obama Czars [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

Team Sergeant

07-18-2009, 12:03

Seems I'm not alone in my thinking. This is not the same country it was just a few months ago. I believe a storm is brewing. I am wondering what will be the tipping point.

Team Sergeant

Obama's Czars; What are they and how much power do they wield?
July 17, 2009
Kelly Chernenkoff
Contributing Editor

Merriam Webster online defines a 'czar' as "the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution." But it's the dictionary's alternate definition, "one having great power or authority", that has ruffled many a feather lately.

While the term 'czar' is unofficial, the prevalence of such executive posts in President Obama's administration has gotten noticed.

The administration has nearly three dozen czars. While some of those jobs are actually mandated by congress, others are entirely new creations of Mr. Obama.

Although analysts note it's not likely all of the czars get face time with the commander-in-chief-- only ten actually report directly to the president-- they say the executive branch does have the feeling of top-heaviness.

"When you start adding in of course all the cabinet secretaries, you add in all these different czars, you add in chiefs of staff, you add in communication directors, press secretaries and so forth, I think the number probably is getting closer to a hundred," says management expert and Leadership Professor at The George Washington University, James Bailey.

It's not just the size of the czar fleet that has irked members of congress, it's the concern over being taken out of equation.

Maine Senator Susan Collins lamented the potential demise of the president's promise of transparency, "By creating these czars that are insulated from accountability, whose work is not transparent, he's moving in exactly opposite direction."

Others see their concerns through a political sphere; when a majority party has more platforms with which to wield its authority, the concerns of the minority are relegated, they say.

But even some in the country's majority party find fault. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd expressed his frustration over the czar issue in a letter to the President Obama, writing, "the rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances."
The term czar, by the way, is one rarely uttered by Mr. Obama or his aides, unless they are trying to correct its use. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been known to alter the terminology, "If there's a marketing czar, I've failed to get his or her memo."

However it started, the term czar seems to have stuck; at least, inside the Washington beltway.

What exactly does a czar do, though? Bailey describes the job this way, "A czar supposedly would have accountability for something. That is, they are charged with delivering something specific."

Presidential scholar Kathryn Dunn Tenpas says, "I think most of their power derives from their relationship with the president. And that's largely because czars are really sort of a creation of presidents and their personal predilections and their desire to sort of show that they care about an issue."

In some instances, czars bypass Senate confirmation.

Georgia Congressman Jack Kingston spells out the dangers he sees in this equation, "It's almost like the president is building a parallel government, one that's in the constitution and then one that is outside of the constitution and the authority of congress."Additionally, some say
the responsibilities the president gave his czars might have been duties filled by cabinet secretaries in past administrations.
One way to be a successful czar, experts note, is to have accountability, a specific mission, and a set amount of time in which to accomplish it.Former auto czar Steve Rattner, otherwise known as the top advisor on the auto industry's bailout, got GM and Chrysler in and out of bankruptcy in record time.
Some of the more established czar positions are the drug czar, the science czar and the domestic violence czar. More recently, Mr. Obama added an auto czar to the mix and even an urban affairs czar, much to the chagrin of rural community advocates.

Perhaps its just a semantics issue that gets some people so riled up. The czar term seems to carry with it a negative connotation in Washington. Ironically, the man at the center of the czar battle himself was caught using the term, if somewhat reluctantly.

In announcing the presence at a recent event of Office of National Drug Control Policy Director

R. Gil Kerlikowske, President Obama hesitated, "...as well as our new director of our office of-- I always forget the full name of this thing. I call it the Drug Czar."So, perhaps it's just easier to say certain titles. Presidential scholar Martha Joynt Kumar tells us about "the case of an official who's called the border czar, now border czar, that has 10 letters, but he really is 'assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs.' that's 81 letters."

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/17/2105/

LarryW

07-18-2009, 19:59

TS,

(Sir, please understand this is just an old timers opinion. This is just conjecture; there's no inside track.)

IMHO, the storm brewing is not going to be a voters rebellion, or anything happily cathartic. Rather it will come in the form of a battle btwn the Democratic Party in DC and the machine in Chicago. Obama is not going to be able to deliver in the FDR style he was packaged. His approval rating is already falling, and his propensity to bask in the spotlights is getting on people's nerves. The weenies in DC eat their young when positions are hard to defend (esp in the upcoming 2010 election year), and Obama is like creme bulee on the diet buffet. The California Democrats will be at the head of the chowline. Expect to see the Chicago Party creating several diversionary moves attacking blue-dog Democrats and any Republican they can spot IOT shift attention away from their winged and limping Obama. Watch for bills and ammendments of a very controversial nature, ACORN demonstrations, hate crime scenarios, etc. Doubt any of this will work, but timing is critical.

Anyway, this is all just INMO.

v/r,
LarryW

HowardCohodas

07-18-2009, 20:17

Arthur Laffer of Laffer Curve fame is a happy warrior in the vane of Jack Kemp. He seems to feel that the pendulum will swing back to more moderate governance. I am, however, in fear that your "Tipping Point" reference may be more likely.

I try to associate myself with people of strength to help me maintain the courage to prevail. This forum seems to be one of those communities.

