Czar, Czar everywher a Czar

[Perchoutofwater]

I know I like many others were asleep at the wheel during much of the last administration. I know that just like Obama, Bush and every president before him since Nixon has had a few Czars. I know FDR started the practice, but Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and even LBJ did not use them. The question is how much validity does what is written below have? Even if a Czar is a legitimate position, should their not be some type of congressional approval?

 

Czarist Washington

 

By Kay Bailey Hutchison

Sunday, September 13, 2009

 

The Framers of the Constitution knew that the document founding our democracy must be the anchor of liberty and the blueprint for its preservation. Wisely, they provided a balance of powers to ensure that no individual and no single arm of government could ever wield unchecked authority against the American people.

 

Nearly 250 years later, these critical lines of separation are being obscured by a new class of federal officials. A few of them have formal titles, but most are simply known as "czars." They hold unknown levels of power over broad swaths of policy. Under the Obama administration, we have an unprecedented 32 czar posts (a few of which it has yet to fill), including a "car czar," a "pay czar" and an "information czar." There are also czars assigned to some of the broadest and most consequential topics in policy, including health care, terrorism, economics and key geographic regions.

 

So what do these czars do? Do they advise the president? Or do they impose the administration's agenda on the heads of federal agencies and offices who have been vetted and confirmed by the Senate? Unfortunately -- and in direct contravention of the Framers' intentions -- virtually no one can say with certainty what these individuals do or what limits are placed on their authority. We don't know if they are influencing or implementing policy. We don't know if they possess philosophical views or political affiliations that are inappropriate or overreaching in the context of their work.

 

This is precisely the kind of ambiguity the Framers sought to prevent. Article One tasks the legislative branch with establishing federal agencies, defining what they do, determining who leads them and overseeing their operations. Article Two requires the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate when appointing certain officials to posts of consequence. Thus, authority is shared between government branches, guaranteeing the American people transparency and accountability.

 

As the senior Republican on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I oversee legislation and agencies that cover policy areas as vast and varied as trade, technology, transit, consumer protection and commercial regulation. As many as 10 of the 32 czars functionally fall under my committee's jurisdiction. Yet neither I nor the committee chairman have clear authority to compel these czars to appear before our panel and report what they are doing. The Obama administration presented only two of these officials for our consideration before they assumed their duties. We have had no opportunity to probe the others' credentials.

 

Recently we saw the kinds of dangerous details that can slip by when a powerful federal official isn't put through the Senate confirmation process. Before assuming the post of "green jobs czar," Van Jones had engaged in such troublesome activities as endorsement of fringe theories about the Sept. 11 attacks. He has ties to a socialist group. The Senate confirmation process would typically provide an appropriate forum for identifying and discussing these types of issues and for allowing for public input. Jones's case highlighted the lack of accountability that is becoming commonplace under the Obama administration.

 

While Jones rightly resigned, there are dozens of other administration czars about whom we still know very little. It is Congress's duty to know who is serving at the highest levels of government, what they are doing, and what qualifications or complications these people bring to the job. It is also our responsibility to make this information known to the people who have elected us to serve and protect them. This is how we ensure accountability.

 

The deployment of this many czars sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the Constitution's guarantee of separated powers. It must be stopped. President Obama should submit each of his many policy czars to the Senate so that we can review their qualifications, roles and the limits on their authority. To deliver anything less is to deny the American public the accountability and transparency the Constitution guarantees.

 

The writer, a Republican senator from Texas, is running for governor of that state.

 

Link to above.

[muck]

America has had more czars than (iirc) Russia ever did. Anyone besides me find that interesting?

[AtomicCEO]

Have to agree here! This is the 2nd worst administration in the last 10 years!!!

[Perchoutofwater]

Have to agree here! This is the 2nd worst administration in the last 10 years!!!

 

Do you not see this as a problem? Honestly the last good president we had was Regan. After him they have started getting progressively worse as far as I'm concerned. I wish you had brought this up when Bush was president.

[gbpfan1231]

Have to agree here! This is the 2nd worst administration in the last 10 years!!!

Normal Person: Is the health care reform good for america?

 

Obama Supporter: Bush sucked

 

Normal Person: Where will the money come from to pay for this health care?

