obama Czars

[Team Sergeant]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

Thugocracy...

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

Stay safe.

[Paslode]

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/foru...ad.php?t=24026

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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?"

Originally Posted by nmap

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]

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.

Richard's $.02

[The Reaper]

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

[swpa19]

T.R.

The czars are cut-outs and lightning rods.

Appropriate analogy.

[Red Flag 1]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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, they can pretty much get away with whatever they wish.

TR

I do not like the czardom Obee has initiated. That having been said, the czars should beware the bus!

Obee is a demonstrated fan of throwing folks under the bus, none are immune. Each czar is a speed bump for the busses that will likely come after Obee himself, IMMHO.

RF 1

[Paslode]

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col.../108218-czar-0

Czar? You Mean Commissar
17.07.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col.../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]

Sometimes you need pictures to go with the story.

[civilian]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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]

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).