Utah Bob

07-19-2009, 08:55

It would appear the administration is becoming very heavy in the Chief department. I don't see many Indians however. I'm not sure who coined the Czar title several years ago but it definitely has a negative connotation. The lack of accountability and shadow work that's being done by these honchos should be getting much more scrutiny. But Congress is only concerned with CIA black ops instead.

I don't think we'll see a critical tipping point. I think what we will see is Obama's numbers slipping steadily in polls until his own party begins to render him ineffective in a lot of areas as moderates begin to take over. Just a matter of how much damage is going to be done as he flits around the country and globe on his never ending speechifying campaign trail.

civilian

07-20-2009, 00:54

Great point! Glenn Beck on Fox News just did a great piece on this subject. 30 plus Czars to far. They have gotten down right silly. Hate Crimes Czar to provide extra protections for transvestites? Liberals screamed at the notion that the serviceman of the military should be added to the lists of those granted special protections. I've seen more serviceman and women being attacked and killed then transvestities.

Curious to know what the average salary for these bed-wetters are. My guess is between $3 to $5 million, plus expenses. Obama is naming Czars just so he can say he is taking every distorted liberal anthem and issue seriously. Waiting for the "Media Czar" to make sure talk radio gives adequate time for liberal viewpoints, despite the fact liberal talk show hosts can't make a living at it. Maybe a "Assault Weapons Czar" and a "Tipping Czar" to make sure minority waiters get tipped the same as Whites.

We are truly in uncharted territory these days I'm starting to think Columbus didn't have anything on us. God help us. How did we get so many stupid people in this country. Just how many drugs did they take in the 60s that has tainted the gene pool. I know, I know! It is the public schools brainwashing these folks at an earlier age these days.

Guy

07-20-2009, 04:31

Thugocracy...

Rule of a country or state by a group of thugs.

Stay safe.

Paslode

07-20-2009, 08:04

They were talking about this on Fox & Friends a few weeks ago. What caught my attention was the person they were interviewing stated that some of these CZAR positions and their staff parallel existing government departments.

A couple note worthy comments from members on another thread.

http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24026

FWIW, political scientists have been discussing the 'fourth branch' of the federal government (the bureaucracy) for decades. Even those subject to the piercing gaze of congressional committees can wield great power through their use of administrative discretion.

Political opponents of the current president face at least two dilemmas when criticizing his growing reliance on "czars". First, without offering viable alternatives, the criticism will ring partisan to too many ears.

Second, without confronting the fact that Republican presidents have also set up mechanisms to bypass existing departments, critics may find themselves countered by brutal counter arguments from our recent past. Most notably, Vice President Cheney's intervention in the analysis of evidence of Iraq's WMD programs, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's numerous interventions in the promotions of general officers as well as the planning of COBRA II.

While one could argue that there's a distinction between vice president or a secretary of defense operating within a unique interpretation of his authority and a czar, will a broader audience agree that there's actually a difference?

MOO, to avoid these two pitfalls, I think criticism of the president's reliance on czars should focus on effectiveness and cost. This is to say, the question "Does this work?" will get more political traction than the question "Is this appropriate?"

It seems to me that most trends in just about anything must go to extremes before balance is restored. Not just in markets, but in most areas of life.

We really haven't seen a crisis yet. The upcoming fiscal disaster in California gets worse by the day - and California is a big part of the U.S. economy. So when they come unraveled, lots of things may start following their lead. We'll then have a dangerous crisis to deal with...and if the administration is already willing to ignore the Constitution, their response is easy to guess.

Please forgive me for saying this - I mean no offense. And yet, I wonder if we should not read Solzhenitsyn to better see what faces us. :(

It may all be business as usual.

But then again if things continue to get worse and the Messiah master plans continue to get tied up, States continue to push Sovereignty Issues, he could one day decide that our Government as it exists is too dysfunctional to work within. At which time he puts into action his very own Operation Hummingbird and in essence locks the doors to both houses and various departments and opens up his hand picked Government run by the CZARS.....my imagination running wild;)

Or he could do it like businesses do with key personel and departments they wish to rid themselves of, which is to absorb those responsibilites into other areas until there is no need for duties and the job is disolved.....your death by a thousand cuts.

We have seen it throughout history.....All it takes is a intelligent and crismatic person and a flock of sheep waiting to be saved.

Tinfoil...I hope, but stranger things have happened and I tend to believe in never say never.

Richard

07-20-2009, 08:20

When under pressure - we tend to defer to those things which we know best and which gave us the greatest success in the past. To me, this neo-czarist movement in the current Off-white House has a direct correlation to the Chicago-style community organizing political tuteledge under which the current POTUS learned his trade - and which so conveniently allows him to use the argument of how much he's consulted on an issue with the 'best and brightest' and the 'logical consensus' is, therfore, what he's decided.

A basic law of nature in the fen of politics is that political polecats like Obee cannot change their stripes - no matter how much MSM white wash is used to try and convince us otherwise. :mad:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The Reaper

07-20-2009, 08:49

swpa19

07-20-2009, 09:07

T.R.

The czars are cut-outs and lightning rods.

Appropriate analogy.