 

Obama Supporter: Bush sucked

 

Normal Person: Why so many Czars? Is that a good thing?

 

Obama Supporter: Bush sucked

 

Normal Person: Are these bailouts working?

 

Obama Supporter: Bush Sucked.

[bushwacked]

Normal Person: Where will the money come from to pay for this health care?

 

 

Anyone remember the Shaun Cassidy made for tv movie "Like Normal People?"

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079471/

[masterwing]

i dont even like the word czar

 

it sounds too powerful

 

 

the governmenbt needs to be overhauled completely

 

revolution!

[AtomicCEO]

Normal Person: Is the health care reform good for america?

 

Obama Supporter: Bush sucked

 

Normal Person: Where will the money come from to pay for this health care?

 

Obama Supporter: Bush sucked

 

Normal Person: Why so many Czars? Is that a good thing?

 

Obama Supporter: Bush sucked

 

Normal Person: Are these bailouts working?

 

Obama Supporter: Bush Sucked.

 

Perch has started 100 threads since Obama became president about how bad he sucks. Most of it has been shown to be BS.

 

If he wants to engage in actual debate, he's going to have to be a little bit more selective. I refer you to the case of Crying Boy v. Wolf.

[gbpfan1231]

Perch has started 100 threads since Obama became president about how bad he sucks. Most of it has been shown to be BS.

 

If he wants to engage in actual debate, he's going to have to be a little bit more selective. I refer you to the case of Crying Boy v. Wolf.

Not the point...

 

For example I have asked people - what specifically has Obama done that has worked and is helping this country? The answers I usually get are "Well, Bush left him with junk".

 

What specifically has he done?

 

Let me add I am not politically smart - I just would like to understand this.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Honestly the last good president we had was Regan.

[Clubfoothead]

And?

[AtomicCEO]

For example I have asked people - what specifically has Obama done that has worked and is helping this country? The answers I usually get are "Well, Bush left him with junk".

 

What specifically has he done?

 

He has focused the country on domestic issues that have been far too long ignored like healthcare reform and environment.

 

He has implemented policies that have gradually had an impact on the economy enough to change the conversation from talking about the possibility of depression into how long the recession recovery is going to take (not as long as we thought).

 

He has put our country back on the road to having respect instead of scorn in the global community.

 

For a little under 8 months, not so bad... considering.

[gbpfan1231]

He has focused the country on domestic issues that have been far too long ignored like healthcare reform and environment.

 

He has implemented policies that have gradually had an impact on the economy enough to change the conversation from talking about the possibility of depression into how long the recession recovery is going to take (not as long as we thought).

 

He has put our country back on the road to having respect instead of scorn in the global community.

 

For a little under 8 months, not so bad... considering.

Focused the country on domestic issues? Seems like there is a huge split between parties bigger than ever before and major player in that is health care - I am not saying it is his fault but I am not sure this focus is a good thing and one of the major reasons there is such a foucs is because people are freaking out about how we are going to pay for it. Not sure this counts as a real good thing??

 

What policies have had a positive impact? This what I am getting at - an answer with no specifics? I am not trying to rip the guy but it just does not seem that there is anyhting specific??

 

Considering what? RIght back to the original comment.

[evil_gop_liars]

Focused the country on domestic issues? Seems like there is a huge split between parties bigger than ever before and major player in that is health care - I am not saying it is his fault but I am not sure this focus is a good thing and one of the major reasons there is such a foucs is because people are freaking out about how we are going to pay for it. Not sure this counts as a real good thing??

 

What policies have had a positive impact? This what I am getting at - an answer with no specifics? I am not trying to rip the guy but it just does not seem that there is anyhting specific??

 

Considering what? RIght back to the original comment.

 

I would like to welcome back science. Using and understanding science has been missing for far to long.

[caddyman]

Focused the country on domestic issues? Seems like there is a huge split between parties bigger than ever before and major player in that is health care - I am not saying it is his fault but I am not sure this focus is a good thing and one of the major reasons there is such a foucs is because people are freaking out about how we are going to pay for it. Not sure this counts as a real good thing??

