|
tazzygirl -> Czars (9/15/2009 7:36:32 PM)
|
In order to discuss this... first.. we have to look at the definition of this word as it is applied to politics in the US.
quote:
"What most people do not know is that a czar is appointed by the president, answers only to the president and is not accountable to either the Judicial or Legislative part of the government. If they are trotted out to Congress to testify, they will be able to invoke executive privilege and remain silent.
Many of Obama’s freshly-minted czars are managing multi-billion dollar budgets with no oversight. The taxpayer must trust that the czar and the president are looking out for their interests responsibly.
Here is a sampling of President Obama’s current czar list; drug czar, border czar, urban czar, regulatory czar, stimulus-accountability czar, TARP czar, faith czar, infotech czar, non-proliferation czar, Terrorism czar, Guantanamo-closure czar, Iran czar, Middle East czar, Afghanistan czar, Pakistan czar, bank-bailout czar, car czar, cyber-security czar, Great Lakes czar, health-care reform czar and finally a Special Master for Compensation Czar or pay czar.
Which brings up the question, how much do these czars make? That you would have to ask the White House and so far they are not letting anyone in on the taxpayer cost.
Many experts believe that the Obama Czar conundrum will not solve any of America’s problems, but that the czars only add another cumbersome layer to an already overly-slow bureaucrat process.
Some in Washington like Senator John McCain-R AZ says; “Obama has more czars than the Romanovs.” They ruled Russia for more than three centuries.
While it’s anyone’s guess as to how the czars will actually workout in the Obama administration, one thing is for sure- it never seems to end well for the czars."
http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m6d23-What-is-a-czar
quote:
By some definitions, a czar reports directly to the president and does not require Senate confirmation.
Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., likens these officials to part of a parallel government, "one that is outside of the Constitution and the authority of Congress."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/questions-raised-influence-obama-czars/
Definition: In contemporary American politics, a czar is any top-level presidential appointee who does not have to face confirmation by the US Senate, but whose policy decisions have a significant impact on how the administration occupying the White House charts its national course. Very often, presidential "czars" continue to hold positions in well-established organizations. They are elevated to the position of "czar" however, when they are named by the president to be a part of his inner circle of advisers.
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/g/Czar.htm
quote:
Article 1, Section 2
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section3
So, i think i have established both what a "Czar" is, and what is allowed by the Constitution.
Now, the "challenge" passed onto me by Merc was as follows...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:
Could be Czars arent a new idea?
I think you should have started a new thread on this subject, but hopefully a response to you won't serve to high-jack this thread and take away from the importance of the new 'Decorum Legislation' and subsequent appointment of the Decorum Czar.
No, Czars are not a "new idea" and there wasn't any representation to the contrary. Somehow though none of the prior Czars managed to believe that the US President was a terrorist directly involved in the 9/11 attack. A voice version of knee jerk reaction generates Congressional "admonishment". Accusing the President of terrorism, going as far as having your signature on record saying so - gets you appointed as a Czar for this Administration.
You see no distinction and "Bush did it!" serves as a legitimacy guidepost? It may have been what this Administration used for rationalizing almost a Billion dollars of bail out money. But it seems, like the bail out money, doing it as a multiple factor of the prior regime doesn't point to any of the anticipated "CHANGE!" does it?
Nor has the concept of Czar ever been used as a cornerstone of policy implementation. That is another notable difference because it circumvents the vetting process for the appointed Czars.
By count from your source - there were less than 10 over the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration. The wasn't any number noted, but I would think based on his commentary, if there were more - he'd have documented them. To date there have been 34 appointed in the first 8 months of this administration.
From the link: quote:
2005 was a banner year for czars. In February, Bush responded to revelations about failed national security intelligence by creating an "intelligence czar." Shortly thereafter, we had a "bird-flu czar." A few months after that, following the tragically botched handling of the response to Hurricane Katrina, there was a "Katrina czar."
2005 was a "banner year" with, lets see 1... 2...3... appointed Czars. One for a hurricane catastrophe, where the administration was accused of lacking attention even with the Czar. The other a response to that year's fad 'flu'. The third an attempt to get all the varying 'intelligence' communities to connect the dots and prevent another terrorist attack. You'll need to take off your shoes and get a friend to get the current Administration's count of 34 to date. Stipulating that 'Servantforuse' isn't as vetted a source as your link.
In an effort to determine the integrity of your source, I tried to find any similar commentary from him, specifically along these lines quoted:
"When it comes to losing manufacturing jobs, having a Secretary of Labor isn't enough; we also need a "manufacturing czar."
"Andy Borowitz recently suggested that the White House needs a "lying czar" to "oversee all distortions and misrepresentations."" Another appropriate current time application of the concept.
"It all begins to resemble rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. When it comes to food safety, having an FDA commissioner isn't enough; we also need a "food-safety czar."
"As it turns out, the administration appears to have gone to the well one too many times."
Couldn't fine anything that documents his current position regarding the Czar issue, but I'm comfortable in concurring with his assessment if he should ever want to change his byline date. All of those statements can, and should be applied to present reality.
His current silence on the subject speaks volumes regarding his agenda.
If there was a different perspective you wanted to raise it would be a great thread topic; although the Bush Administration comparisons must be wearing thin because I note their frequency dropping. Could it be that they point to results better not brought to light?
So, here are my findings.
The first to appoint a "Czar" as they are labeled now, was Roosevelt. A total of 12.
1) Bryon Price
2) Elmer Davis
3)James Byrnes
4) Fred Vinson
5) William Davis
6) Claude Wickard
7) Chester Davis
8) Marvin Jones
9) Paul McNutt
10) Leon Henderson
11) Prentiss Brown
12) Chester Bowles
13) Julius Krug
14) Bill Jeffers
15)Emory Land
16) Joseph Eastman
17) Monroe Johnson
Some positions had more than one person serving.
Ronald Reagan... only one.. His drug Czar, Carlton Turner
Harry Truman... 5
Dwight Eisenhower... 1
Lyndon Johnson... 3
Richard Nixon... 3
Gerald Ford.. 1
Jimmy Carter... 2
Bill Clinton... 7
George W Bush.. 2
Now.. here is where this gets interesting...
While Barack Obama does have... seems 33 now, and 35 appointees
George Bush... 35... 46 appointees
Now, looking over the actual list... I see 25 for Bush Jr.
Tom Ridge, Scott Everetz, Joe O'Neill, Carol Thompson, Leon Kass, Stewart Simonson, Eric Keroack, Dan Bartlett, Richard Clarke, Rod Beckstrom, Elliot Abrams, Karl Rove, John Dilulio, Jim Towey, Jay Hein, David Acheson, John Howard, David Brailer, Phil Mangano, Donald Powell, Richard Stickler, Michael Gerson, Reid Lyon, Susan Dudley, Wayne Downing.
None of these had Seneate approval, in fact, a few didnt gain approval and were appointed anyways.
Now, amazingly enough, when I use the same standard to weed out those appointed by President Obama or any other person, and were not Senate confirmed, im finding only 25 as well. Now, this source may be a bit old...nope...
"This page was last modified on 15 September 2009 at 21:20. "
My source is a simple chart located here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
I have no doubt there will be more appointed by Obama. That wasnt the challenge. Suddenly, everyone is screaming about Obama's Czars. A few were even holdover Czars from former administrations. As i stated earlier, anyone listed as being Confimed by Senate was left out of my counts.
|
|
|
|