Red Flag 1

07-20-2009, 09:19

Paslode

07-20-2009, 11:29

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/17-07-2009/108218-czar-0

Czar? You Mean Commissar
17.07.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/108218-czar-0

There is a new silliness in the Western Anglo Media, comparing the US Emperor's Czar program to the number of Tsars that Holy Russia had. It is a good thing that the US/UK public is ignorant not only of ancient history but also of recent history, otherwise they might start to worry.

So let us go back and establish some historic references. Czar or rather Tsar, is a degradation of the Latin term Ceasar, similar to Germany's Kaiser. Ceasar, originally the family name of one Julious Ceasar, who almost became Rome's first Emperor, before his assassination, lent his family name to the title of Roman emperors.

The first use of the term in Russia was during the reign of Ivan Grozny (Ivan the Feared, which the Anglos mistranslate to "The Terrible") Before this, the term " князь " knyaz or " принц " prince, was used. The Moscow princes, being the new center of the Rus, Kiev being held by Catholic Poles, were called the grand princes (велики князь).

Ivan Grozny got the other princes under his rule, to refer to him as Tsar. They did it to humor their half mad overlord, not realizing the importance of words. Ivan, however, knew their power and that of titles in the human psyche and knew that once the title of Tsar stuck, he and his prodigy would forever be associated as some one absolutely separate and above the regular knyazi: an emperor rather than a challengable grand prince.

Now we forward several hundred years to the Wall Street sponsored Russian Revolution and Civil War and the Marxists take over of Holy Russia.

In order to control the vast nation and its revolutionary reshaping during a chaotic time, Lenin and later Stalin, created a system of Commissars. These were not limited to military and instilling party loyalty, but were used throughout Soviet society. A commissar and his staff had absolute authority, answering only to the dictator and by-passing the various local councils and people's senates. Two things to note here:

1. their spheres were ambiguous and often over lapped responsibilities of other commissars. This in turn caused a large volume of infighting. Sure this is very wasteful of resources and confusing, but what it does do, is allow the dictator to keep ultimate power by keeping his most powerful minions at each others throats with the dictator as the ultimate arbitrator of power.

2. The commissars were mostly young, had little achievement outside the power structure, self assured, true believers. They knew very well that outside their positions, created and granted by the dictator, they had little hope of career success. They were given responsibility much higher then their experience levels, further beholding them to their owner. It made them extremely jealous of their power, which in turn made them vengeful against anyone who stood in their way, especially other power hungry commissars.

Fast forward to modern transitional America. The American Emperor has taken the six commissars of his leftist predecessor and created at least 28 more. Yes, commissars do multiply quickly at first and many more are in the works, until the American parliament (congress) and the oblasts (states) assemblies (state senates) are powerless show pieces and all power centers (commissars) flow only to the dictator.

So while the Anglo owned talking mental traps compare the American commissars to Russian holy emperors (Tsars) answerable to God, the Church, holy and societal tradition, the nobility and popular uprisings (we had plenty).

The Commissars (Czars) of Emperor Obama, answerable to none but the Emperor, consolidate power on a level realizable only in the Marxist, Godless society of absolutes, not in a traditional Orthodox Christian monarchy.

So Americans can call them what they want, but we Russians and the US emperor know their true name: Commissar.

Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

Saoirse

07-20-2009, 12:49

:D Sometimes you need pictures to go with the story. :D

civilian

07-20-2009, 23:10

The czars are cut-outs and lightning rods.

They can front outrageous policies, create rules and regulations without Congressional approval, and if the public reacts negatively, can be fired and replaced without the splashback on the POTUS, or the Congress. If the POTUS provides top-cover via executive privilege or presidential pardon, and Congress does not object, they can pretty much get away with whatever they wish.

TR

Good point. Essentially they can be used as trial balloons, for as you say "outrageous polices" with a lesser degree of liability to a cabinet member or the little smoking man himself. It is a forgone conclusion Bidden can get away with saying anything after the Hoover/FDR comment about their television chats during the Depression. Like you say, they can be fired or buried with little or no reaction, except by Fox News. I'm hard pressed to name any other legitimate news outlets these days besides a few of the newspapers.

Glenn Beck raised a good point last week. Obama has so inundated the news much so much on every liberal front and issue that it has become impossible to report on each of them each day. They can only pick about 6 or so of the most outrageous things they are doing each day. I hope the old adage comes true, that when you try to fix everything, you don't really fix anything.

dennisw

07-21-2009, 08:49

civilian wrote: Curious to know what the average salary for these bed-wetters are. My guess is between $3 to $5 million, plus expenses.

I'm curious how you arrived at a speculated salary level of $3 to $5 million? When U.S. Senators make around $169,000 annually, it's quite a stretch to get to these amounts. I imagine if they were getting annual compensation even in the million dollar ballpark, there would be such an outcry from the senate and congress. I mean after all, they are the ones who are supposed to be getting rich from our taxes, not some johnny-come-lately czars.

If it's true, then congressmen and the senators are being underpaid, a problem they will remedy immediately, before any breaks, holidays, etc. They will not let minor issues like unemployment and a woeful economy stand in the way of doing what is right! Maybe we need a czar to quantify the amount by which our government leaders are underpaid. We can call him or her the Wonderland czar. The debate and analysis on the size of the warrented raises( and grandfathered back pay) will be so transparent, we will not even be able to see it.

