obama Czars
 

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/

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.

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.

30 plus Czars within 6 months and counting
 

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.

Thugocracy...

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

Stay safe.

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



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.

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 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

T.R.

Appropriate analogy.

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

Speaking of Czars
 

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

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

Six Figure Salaried Trial Balloons
 

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.

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).

More Executive Authority, overriding constitution
 

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.

emphasis added

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...JShdgD99J77V80

emphasis added

What will this treaty do?

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


ASEAN member countries:

Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam

source here

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

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:)

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

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.

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

Whack-a-Czar
 

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).

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

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

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

Do all czars wear RED shirts?

Reply
 

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".

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

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

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?ni...g=5583,2801707

Here's the citation to the drug czar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031103567.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

Drug Czar - OJC
 

Hope the pix attach

v/r
phil

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...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....

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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/octo...hallenge.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.