 

What policies have had a positive impact? This what I am getting at - an answer with no specifics? I am not trying to rip the guy but it just does not seem that there is anyhting specific??

 

Considering what? RIght back to the original comment.

Therein lies the problem with this president and his followers. They are so delirious that Bush is gone, that is all they care about. You won't get any specifics because there are none. Listen to this president speak and you won't hear many specifics. And the few times he has been specific he has been proven wrong...like when he said unemployment would not exceed 8%. He is Jimmy Carter all over again. One term and bye bye.

[Perchoutofwater]

Focused the country on domestic issues? Seems like there is a huge split between parties bigger than ever before and major player in that is health care - I am not saying it is his fault but I am not sure this focus is a good thing and one of the major reasons there is such a foucs is because people are freaking out about how we are going to pay for it. Not sure this counts as a real good thing??

 

What policies have had a positive impact? This what I am getting at - an answer with no specifics? I am not trying to rip the guy but it just does not seem that there is anyhting specific??

 

Considering what? RIght back to the original comment.

 

I know all the unknowns about his policies, and how they are going to affect my taxes and business are preventing me from expanding my operation, and I know of three other business owners that will tell you the same thing. Until we know how bad Obama is going to hurt us with health care reform, cap and trade, and just paying of the stealfromus plan we aren't going to be hiring anyone. Imagine how much better the economy would be doing if he would just say, hey we aren't going to pend the rest of the stealfromus plan and we are going to scrap health care and cap and trade until unemployment is under 6.5%. But no, he'd rather get his agenda passed than have the country improved. Here is what I don't understand, maybe Atomic can explain it to a dumb yokel like me, if roughly 2% of American's not being able to afford insurance are qualify for assistance is such a "crisis" then why the health care reforms don't go into affect until 2013? Could it be he knows the majority of Americans oppose him in this and he feels he has to get it passed this year to avoid losing the house next year, but at the same time he knows health care "reform" is going to hurt the economy and he doesn't want to do that until after he is re-elected?

[gbpfan1231]

I know all the unknowns about his policies, and how they are going to affect my taxes and business are preventing me from expanding my operation, and I know of three other business owners that will tell you the same thing. Until we know how bad Obama is going to hurt us with health care reform, cap and trade, and just paying of the stealfromus plan we aren't going to be hiring anyone. Imagine how much better the economy would be doing if he would just say, hey we aren't going to pend the rest of the stealfromus plan and we are going to scrap health care and cap and trade until unemployment is under 6.5%. But no, he'd rather get his agenda passed than have the country improved. Here is what I don't understand, maybe Atomic can explain it to a dumb yokel like me, if roughly 2% of American's not being able to afford insurance are qualify for assistance is such a "crisis" then why the health care reforms don't go into affect until 2013? Could it be he knows the majority of Americans oppose him in this and he feels he has to get it passed this year to avoid losing the house next year, but at the same time he knows health care "reform" is going to hurt the economy and he doesn't want to do that until after he is re-elected?

Why scrap health care? The system is a mess and needs to be changed. I would just like to know how it will be fixed and where the money comes from. I am not against all of his ideas I just would like to know what his ideas will cost us (me in particular).

[AtomicCEO]

Focused the country on domestic issues? Seems like there is a huge split between parties bigger than ever before and major player in that is health care - I am not saying it is his fault but I am not sure this focus is a good thing and one of the major reasons there is such a foucs is because people are freaking out about how we are going to pay for it. Not sure this counts as a real good thing??

 

What policies have had a positive impact? This what I am getting at - an answer with no specifics? I am not trying to rip the guy but it just does not seem that there is anyhting specific??

 

Considering what? RIght back to the original comment.

 

Well I have several problems with your logic here.

 

There is definitely a split between parties. If you think it's bigger than ever, it's probably because I'm guessing you're on the other side of the fence now. I seem to have thought the difference was bigger when the party and ideals that I usually support were in the elected minority. It's all perspective. And it doesn't help that Republicans are frothing at the mouth right now calling the president a Nazi and a Communist and Satan because they disagree with him. It's lunatic fringe behavior, and I refuse to accept that as any reason to fault Obama. If anything, it makes people support him more.