Even though it's not related to the above, I cannot let another day pass without the following observation : Obama throws like a friggin girl(apologies to all girls on this board).

Defend

07-21-2009, 22:17

All documents/articles are linked below. Only most relevant quotes are shown here. There are several issues at play, but I feel that the most important is the neglect of the distribution of power.

Clinton declares the US 'is back' in Asia
Robert Burns (AP) 07/21/2009

Clinton says she would, as previously announced, sign ASEAN's seminal Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, a commitment to peacefully resolve regional disputes that has already been signed by more than a dozen countries outside the 10-nation bloc.

The U.S. signing will be by the executive authority of Obama and does not require congressional ratification, said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the move publicly.

emphasis added

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGIXTMV1yK2R4TjMuMfMXIXJShdgD99J77V80

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2
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.

emphasis added

What will this treaty do?

ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in SE Asia, Bali, 24 February 1976
Article 2

In their relations with one another, the High Contracting Parties shall be guided by the following fundamental principles :

a. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations;

b. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coersion;

c. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;

d. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means;

e. Renunciation of the threat or use of force;

f.

[B] Article 13
The High Contracting Parties shall have the determination and good faith to prevent disputes from arising. In case disputes on matters directly affecting them should arise, especially disputes likely to disturb regional peace and harmony, they shall refrain from the threat or use of force and shall at all times settle such disputes among themselves through friendly negotiations.

emphasis added
http://www.aseansec.org/1217.htm

ASEAN member countries:

Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam

source here (http://www.aseansec.org/74.htm)

I really hope I just misinterpreted something here, because it looks to me like the US is about to sign an agreement saying we can't use "interference, subversion, or coercion" towards repressive regimes in the region (particularly Burma), or "the threat or use of force" against any of the ASEAN member countries should an international incident arise. All without congressional approval. Riding on the wave of "Executive Authority".

-out

civilian

07-22-2009, 00:39

I'm curious how you arrived at a speculated salary level of $3 to $5 million? When U.S. Senators make around $169,000 annually, it's quite a stretch to get to these amounts. I imagine if they were getting annual compensation even in the million dollar ballpark, there would be such an outcry from the senate and congress. I mean after all, they are the ones who are supposed to be getting rich from our taxes, not some johnny-come-lately czars.

If it's true, then congressmen and the senators are being underpaid, a problem they will remedy immediately, before any breaks, holidays, etc. They will not let minor issues like unemployment and a woeful economy stand in the way of doing what is right! Maybe we need a czar to quantify the amount by which our government leaders are underpaid. We can call him or her the Wonderland czar. The debate and analysis on the size of the warrented raises( and grandfathered back pay) will be so transparent, we will not even be able to see it.

Even though it's not related to the above, I cannot let another day pass without the following observation : Obama throws like a friggin girl(apologies to all girls on this board).

I don't know anything for a fact. But since there are over 30 Czars named so far and maybe assume they make at least $100K or better yet use the $170K figure that a Senators make, would be over $5 million. Plus staff and expenses. Hope I didn't imply that they were knocking down 7 figures each. They will have to wait for the lecture tour to get that or when they write a book detailing their time in the White House that destroyed the country. I'd assume a Czar would make as much as a Senator or more. Honestly, I don't know! They didn't have Czars when I took Civics classes in college. Curious if any of this information has been released in the new era of transparency:)

Richard

07-22-2009, 05:29

More Executive Authority, overriding constitution

Sounds more like an MOUA than any new treaty - a reaffirmation of the principles we agreed to and signed in previous treaties - e.g., creating the UN and SEATO (which disbanded in 1977) - while snookering a few not so nice governments into agreeing to those same principles - which OBTW can be used against them in the arena of international opinion but aren't worth the paper they're written upon if our national security is threatened.

And the article doesn't say whether or not the administration conferred with representatives of Congress, or mention that Congress can choose to not ratify any treaty if they so desire - which is what happened to President Wilson and the League of Nations.

IMO, the overriding idea is not so clear from what's been reported and may be a bit of a reach at this point in the process. YMMV ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard

07-22-2009, 05:40

They didn't have Czars when I took Civics classes in college. Curious if any of this information has been released in the new era of transparency.

Don't know when you went to college - but they have had such Czars in the Executive Office of the POTUS since FDR with the passing of Reorganization Plan 1 of 1939 and under Executive Order 8248 - they just didn't call them that until more recently. Guess your professor didn't cover that section of the book. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

civilian

07-22-2009, 22:00

Don't know when you went to college - but they have had such Czars in the Executive Office of the POTUS since FDR with the passing of Reorganization Plan 1 of 1939 and under Executive Order 8248 - they just didn't call them that until more recently. Guess your professor didn't cover that section of the book. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

I stand corrected. Richard, this site certainly benefits from your input. No doubt about it. When I get bogged down in my studies, I always remind myself what you had to do in Europe (Germany?) to earn your Masters. So what were they called in FDR's time? If they were not called Czars, was Clinton the first to use the title? Regardless, thanks for responding. Believe it has been since Feb since I've had any time to see how you folks are responding to what is going on in Washington.

