmosphere of freedom where the corpulent clumsy thumb of government wasn’t squishing every ambitious endeavor into the mud whenever it got the chance. What was wrong with them? Obama’s a freaking genius. Let him do whatever he thinks is best. As for me, he’s my big brother and my mother and my savior. Amen.
Why would it surprise anyone when Obama does not follow through on his word?
No more lobbyist
No more partisan politics
No more “business as usual”
No more deficit spending
No more politics of fear
People are going to slowly figure out that they were sold a bill of goods, and there’s going to be a lot of disappointed people when they find out that not only do they still have to pay their own rent/mortgage, but their taxes/energy bills/cost of living have just gone through the roof.
Let me get this straight:
You complain that his SecTreas is going after VC money. You complain that VC money is drying up (most likely because VCs don’t want to get walloped by ridiculously high taxes, no doubt.) You complain that he hasn’t named a CTO to “start tackling all sorts of problems” (despite the fact this runs counter to the entrepreneurship you promote.)
So you’re reaping what you have sown, you have voter’s remorse, and you’re complaining. Pardon me that I’m not sympathetic.
You endorsed him, dear Comrades @ TechCrunch. You voted for him. Don’t like the results of your decision? Either admit your mistake or shut up.