 

The president doesn't make policy, but he does set an agenda. Congress makes specific policy. I think the agenda is a strong one. You may disagree. I gave several examples as to what I like about his agenda. I think congress by design is a slow and compromising process.

 

And I didn't make a point about Bush in my last comment. You'd really have to be wearing blinders to say that Obama's primary and immediate objective as president wasn't to get the country out of a hole... I'm won't even try to analyze or point fingers about what caused it. So yes... he's done very well... considering... considering the country was in a huge hole of indeterminate and mysterious origin.

[dmarc117]

He has focused the country on domestic issues that have been far too long ignored like healthcare reform and environment.

 

He has implemented policies that have gradually had an impact on the economy enough to change the conversation from talking about the possibility of depression into how long the recession recovery is going to take (not as long as we thought).

 

He has put our country back on the road to having respect instead of scorn in the global community.

 

For a little under 8 months, not so bad... considering.

 

 

do you bahhhhh like all the other sheep?

[yo mama]

do you bahhhhh like all the other sheep?

Sheep don't bahhhhh: they bleat.

[westvirginia]

I would like to welcome back science. Using and understanding science has been missing for far to long.

 

Yeah, because when the CBO came out with estimates on what things cost the obamessiah says he has some kind of magic up his sleeve and that we just have to have faith and trust him. It's an offer we can't refuse. And folks make fun of me for having a belief in Christ.

[bushwacked]

Yeah, because when the CBO came out with estimates on what things cost the obamessiah says he has some kind of magic up his sleeve and that we just have to have faith and trust him. It's an offer we can't refuse. And folks make fun of me for having a belief in Christ.

 

Not sure what any of this has to do with the fact that Science was put on the backburner under the previous adminstration and back in it's rightful place as a significant priority under the current.

[westvirginia]

Not sure what any of this has to do with the fact that Science was put on the backburner under the previous adminstration and back in it's rightful place as a significant priority under the current.

 

It has to do with the fact that the current crop is just as adept at ignoring objective evidence when it suits them.

[bpwallace49]

What specifically has he done?

 

He doesnt take any chit from pirates . . . I can tell you that!

 

Obama is in a lose/lose scenario. On one side you have the fractured Democrats who have a spectrum of far left and out of touch with reality (Pelosi) to really the only moderates in Congress who think realistically and oppose some of Obama's compromises and side with Republicans on certain issues. On the other side you have a lockstep party that almost always follows the party line and is united in their "anti-Obama" rhetoric as defined by the party (aka whatever Rush Limbaugh tells Steele to support/oppose)

 

Result . . . . not a lot of productivity. Obama can present agendas, but they will never generate universal support from his own party (because they arent nbot in agreement half the time) , let alone crack the unified opposition to anything that isnt Republican.

 

Then you have people that on one hand blast Obama for "trying to do too much" but then lambaste him for not waving his magic wand on his rainbow unicorn and somehow stopping unemployment from rising.

 

Solution? Boy i sure wish there was one . . . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

He doesnt take any chit from pirates . . . I can tell you that!

 

Obama is in a lose/lose scenario. On one side you have the fractured Democrats who have a spectrum of far left and out of touch with reality (Pelosi) to really the only moderates in Congress who think realistically and oppose some of Obama's compromises and side with Republicans on certain issues. On the other side you have a lockstep party that almost always follows the party line and is united in their "anti-Obama" rhetoric as defined by the party (aka whatever Rush Limbaugh tells Steele to support/oppose)

 

Result . . . . not a lot of productivity. Obama can present agendas, but they will never generate universal support from his own party (because they arent nbot in agreement half the time) , let alone crack the unified opposition to anything that isnt Republican.

 

Then you have people that on one hand blast Obama for "trying to do too much" but then lambaste him for not waving his magic wand on his rainbow unicorn and somehow stopping unemployment from rising.

 

Solution? Boy i sure wish there was one . . . . .

 

I actually agree with you to some extent. I'd also say the less "productive" congress is the better off the country is.

 

I have to disagree with the bolded part only because when Obama and Pelosi passed the stealfromus bill he promised unemployment would not go over 8%. We are just pointing out what we knew before he rammed it down our throats, that he was lying about the effects of the non-stimulous bill.