Just now seeing Obama answering questions after speech. Did anyone see Obama take issue with the Harvard college professor getting arrested in Cambridge at the end of the Q & A? He took issue with why the professor got arrested after it was clear he was in fact the owner. Amazing he didn't mention the fact the idiot was running his mouth to an officer. Typical liberal point of view! All emotion while avoiding the facts.

Richard

07-22-2009, 22:40

So what were they called in FDR's time? If they were not called Czars, was Clinton the first to use the title?

Directors - the first use of the term Czar came from Senator Biden in reference to GEN (Ret) Barry McCaffrey's becoming the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy - the Drug Czar.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Ret10Echo

09-17-2009, 06:24

In a letter to the President, Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, questions the number of "czars" within the Executive Office. In the letter, Senator Collins expresses concern that the growing number of czars may be undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities of Congress. The letter was also signed by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kit Bond (R-MO), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Bob Bennett (R-UT).

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our growing concern with the proliferation of "czars" in your Administration. These positions raise serious issues of accountability, transparency, and oversight. The creation of "czars," particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of "advise and consent," greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable, and creates confusion about which officials are responsible for policy decisions.

To be clear, we do not consider every position identified in various reports as a "czar" to be problematic. Positions established by law or subject to Senate confirmation, such as the Director of National Intelligence, the Homeland Security Advisor, and the Chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, do not raise the same kinds of concerns as positions that you have established within the Executive Office of the President that are largely insulated from effective Congressional oversight. We also recognize that Presidents are entitled to surround themselves with experts who can serve as senior advisors.

Many "czars" you have appointed, however, either duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities that Congress has conferred upon Cabinet-level officers and other senior Executive branch officials. When established within the White House, these "czars" can hinder the ability of Congress to oversee the complex substantive issues that you have unilaterally entrusted to their leadership. Whether in the White House or elsewhere, the authorities of these advisors are essentially undefined. They are not subject to the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" role, including the Senate's careful review of the character and qualifications of the individuals nominated by the President to fill the most senior positions within our government. Indeed, many of these new "czars" appear to occupy positions of greater responsibility and authority than many of the officials who have been confirmed by the Senate to fill positions within your Administration.

With these concerns in mind, we have identified at least 18 "czar" positions created by your Administration whose reported responsibilities may be undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities of Congress or express statutory assignments of responsibility to other Executive branch officials. With regard to each of these positions, we ask that you explain:

• the specific authorities and responsibilities of the position, including any limitations you have placed on the position to ensure that it does not encroach on the legitimate statutory responsibilities of other Executive branch officials;

• the process by which the Administration examines the character and qualifications of the individuals appointed by the President to fill the position; and,

• whether the individual occupying the position will agree to any reasonable request to appear before, or provide information to, Congress.

We also urge you to refrain from creating similar additional positions or making appointments to any vacant "czar" positions until you have fully consulted with the appropriate Congressional committees.

Finally, we ask that you reconsider your approach of centralizing authority at the White House. Congress has grappled repeatedly with the question of how to organize the federal government. We have worked to improve the Department of Homeland Security and bring together the disparate law enforcement, intelligence, emergency response, and security components that form its core. We established the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate the activities of the 16 elements of the Intelligence Community, breaking down barriers to cooperation that led to intelligence failures before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The bipartisan review by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee of the failures associated with the response to Hurricane Katrina led to fundamental reforms of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, improving our nation's preparedness and ability to respond to disasters. In each of these cases, the Congress's proposed solution did not consolidate power in a single czar locked away in a White House office. Instead, working in a bipartisan fashion, we created a transparent framework of accountable leaders with the authorities necessary to accomplish their vital missions.

If you believe action is needed to address other failures or impediments to successful coordination within the Executive branch, we ask that you consult carefully with Congress prior to establishing any additional "czar" positions or filling any existing vacancies in these positions. We stand ready to work with you to address these challenges and to provide our nation's most senior leaders with the legitimacy necessary to do their jobs - without furthering the accountability, oversight, vetting, and transparency shortcomings associated with "czars."

Sincerely,

Richard

09-17-2009, 06:43

Congress funds the White House - don't pay for them. :mad:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Ret10Echo

09-17-2009, 07:57

Congress funds the White House - don't pay for them. :mad:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

We also urge you to refrain from creating similar additional positions or making appointments to any vacant "czar" positions until you have fully consulted with the appropriate Congressional committees.

The obamaczar system....it's not that they exist....it's just that you didn't ask.

Do all czars wear RED shirts?

alright4u

09-17-2009, 07:59

Directors - the first use of the term Czar came from Senator Biden in reference to GEN (Ret) Barry McCaffrey's becoming the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy - the Drug Czar.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard, other then history about Russia, especially 1917 or so, I never heard the word czar until Bennet either.

What I see is a very top heavy White House with cabinet members,czars, special assistants to this or that, not to mention all those employed by Mrs Obama. Now the real question is how many of these people are in on the policy and actual decision making process? The press secretary Gibbs has a history of extreme loyalty to who employs him. He has more then a few times stated when asked a question- "I have not read that and will have to seek legal advice/counsel."

Perhaps things are finally being examined and real questions are finally being asked by the media? It is a shame the media did little prior to the election to vet one candidate. That is my .02.

Team Sergeant

09-17-2009, 08:41

Richard, other then history about Russia, especially 1917 or so, I never heard the word czar until Bennet either.

What I see is a very top heavy White House with cabinet members,czars, special assistants to this or that, not to mention all those employed by Mrs Obama. Now the real question is how many of these people are in on the policy and actual decision making process? The press secretary Gibbs has a history of extreme loyalty to who employs him. He has more then a few times stated when asked a question- "I have not read that and will have to seek legal advice/counsel."

Perhaps things are finally being examined and real questions are finally being asked by the media? It is a shame the media did little prior to the election to vet one candidate. That is my .02.

And just like 1917 appointing so many czars is an "abuse of power".

Razor

09-17-2009, 10:31

Congress funds the White House - don't pay for them.

Exactly. 'Deeds, not words' isn't a politician's strength, sadly.

Ret10Echo

09-17-2009, 10:35

Congress funds the White House - don't pay for them. :mad:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Working here inside the beltway, it is becoming harder and harder to discern the separation between the branches of government....

JAGO

09-17-2009, 12:57

Directors - the first use of the term Czar came from Senator Biden in reference to GEN (Ret) Barry McCaffrey's becoming the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy - the Drug Czar.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Gentlemen,

May I add a little trivia?-

(UNCLAS) During OJC in '89 two FBI agents were attached and accompanied the JSOTF. The sealed indictments out of the Southern and Middle Districts of FL had been in place for quite some time (between the two of them, about 22 months). It's been nearly 20 years but this is what I remember:

On Dec 24th General Noriega who was under indictment made his way into the Papal Nuncituria. By Dec 25th Wm Bennett, we were then referring to as the "drug czar" made the call that DEA would be shown in the lead. That decision came down to the JSOTF thru command.
It was then that S/A Rene de la Cova of the DEA entered the picture (literally) and the FBI showed themselves to be a real class act. They continued to provide support from the background and remained perfect gentlemen.

Meanwhile de la Cova is seen in the pictures on the ramp of the MC-130 on 7 Jan 1990 as "Tony" prepares for his trip to Florida. USMS SOG actually did the heavy work.

Here's the deal on de la Cova

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1290&dat=19940106&id=4NQPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iY4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5583,2801707

Here's the citation to the drug czar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103567.html

William J. Bennett, who became the nation's first drug czar during the George H.W. Bush administration, said he spent three weeks in a room with Biden, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, hashing out the scope of the new job.

v/r
phil

JAGO

09-17-2009, 13:40

Hope the pix attach

v/r
phil

incarcerated

10-03-2009, 02:36

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-admits-bad-handling-teen-sex-case/

Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar Admits He Poorly Handled Underage Sex Case

By Maxim Lott
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
President Obama's "safe schools czar," under fire from critics who say he's unfit for his job, acknowledged Wednesday that he "should have handled [the] situation differently" years ago when he was a schoolteacher and didn't report that a 15-year-old boy told him that he was having sex with an older man.

Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

In a statement issued Wednesday, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities."

Jennings, director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, said he believes his office can now help keep other new teachers from making the same mistake....

Jennings was appointed to his job because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. But his critics say he is not qualified for the job, saying he has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse and expressed contempt for religion....

Gypsy

10-03-2009, 11:47

Yeah, another fox guarding the hen house. :mad:

Defender968

10-03-2009, 21:13

Yeah, another fox guarding the hen house. :mad:

Gypsy, I'm the first one to call a guy a dirtbag should the shoe fit, and this guy definitely did not handle the situation well, but personally while I hate the ideas of czars, this to me looks a little like a bit of a witch hunt. The guy made a mistake 20 years ago when he was young. If he was the guy sleeping with the 15 year old, then by all means I've got it and would say hang him, but this guy, who IIRC was a young/new teacher tried to counsel a troubled teen who was knowingly and willingly involved in dangerous activity. Should he have taken it farther than just trying to help the kid himself, absolutely he should have, but this to me sounds like an error in judgment rather than a character flaw. I know when I was in my early 20's I tried to help allot of people, and sometimes I bit off more than I could chew and at the time I didn't have the wisdom to know where and when to go for the help I needed to help those around me. One of my coaches in soccer would call this an error of enthusiasm, he wasn't trying to do the wrong thing, just made a mistake in trying to do the right thing.

Again I'm all for going full bore and both barrels against dirtbags, but if we get caught up going after everyone with any mistake in their past I think we weaken at least the appearance of our convictions and it makes us all (conservatives) look like we're just out to burn everyone to the ground. Just something to think about.

Just my .02 as I know I've made more than my fair share of errors of enthusiasm.

The Reaper

10-03-2009, 21:42

Gypsy, I'm the first one to call a guy a dirtbag should the shoe fit, and this guy definitely did not handle the situation well, but personally while I hate the ideas of czars, this to me looks a little like a bit of a witch hunt. The guy made a mistake 20 years ago when he was young. If he was the guy sleeping with the 15 year old, then by all means I've got it and would say hang him, but this guy, who IIRC was a young/new teacher tried to counsel a troubled teen who was knowingly and willingly involved in dangerous activity. Should he have taken it farther than just trying to help the kid himself, absolutely he should have, but this to me sounds like an error in judgment rather than a character flaw. I know when I was in my early 20's I tried to help allot of people, and sometimes I bit off more than I could chew and at the time I didn't have the wisdom to know where and when to go for the help I needed to help those around me. One of my coaches in soccer would call this an error of enthusiasm, he wasn't trying to do the wrong thing, just made a mistake in trying to do the right thing.

Again I'm all for going full bore and both barrels against dirtbags, but if we get caught up going after everyone with any mistake in their past I think we weaken at least the appearance of our convictions and it makes us all (conservatives) look like we're just out to burn everyone to the ground. Just something to think about.

Just my .02 as I know I've made more than my fair share of errors of enthusiasm.

You need to do a little more reading about his background. "he has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse and expressed contempt for religion...." just touches the surface.

He reminds me of the creepy uncle type, which would be bad enough in your kids' school, much less in an appointed position to be making policy.

If you look up scumbag (also see pervert) in the dictionary, I suspect that Jennings' picture is there. Probably a NAMBLA member to boot.

TR

jw74

10-03-2009, 22:18

"he has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse and expressed contempt for religion...."

TR

These things used to disqualify a person from employment, let alone high office.

Defender968

10-03-2009, 22:29

You need to do a little more reading about his background. "he has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse and expressed contempt for religion...." just touches the surface.

He reminds me of the creepy uncle type, which would be bad enough in your kids' school, much less in an appointed position to be making policy.

If you look up scumbag (also see pervert) in the dictionary, I suspect that Jennings' picture is there. Probably a NAMBLA member to boot.

TR

My apologies TR and Gypsy, I'll do more research on him. All I've really heard/read about is this one incident with his student, and I can see how what was presented could be a difficult situation for a new/young teacher. I will admit I didn’t do my due diligence and dig deeper into him as it appeared on the surface to me that what he had done wasn’t really all that bad compared with some of this administrations other freekshows in positions of power.

You’d think a couple of the ones picks wouldn’t have skeletons in their closets just on probability alone, I mean at least a few should be relatively clean, then again I guess he did come from Chicago.

Surgicalcric

10-04-2009, 07:13

...could be a difficult situation for a new/young teacher...

I dont understand whats so difficult about the situation.

It was a student (underage) having sex with an older man. I am pretty sure that it was unlawful 20 years ago.

The lack of appropriate action (reporting the crime) on the part of this POS in criminal in itself...

Crip

Defender968

10-04-2009, 08:28

I dont understand whats so difficult about the situation.

It was a student (underage) having sex with an older man. I am pretty sure that it was unlawful 20 years ago.

The lack of appropriate action (reporting the crime) on the part of this POS in criminal in itself...

Crip

Crip here is the way I imagined that situation went down and why I say it could have been a difficult situation. Let’s say you have a student who I'm guessing was struggling class, probably getting picked on by other students, appears to be depressed (don't know this for a fact but I'm guessing this is how he became involved) the teacher tries to befriend said student to try to help. Student begins to confide in the teacher, a little at a time, teacher is trying to build rapport with the student, is getting a little info at a time (as I don't know too many kids who just spill the beans all at once on something they know they shouldn't be doing, they normally tell little parts at a time and try to make things sound as good as they can) Student probably initially tells teacher he's involved with someone or several someone’s (and leaves out ages and gender) teacher tries to give advice, then teacher eventually either puts together what's going on or student actually tells the whole story, young teacher doesn't want to lose the rapport he's built and thinks that if he goes to school administrators/police/parents the students trust will be destroyed and the student may do something drastic, commit suicide or run away, student may have even illuded to such behavior, so teacher foolishly tries to take the situation on by himself to save the student. Now I'm not saying that way of thinking is right but I've seen similar situations with young idealists who think they can save someone else when they should be reporting the behavior. Perfect example is I had a troop in the desert on my last rotation who having serious problems at home, and started seriously considering suicide, two of her friends knew about her thoughts but tried to talk to her about them rather than reporting them to leadership or the chaplain because they didn't want to jeopardize the friendship or push her over the edge (again in their minds). They were totally ill-equipped to handle what was going on but because of lack of experience and a misguided sense of obligation to said troop they failed to act as they should have. In the mean time she continued to be armed every day. As soon as an NCO got wind of the situation it was handled totally differently, again because of the age/experience and the situation was resolved.

In both cases the thinking was wrong without a doubt and that becomes much clearer with age and wisdom, and even more so in the teachers situation as he's a in a position of authority and should have sought help in handling the situation and in going after those who were taking advantage of the kid, but I wasn't ready to crucify him for that one mistake again because what I had read about the situation led me to believe as I said before he made a mistake while trying to help although a very stupid one in hindsight.

PRB

10-04-2009, 09:54

Bottom line up front...from a Miltary POV
An individual went to a person in authority and described a situation that was
1. unlawful by the State Statuates as to adult/child sex.
The person in authority makes a decision to UNDERWRITE the activity of the perpetrator by advising the individual to 'use condoms' due to HIV issues.
In the eyes of the young man he has now shared/confessed his issue and found that in the eyes of an authority figure it is OK now.
The Czar in question has only been troubled by this because it's recently been discovered.
If you underwrite illegal activity when in authority then you have made a decision to be a part of that activity.

Gypsy

10-07-2009, 17:46

I'd like to think something will come of this. Once again the "transparency" of this administration is at question...having chosen not to send a representative to the hearing. Why, I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/october/1007_czar_challenge.shtml

Sen. Feingold questions use of administration 'czars'
By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press
October 7, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A liberal Democratic senator questioned the roles of Obama administration policy "czars" Tuesday, but the White House denied it is using these officials to evade congressional scrutiny.

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said Congress needs to know whether some of the czars make policy but have no obligation to submit to congressional questioning.

While the Obama administration is hardly the first to name high-level advisers to handle issues like health care and climate change, Feingold said, "It's not good enough to simply say, 'Well, George Bush did it too.'"

Prior to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing that featured academic experts, Feingold released a letter from White House counsel Gregory Craig that defended the officials.

Craig said some presidents have used such special advisers, or czars, to undermine Congress, but "that is simply not the case in the current administration."

Feingold also was critical of the administration for declining to send a witness to the hearing.

"The White House decided not to accept my invitation ... to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today," Feingold said, referring to the Senate's role in confirming top officials.

"That's unfortunate. It's also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the executive branch."

Craig's letter broke down the roles of 18 officials questioned by members of Congress.

Eight are in federal agencies whose employees testify regularly before Congress. This group includes Richard Holbrooke, the Afghanistan czar and Ron Bloom, the car czar.

Four more are in the National Security Council, individuals who have no independent authority and whose sole function is to advise the president.

Another four are in the president's and vice president's offices and function as senior White House advisers on health, energy and environment, urban affairs and domestic violence. They are Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence; Carol Browner, energy and environment; Adolfo Carrion Jr., urban affairs and Nancy-Ann DeParle, health.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said the administration has created doubt about its promise of transparency. However, neither Coburn nor Feingold would criticize any specific official.

It's not even clear what constitutes a czar.

"'Czar' is not an official government title of anybody; it is a vernacular of executive branch public administration," said Bradley Patterson, a hearing witness who has served on the White House staff under Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

"It is a label now used loosely hereabouts, especially by the media," Patterson said.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

incarcerated

10-10-2009, 19:54

A School Safety Czar update, with video:
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/10/hannity-hamers-safe-school-czars-nambla-problem-with-legendary-fbi-undercover-agent/

Hannity “Hamers” Safe School Czar’s NAMBLA Problem with Legendary FBI Undercover Agent

2009 October 10
by David Forsmark
Wednesday night, Sean Hannity opened his show with a terrific guest—and even let him talk. Bob Hamer was an FBI undercover agent who infiltrated the Russian mob posing as an arms dealer, made the famous bust of the North Korean super-counterfeiters, and spent five skin-crawling years infiltrating the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Despite the made for TV-type danger posed by the first two assignments mentioned above, Hamer’s decided his first superb book, The Last Undercover: The True Story of an FBI Agent’s Dangerous Dance with Evil, should be about his NAMBLA case, because he felt the most urgency to expose this conspiracy of pedophiles that’s given cover by the courts and defended by the ACLU.

[Interview video here: http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/10/hannity-hamers-safe-school-czars-nambla-problem-with-legendary-fbi-undercover-agent/ ]

Photo caption:
"Harry Hay, NAMBLA Supporter and “Inspiration” to Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings"

Mitch

10-11-2009, 09:03

FYI Y'all
The first "Czar" I remember was the so called "Drug Czar" - apparently that one has been arround since 71.

It would appear that Obama is, among other things, expanding on tradition!

The list is subjective and imprecise, since frequently individuals or offices might be referred to by the nickname "czar" by some publication or a political opponent, yet the actual governmental official, a majority of publications and others do not use the term.

Summary table - Number of czars per administration, President's name, In office: Number of "czar" jobs; Number of appointees.

Franklin Roosevelt 1933–1945: 12; 19
Harry Truman 1945–1953: 6; 6
Dwight Eisenhower 1953–1961: 1; 1
John F. Kennedy 1961-1963: ?; ?
Lyndon Johnson 1963–1969: 3; 3
Richard Nixon 1969–1974: 3; 5
Gerald Ford 1974–1977: 1; 1
Jimmy Carter 1977–1981: 2; 3
Ronald Reagan 1981–1989: 1; 1
George H. W. Bush 1989–1993: 2; 3
Bill Clinton 1993–2001: 7 ;10
George W. Bush 2001–2009: 31; 46
Barack Obama 2009: 32; 35

The numbers are based upon the sortable list below. Please see it for details and references. Note that what is measured is the popularity of the word czar, rather than an objective measure of authority. Also note that under George W. Bush only 31 Czar titles had been currently found, thus only 31 Czars. For example, there has been an Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health since the passage of the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, but the phrase "mine safety czar" was only applied to the position since the controversial appointment of Richard Stickler to the post in 2006. Similarly, there has been a director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs since the office was created by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, but the term "regulatory czar" was not applied to the post until 2001.

See the list: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars)