Here a Czar, there a Czar, everywhere a Czar Czar

[WhoWee]

I remember when the first Drug Czar was appointed. It was a major announcement and an urgent response to a problem requiring special attention.

Somehow the need for Czars has grown to include a list of 32 appointments. The President even joked a few weeks ago about a new reality TV show "Dancing with the Czars".

These appointments are not vetted by Congress. Apparently, they are not accountable to anyone but the White House?

Is this an expansion of Executive Power or merely a political designation to reward selfless public service?

Are they authorized to hire staffs and what are their budgets?

Why is it Constitutional?

I couldn't find a list on whitehouse.gov and sourced this from http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-296588 on July 11, 2009 (I don't know what the numbers after the names mean)

"Here is a list of Obama’s current and prospective Czar positions:

1. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra. [17].
2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske [9].
3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet. [15].
4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner [12].
5. Car Czar: Ed Montgomery. [17].
6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore. [17].
7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle. [7].
8. Education Czar: Not appointed yet. [16].
9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker. [17].
10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet. [1].
11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion. [10].
12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried. [17].
13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis. [11].
14. Stimulus accountability Czar: Earl Devaney. [17].
15. Cyberspace Czar: Not appointed yet. [16].
16. Border Czar: Alan Bersin (Former US attorney). [6].
17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair. [8].
18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein. [2].
19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg [3].
20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet. [16].
21. Tarp Czar: Herb Allison. [17].
22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell. [17].
23. Science Czar: John Holdren. [17].
24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones. [17].
25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke. [17].
26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration. [17].
27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross. [17].
28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra. [17].
29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley. [17].
30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois. [17].
31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern. [17].""

We can fill in the blanks, identify #32, and update as the thread progresses.

Is anyone else interested in finding out what role these people play in our Government, their qualifications, staffs, budgets, authorities/power, goals, and accomplishments as part of the Executive Team?

[Cyrus]

I remember when the first Drug Czar was appointed. It was a major announcement and an urgent response to a problem requiring special attention.

Somehow the need for Czars has grown to include a list of 32 appointments. The President even joked a few weeks ago about a new reality TV show "Dancing with the Czars".

These appointments are not vetted by Congress. Apparently, they are not accountable to anyone but the White House?

Is this an expansion of Executive Power or merely a political designation to reward selfless public service?

Are they authorized to hire staffs and what are their budgets?

Why is it Constitutional?

I couldn't find a list on whitehouse.gov and sourced this from http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-296588 on July 11, 2009 (I don't know what the numbers after the names mean)

"Here is a list of Obama’s current and prospective Czar positions:

1. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra. [17].
2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske [9].
3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet. [15].
4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner [12].
5. Car Czar: Ed Montgomery. [17].
6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore. [17].
7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle. [7].
8. Education Czar: Not appointed yet. [16].
9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker. [17].
10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet. [1].
11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion. [10].
12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried. [17].
13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis. [11].
14. Stimulus accountability Czar: Earl Devaney. [17].
15. Cyberspace Czar: Not appointed yet. [16].
16. Border Czar: Alan Bersin (Former US attorney). [6].
17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair. [8].
18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein. [2].
19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg [3].
20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet. [16].
21. Tarp Czar: Herb Allison. [17].
22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell. [17].
23. Science Czar: John Holdren. [17].
24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones. [17].
25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke. [17].
26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration. [17].
27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross. [17].
28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra. [17].
29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley. [17].
30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois. [17].
31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern. [17].""

We can fill in the blanks, identify #32, and update as the thread progresses.

Is anyone else interested in finding out what role these people play in our Government, their qualifications, staffs, budgets, authorities/power, goals, and accomplishments as part of the Executive Team?

You could try googling some of their names to find out. Richard Holbrooke popped out at me, he's pretty good (Former Ambassador to the UN under clinton).


As for the constitutionality, why do you think it's not constitutional?

[Wax]

If you're the president of the United States, how can you be in 32 places at one time? You can't! I see nothing wrong with this. Well...32 might be a bit stretching it.:rofl:

[lisab]

If you're the president of the United States, how can you be in 32 places at one time? You can't! I see nothing wrong with this. Well...32 might be a bit stretching it.:rofl:

I dislike the term "Czar." But having one person whose sole responsibility is to track a single problem isn't a bad idea. Yes 32 seems a bit much, but then when you think of all the problems we have...well, maybe it's not so big after all.

[mgb_phys]

Fun game - go down the list and try and guess if each 'X' tsar is supposed to be working for or against 'X'.
Then as a bonus, guess if the tsar in question knows.

[jreelawg]

I like to go down the list look the person up on wikipedia, and see which major corporation they used to work for, and watch the stock in that company to see how it goes.

First one on my list is Energy Czar, and APX, inc.

"In 2008 she joined the board of APX, Inc., which specializes in technology infrastructure for the environmental commodities markets[18], including those for carbon offsets and the CDM Gold Standard."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner

I bet that is a good investment.

[WhoWee]

I dislike the term "Czar." But having one person whose sole responsibility is to track a single problem isn't a bad idea. Yes 32 seems a bit much, but then when you think of all the problems we have...well, maybe it's not so big after all.

It's not clear what their responsibilities are - couldn't find anything on the WH site.

[WhoWee]

I like to go down the list look the person up on wikipedia, and see which major corporation they used to work for, and watch the stock in that company to see how it goes.

First one on my list is Energy Czar, and APX, inc.

"In 2008 she joined the board of APX, Inc., which specializes in technology infrastructure for the environmental commodities markets[18], including those for carbon offsets and the CDM Gold Standard."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner

I bet that is a good investment.

Hey, you might be on to something - The Czar Index available exclusively through the jreelawg Fund.

[russ_watters]

These appointments are not vetted by Congress. Apparently, they are not accountable to anyone but the White House?

Is this an expansion of Executive Power or merely a political designation to reward selfless public service?

Are they authorized to hire staffs and what are their budgets?

Why is it Constitutional? Without having gotten too deep into the issue myself, at face value, it just looks to me like if someone is appointed by the President and reports only to the President, then his legal status would be the same as any non-cabinet advisor. Unlike cabinet members, these people are one-issue experts/advisors. Any actions by a "czar" would be tantamount to actions under an executive order. I don't see why there would be a constitutional problem with that.

That said, one of the complaints about Bush was that he did too much with executive orders. So that criticism would have to apply to Obama as well, if that is how these things work legally.

[russ_watters]

Googling for the issue does find articles. Here's one: As President Obama names more policy czars to his White House team -- high-level staff members who will help oversee the administration's top initiatives -- some lawmakers and Washington interest groups are raising concerns that he may be subverting the authority of Congress and concentrating too much power in the presidency.

The idea of these "super aides," who will work across agency lines to push the president's agenda, is not a new one. President Nixon may have named the first "czar" with his appointment of William E. Simon to handle the 1970s energy crisis. Other presidents have followed suit....

But some lawmakers and outside experts fear that Obama is setting up a system that is not subject to congressional oversight and creates the potential for conflict among his many advisors.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example.

"They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege," Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions. At times, he said, one outcome has been to "inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd said.


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/05/nation/na-obama-czars5

[WhoWee]

Without having gotten too deep into the issue myself, at face value, it just looks to me like if someone is appointed by the President and reports only to the President, then his legal status would be the same as any non-cabinet advisor. Unlike cabinet members, these people are one-issue experts/advisors. Any actions by a "czar" would be tantamount to actions under an executive order. I don't see why there would be a constitutional problem with that.

That said, one of the complaints about Bush was that he did too much with executive orders. So that criticism would have to apply to Obama as well, if that is how these things work legally.

Obama promised transparency, I anticipate more information will be forthcoming. I guess the most important question will be of duplication of efforts/mixed signals, which could be an issue in some areas. A lot will depend upon the size of their staffs, resources, and ability to make decisions or implement policy.

As an extension of your observation, Obama will be held accountable for all of their actions.

[Cyrus]

Obama promised transparency, I anticipate more information will be forthcoming.

What exactly is not transparent?

I guess the most important question will be of duplication of efforts/mixed signals, which could be an issue in some areas.

I don't see you specifying where mixed signals are being sent, nor duplication of efforts in any areas.

A lot will depend upon the size of their staffs, resources, and ability to make decisions or implement policy.

Which is how big? how many? how much? I see no actual figures here from anyone.

As an extension of your observation, Obama will be held accountable for all of their actions.

That makes no sense.

[Al68]

These appointments are not vetted by Congress. Apparently, they are not accountable to anyone but the White House?

Is this an expansion of Executive Power or merely a political designation to reward selfless public service?

Are they authorized to hire staffs and what are their budgets?

Why is it Constitutional?
Assuming that they exercise only executive power delegated by the President, the constitution requires that they answer only to the President, not the other two branches of federal government, regarding such power. All executive power is vested in the President.

Even Cabinet positions, while they must be approved by the legislative branch, only exercise power as delegated by the President.

But, I also hate the word "Czar", since it historically means king, emperor, or ruler. What would be so terrible with having a Drug "Captain"? Or Drug "Lieutenant"?

[WhoWee]

What exactly is not transparent?

I don't see you specifying where mixed signals are being sent, nor duplication of efforts in any areas.

Which is how big? how many? how much? I see no actual figures here from anyone.

That makes no sense.

The point is that they really aren't operational yet. We'll have to wait and watch. As per accountability, if they answer only to the President then Obama will be held accountable for their actions- does that make sense?

[mgb_phys]

What exactly is not transparent?
Are these subject to the same oversight as traditional cabinet positions?

I don't see you specifying where mixed signals are being sent, nor duplication of efforts in any areas.
You have a secretary of defence and a military chain of command - why do you then have a czar for each country you are fighting?
Is the inteligence tzar the boss of the directors of cia/nsa/nro ?

Why a tarp czar, stimulus czar and economic czar when you have a treasury dept?

[Ygggdrasil]

This discussion is interesting in light of a recent NY Times article stating that only 43% of the policymaking positions requiring senate confirmation have been filled (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24confirm.html). Basically, the obsession with vetting candidates so that the senate won't find any problems with the appointments greatly slows the process, making it nearly impossible for Presidents to fill these positions in a timely manner. This is not just a problem of the Obama administration; the Obama administration is actually getting these appointments through at a faster rate than previous administrations, yet more than half of these positions remain unfilled: The process of assembling a new administration has frustrated presidents for years, a point brought home when George W. Bush received the now-famous memorandum titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike U.S.” eight years ago this month but still did not have most of his national security team in place when planes smashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

All parties vowed to fix the process, and Mr. Obama has a more intact national security team than his predecessor at this point. But even in this area, vital offices remain open. No Obama appointee is running the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs and Border Protection agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Obama still does not have an intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, nor a top civilian in charge of military readiness at the Pentagon.

So, yes, it is nice in theory for congress to have oversight over the president's appointments. But, this oversight comes at a cost in terms of the efficiency and speed of the process. The creation of these Czar positions may be one means that has evolved to allow the executive to work around the inefficiencies of the appointment process.

[Cyrus]

The point is that they really aren't operational yet.

So then what's the problem?

We'll have to wait and watch.

Agreed. You should have made this thread after some facts came to light.

As per accountability, if they answer only to the President then Obama will be held accountable for their actions- does that make sense?

I'm not sure what the word "accountability" means still. In any event, I would assume "accountability" for his appointements are no more or less than what they are for any other person he appointed without the "Czar" title.

[Cyrus]

Are these subject to the same oversight as traditional cabinet positions?

Why are you asking me? Try Google or CNN....I don't know <shrug>. I simply asked what was not transparent. To be clear, I'm not trying to discredit your question: I think its valid, but your question is not about transparency. It's about role clarity. My question and your follow up question have nothing to do with one another.

You have a secretary of defence and a military chain of command - why do you then have a czar for each country you are fighting? Is the inteligence tzar the boss of the directors of cia/nsa/nro ?

I think those are fair points, and that we should wait for an answer when information becomes available.

Why a tarp czar, stimulus czar and economic czar when you have a treasury dept?

I'm not going to speculate an answer. We'll just have to wait and see. :wink:

[Pengwuino]

Somehow the need for Czars has grown to include a list of 32 appointments. The President even joked a few weeks ago about a new reality TV show "Dancing with the Czars".

:rofl: That's a good one.

I was under the impression that this whole Czar thing isnt new to the Obama administration, he simply added a fair amount of new Czars.

[TheStatutoryApe]

So does anyone yet have a link that describes what exactly a Czar is (as far as presidential cabinet appointments that is)? Did I miss it?

So far as I can tell they are just people who research for and advise the president. Maybe they also take meetings for the president with people involved in their particular area and do some political negotiating with the presidents agenda in mind. Other than that I have no idea and so I have no idea where all this "president will be accountable for their actions and decisions" comes from. What actions and decisions are they even able to make?

[Ivan Seeking]

I wasn't aware of any potential Constitutional issues, but I really hate the name.

Seriously, you would think they went out of their way to come up with a name that would bother people. Nixon was probably hammered when he came up with it. Yeah, Czar, that will freak out those hippies! :biggrin:

[WhoWee]

So does anyone yet have a link that describes what exactly a Czar is (as far as presidential cabinet appointments that is)? Did I miss it?

So far as I can tell they are just people who research for and advise the president. Maybe they also take meetings for the president with people involved in their particular area and do some political negotiating with the presidents agenda in mind. Other than that I have no idea and so I have no idea where all this "president will be accountable for their actions and decisions" comes from. What actions and decisions are they even able to make?

There doesn't seem to be much information available, but a lot of speculation.

The House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said this in the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902624.html

Obama's 32 Czars

By Eric Cantor
Thursday, July 30, 2009

"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008

To say President Obama failed to follow through on this promise is an understatement. By appointing a virtual army of "czars" -- each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House -- in his first six months, the president has embarked on an end-run around the legislative branch of historic proportions.

To be sure, the appointment of a few special officers to play a constructive role in a given administration is nothing new. What is new is the elevation of so many czars, with so much authority on endless policy fronts. Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances.

At last count, there were at least 32 active czars that we knew of, meaning the current administration has more czars than Imperial Russia.
ad_icon

The administration has a Mideast peace czar (not to be confused with the Mideast policy czar), a Sudan czar and a Guantanamo closure czar. Then there's the green jobs czar, sometimes in conflict with the energy czar, who talks to the technology czar, who sometimes crosses paths with the urban affairs czar. We mustn't forget the Great Lakes czar or the WMD czar, who no doubt works hand in hand with the terrorism czar. The stimulus accountability czar is going through a rough time right now, as is the TARP czar -- but thankfully they have to answer to the government performance czar. And seemingly everyone falls under the auspices of the information czar. In a government full of duplicative bureaucracies, adding more layers with overlapping responsibilities hardly seems the way to go.

Even Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) was fearful enough to pen a letter to President Obama in February highlighting his concerns with the administration's tactics. The Constitution mandates that the Senate confirm Cabinet-level department heads and other appointees in positions of authority -- known as "principal officers." This gives Congress -- elected by the people -- the power to compel executive decision-makers to testify and be held accountable by someone other than the president. It also ensures that key appointees cannot claim executive privilege when subpoenaed to come before Congress.

As we move forward, proper oversight of the growing lineup of czars is essential. From orchestrating bailouts to making industrial policies to moving toward government-run national health care, Washington seems intent on sailing into uncharted waters -- and the czars are often steering the ship.

The car czar, who stepped down this month amid controversy over his former firm's role in a scandal, had been managing government's recent takeover of a huge swath of the domestic auto industry and making decisions for auto companies. The pay czar -- also known in White House circles as the "special master for compensation" -- has the power to reject or accept any current and future compensation for the top 100 earners at companies that received, in some cases under pressure, money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program. In the coming months he will decide the fate of $235 million in pending retention bonuses at AIG. And the health czar, meanwhile, has become as influential as perhaps anyone in the Obama administration, spearheading White House negotiations with doctors, hospitals and other health providers. She will play a key role in determining which medicines, treatments and cures are deemed necessary for the public.

The point here is not that President Obama's reliance on czars is illegal (although it does raise significant, unresolved constitutional issues). Nor is it that these czars are bad people. It's that we have not been able to vet them, and that we have no idea what they're doing. It's that candidate Obama made a pledge to keep Congress in the light. Yet less than six months after his inauguration, the president appears intent to keep Congress more and more in the dark. Dozens of czars at a time.

The writer, a Republican from Virginia, is the House minority whip."

I couldn't find a rebuttal to his comments.

[Al68]

I wasn't aware of any potential Constitutional issues, but I really hate the name.

Seriously, you would think they went out of their way to come up with a name that would bother people. Nixon was probably hammered when he came up with it. Yeah, Czar, that will freak out those hippies! :biggrin:According to Wikipedia, the term was used by the media to refer to appointed executive branch officials as far back as FDR's administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_%27czars%27

[WhoWee]

Here's another perspective from the NY Times. This article discusses staffing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24confirm.html?_r=1

An interesting excerpt:
"Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled — a reflection of a White House that grew more cautious after several nominations blew up last spring, a Senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both.

While career employees or holdovers fill many posts on a temporary basis, Mr. Obama does not have his own people enacting programs central to his mission. He is trying to fix the financial markets but does not have an assistant treasury secretary for financial markets. He is spending more money on transportation than anyone since Dwight D. Eisenhower but does not have his own inspector general watching how the dollars are used. He is fighting two wars but does not have an Army secretary.

He sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Africa to talk about international development but does not have anyone running the Agency for International Development. He has invited major powers to a summit on nuclear nonproliferation but does not have an assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. "

"...Mr. Obama has a more intact national security team than his predecessor at this point. But even in this area, vital offices remain open. No Obama appointee is running the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs and Border Protection agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Obama still does not have an intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, nor a top civilian in charge of military readiness at the Pentagon."

There is no mention of Czars in this article, but some of the Czar descriptions seem to overlap these openings - or not?

[Ivan Seeking]

Re the Washington Post comments by Cantor, it sounds to me like something that should be reviewed, but even Cantor doesn't suggest there is anything illegal. I can easily see where this could simply be a management style issue. Does Cantor accurately represent the decision-making power of these folks; do they simply make recommendations? Perhaps Obama has a lot of Czars simply because he is taking on so many issues; as he promised to do.

I don't remember if it was David Gergen or another former WH advisor who said this, but it seems that the ruling logic in the Obama WH is that, the longer a President is in power, the less power he has. So the decision was made to do as much as possible, as quickly as possible - presumably with a clear plan in place. This could lead to a management style that is somewhat unfamiliar. That is also why people are accusing him of trying to do too much at once. The idea that he would have more of these Czars than we are used to seeing would seem to be consistent with the stated WH logic.

[WhoWee]

Re the Washington Post comments by Cantor, it sounds to me like something that should be reviewed, but even Cantor doesn't suggest there is anything illegal. I can easily see where this could simply be a management style issue.

This is the line that caught my attention in the Cantor piece.
"...and that we have no idea what they're doing"

[Ivan Seeking]

According to Wikipedia, the term was used by the media to refer to appointed executive branch officials as far back as FDR's administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_%27czars%27

Still, it seems that Nixon was the one who revived the term with the "drug czar".

[Ivan Seeking]

This is the line that caught my attention in the Cantor piece.
"...and that we have no idea what they're doing"

I agree that the oversight and responsibility for their activities should be clearly defined, if it's not already.

I don't see that there is any evidence that Obama's czars are any different than previous czars. Please tell me Bill Bennet is complaining about it! :biggrin:

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that the wiki article says that the intelligence czar is senate-approved position - the DNI.

Whoops, it looks like Truman and Kennedy also had czars.

[TheStatutoryApe]

There doesn't seem to be much information available, but a lot of speculation.

Yes, it seems like some rather paranoid speculation or its designed to make people paranoid. The author of that article intimates that these people possess some sort of broad authority and circumvent the legislative branch and makes his lack of knowledge of what these people are actually doing seem sinister in and of itself. Pretty silly stuff.

[WhoWee]

Yes, it seems like some rather paranoid speculation or its designed to make people paranoid. The author of that article intimates that these people possess some sort of broad authority and circumvent the legislative branch and makes his lack of knowledge of what these people are actually doing seem sinister in and of itself. Pretty silly stuff.

At the same time, you have to wonder why these special positions are filled and the other positions are still open.

[mgb_phys]

Cabinet positions are approved by congress - so apart from the difficulty of finding anyone in Washington who has paid their taxes and doesn't have an illegal immigrant nanny, it's open to the usual politicing (you give my state a farm subsidy - I will approve your defense secretary).

So you bypass the step by leaving those jobs unfilled and giving the responsibility to a direct appointment. Next step is that congress insists on confirming czar appointments - so you then leave the czars unfilled and introduce 'special advisors'.

[Pinu7]

Their official title is not "XXXX Czar." For example, the Science Czar's official title is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Also, Czars has been around since FDR, so deal with it.

[WhoWee]

Their official title is not "XXXX Czar." For example, the Science Czar's official title is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Also, Czars has been around since FDR, so deal with it.

I searched this title on whitehouse.gov and found this.

"
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
-----------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release August 5, 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY


SUBJECT: Designation of Officers of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to Act as Director

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq., it is hereby ordered that:

Section 1. Order of Succession. Subject to the provisions of section 2 of this memorandum, the following officials of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in the order listed, shall act as and perform the functions and duties of the office of the Director of OSTP (Director), during any period in which the Director has died, resigned, or otherwise become unable to perform the functions and duties of the office of the Director, until such time as the Director is able to perform the functions and duties of that office:


(a) Associate Director (National Security and International Affairs);

(b) Associate Director (Technology);

(c) Associate Director (Science); and

(d) Associate Director (Environment).


Sec. 2. Exceptions.

(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 1 in an acting capacity, by virtue of so serving, shall act as Director pursuant to this memorandum.

(b) No individual listed in section 1 shall act as Director unless that individual is otherwise eligible to so serve under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this memorandum, the President retains the discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this memorandum in designating an acting Director.

Sec. 3. Revocation. The President's memorandum of December 11, 2002 (Designation of Officers of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to Act as Director), is hereby revoked.

Sec. 4. This memorandum is intended to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 5. You are authorized and directed to publish this
memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA"

[TheStatutoryApe]

At the same time, you have to wonder why these special positions are filled and the other positions are still open.
Probably because the President's personal advisors are his personal advisors while the other appointments are permanent cabinet positions requiring vetting by the senate. Apparently 'Czar' is also a sort of generic slang term and may refer to some of the general cabinet appointments that don't require vetting by the Senate.

[WheelsRCool]

The green jobs czar is an avowed communist apparently. The FCC diversity czar seems to like Venezuela, and the science and technology czar apparently advocated forced abortions and sterilization as population control mechanisms in a textbook in the 1970s, and in 1986 claimed that up to 1 billion people would die from global warming by 2020.

The green jobs czar, Van Jones, who has a history of black radicalism and communism and so forth, I wonder what would happen if you had a white Republican President, say President Bush, appoint a czar who was white, with a history of white radicalism, I bet there'd be an uproar.

This Van Jones wasn't radical say way back in the 1960s and then gave it all up, he's been radical since the 1990s.

How the heck does a so-called post-partisan, post-racial President go and even appoint such a person!? He has to know the true backgrounds of each of these czars he is appointing.

[drankin]

I'm not much of an Obama fan but I think the biggest problem with "czars" is the the connotation it carries. Otherwise, I think it is wise to have Executive oversite delegated in this fashion. Nothing unconstitutional that I see. The Executive branch isn't overreaching, it's just executing as it should. We have the checks and balances in place. The czars are representatives of the Executive branch (unless I've missed something).

[WhoWee]

I'm not much of an Obama fan but I think the biggest problem with "czars" is the the connotation it carries. Otherwise, I think it is wise to have Executive oversite delegated in this fashion. Nothing unconstitutional that I see. The Executive branch isn't overreaching, it's just executing as it should. We have the checks and balances in place. The czars are representatives of the Executive branch (unless I've missed something).

Personally, I'd like to know what each of their duties, responsibilities, budgets, and authorizations are, as well as compensation and benefits. Obama promised transparency, the information is probably out there for us to find - don't forget this is the Government, everything is complicated.

[WheelsRCool]

The green jobs czar is an avowed communist apparently. The FCC diversity czar seems to like Venezuela, and the science and technology czar apparently advocated forced abortions and sterilization as population control mechanisms in a textbook in the 1970s, and in 1986 claimed that up to 1 billion people would die from global warming by 2020.

The green jobs czar, Van Jones, who has a history of black radicalism and communism and so forth, I wonder what would happen if you had a white Republican President, say President Bush, appoint a czar who was white, with a history of white radicalism, I bet there'd be an uproar.

This Van Jones wasn't radical say way back in the 1960s and then gave it all up, he's been radical since the 1990s.

How the heck does a so-called post-partisan, post-racial President go and even appoint such a person!? He has to know the true backgrounds of each of these czars he is appointing.

A certain member mentioned I should provide links for the above post of mine, which he is right, so here are some sources/links for this post of mine.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2110435/van_jones_obamas_communist_green_jobs.html?cat=9

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/glenn-beck-closing-in-on-van-jones/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF2C235fD7o

EDIT: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055

[WhoWee]

A certain member mentioned I should provide links for the above post of mine, which he is right, so here are some sources/links for this post of mine.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2110435/van_jones_obamas_communist_green_jobs.html?cat=9

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/glenn-beck-closing-in-on-van-jones/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF2C235fD7o

Mark Lloyd's comments are a little disturbing. They are his own words and it's fair to judge what he said.

Your other links will be dismissed until the mainstream press covers the story - don't hold your breath.

[WhoWee]

This piece by Politico is interesting.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html

[WhoWee]

Glen Beck is often dismissed as a nut job, or worse. Accordingly, he's weighed in very heavily on the subject of Czars. I'm not posting his extensive information about the individual Czars.

However, I find his interview with David Horowitz extremely interesting. There's an old saying, "it takes one to know one". Horowitz is clearly qualified to make an assessment. Please watch the full video before expressing an opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=9130347&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html

[WhoWee]

We now have one less Czar - Van Jones resigned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090906/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_adviser_resigns

"Obama 'green jobs' adviser quits amid controversy
AP

File - Van Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally AP – File - Van Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly 'green jobs,' …
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer Will Lester, Associated Press Writer – 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's adviser Van Jones has resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday.

Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs" with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

The resignation comes as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.

Jones issued an apology on Thursday for his past statements. When asked the next day whether Obama still had confidence in him, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said only that Jones "continues to work in the administration."

The matter surfaced after news reports of a derogatory comment Jones made in the past about Republicans, and separately, of Jones' name appearing on a petition connected to the events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That 2004 petition had asked for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had allowed the attacks to occur.

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

Jones said he has been "inundated with calls from across the political spectrum urging me to stay and fight."

But he said he cannot in good conscience ask his colleagues to spend time and energy defending or explaining his past.

Jones flatly said in an earlier statement that he did not agree with the petition's stand on the 9/11 attacks and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

As for his other comments he made before joining Obama's team, Jones said, "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."

Despite his apologies, Republicans demanded Jones quit.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate." Missouri Sen. Christopher Bonds said Congress should investigate Jones's fitness the job.

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck repeatedly denounced Jones after a group the adviser co-founded, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist.

James Rucker, the organization's executive director, has said Jones had nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started.

Jones, well-known in the environmental movement, was a civil-rights activist in California before shifting his attention to environmental and energy issues. He is known for laying out a broad vision of a green economy.

Nancy Sutley chair of the council, said in a statement released early Sunday that she accepts Jones resignation and thanked him for his service.

"Over the last six months, he had been a strong voice for creating jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources," she said. "We appreciate his hard work and wish him the best moving forward."

Associated Press writer Philip Elliott contributed to this report. "

[Jasongreat]

Assuming that they exercise only executive power delegated by the President, the constitution requires that they answer only to the President, not the other two branches of federal government, regarding such power. All executive power is vested in the President.

Even Cabinet positions, while they must be approved by the legislative branch, only exercise power as delegated by the President.

But, I also hate the word "Czar", since it historically means king, emperor, or ruler. What would be so terrible with having a Drug "Captain"? Or Drug "Lieutenant"?

Your saying that reporting to the president is the same as vested in the president? So you read the constitution as saying that all executive power is vested in the president and whoever he wishes no matter who they are, what they believe, or how they act? The only way I can see your proposition working is if the wording was vested in the presidency not president(a singularity not a plurality). I have no problem with him having everyone else do his work for him, but their salaries should come out of his salary not mine, same with congressional staffers, mrs. obama's 20 or so assistants and so on and so on.

[Al68]

Your saying that reporting to the president is the same as vested in the president?No, I'm saying that anyone who exercises executive power must answer to the President, since that power is delegated to them, not vested in them, like it is in the President. So you read the constitution as saying that all executive power is vested in the president and whoever he wishes no matter who they are, what they believe, or how they act? The only way I can see your proposition working is if the wording was vested in the presidency not president(a singularity not a plurality).It's not my proposition, it's what the constitution says. And the wording is "vested in the President", not whoever he wishes. It's delegated (not vested) to whoever he wishes. The President is responsible for all executive government action. I have no problem with him having everyone else do his work for him, but their salaries should come out of his salary not mine, same with congressional staffers, mrs. obama's 20 or so assistants and so on and so on.Well, that would sure limit the power of government, if it couldn't be delegated. How many new regulations would we get each year if the President had to write them himself? You just might have a good point there. :smile:

[WhoWee]

I posted this earlier. Assuming the powers of the Executive Branch have not been expanded.

Obama is the President. Anyone he appoints, that wasn't approved by Congress, is Obama's responsibility. They are his voice. Their actions are HIS actions. Their policies are HIS policies. The Czar's are merely an extension of Obama - like clones - to get more done.

Therefore, it is only fair to rate Obama's performance (along with his Czar's and their sound-bites) as a whole package.

[Jasongreat]

Assuming that they exercise only executive power delegated by the President, the constitution requires that they answer only to the President, not the other two branches of federal government, regarding such power. All executive power is vested in the President.

Even Cabinet positions, while they must be approved by the legislative branch, only exercise power as delegated by the President.

But, I also hate the word "Czar", since it historically means king, emperor, or ruler. What would be so terrible with having a Drug "Captain"? Or Drug "Lieutenant"?

I posted this earlier. Assuming the powers of the Executive Branch have not been expanded.

Obama is the President. Anyone he appoints, that wasn't approved by Congress, is Obama's responsibility. They are his voice. Their actions are HIS actions. Their policies are HIS policies. The Czar's are merely an extension of Obama - like clones - to get more done.

Therefore, it is only fair to rate Obama's performance (along with his Czar's and their sound-bites) as a whole package.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that instead of obama suffering for what his czars do, it gives him an out, "dont worry I don't believe that(even though by appointing him you are validating his beliefs) and I have asked for his resignation", or even better gets a resignation without asking for it(if we really beleive that is what happened) so he doesnt even have to put down the policy or beliefs that led to the resignation(van jones). Well one good point is we have found that his czars arent immune to being removed by public outcry, we didnt even have to waste time(money) with congressional hearings. The only way obama will be held completely accountable for his actions is if he is the one taking the actions, without the smoking gun he will always have deniability to hide behind.

[Al68]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that instead of obama suffering for what his czars do, it gives him an out, "dont worry I don't believe that(even though by appointing him you are validating his beliefs) and I have asked for his resignation", or even better gets a resignation without asking for it(if we really beleive that is what happened) so he doesnt even have to put down the policy or beliefs that led to the resignation(van jones). Well one good point is we have found that his czars arent immune to being removed by public outcry, we didnt even have to waste time(money) with congressional hearings. The only way obama will be held completely accountable for his actions is if he is the one taking the actions, without the smoking gun he will always have deniability to hide behind.I never suggested any line of reasoning like that. Just the opposite. The President is responsible for all executive power, delegated to others or not. Are you suggesting that the President must personally pull each trigger to defend us if we are attacked, instead of delegating power?

Did you misread my posts?

[Jasongreat]

No, I'm saying that anyone who exercises executive power must answer to the President, since that power is delegated to them, not vested in them, like it is in the President.It's not my proposition, it's what the constitution says. And the wording is "vested in the President", not whoever he wishes. It's delegated (not vested) to whoever he wishes. The President is responsible for all executive government action.Well, that would sure limit the power of government, if it couldn't be delegated. How many new regulations would we get each year if the President had to write them himself? You just might have a good point there. :smile:

No one but the president himself can weild executive power. since all executive power is VESTED in the PRESIDENT(not the president and his delegates). His cabinet advises, he acts, and is therefore accountable, even his personal advisors can only advise. The problem with the czars is they do weild executive power and therefore creates a cushion in which obama can claim ignorance and therefore wont be accountable for the executive powers he was vested with. Last I new we elected a person to do the job not elected a person to give his duties to someone else. If thats the case why not just elect the person he delegates his power to, oh yah they are unelectable because they are extremists, thats why they use the back door instead of the front.
And to your last comment, exactly, I'm not as worried about slowing down government as I am worried about it speeding up, sometimes expediency isnt all its cracked up to be.

[Jasongreat]

Their official title is not "XXXX Czar." For example, the Science Czar's official title is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Also, Czars has been around since FDR, so deal with it.

So if misinformation has been around for a while that makes it ok? I guess having the earth at the center of the universe had been around for a while should we then discount copernicus, or galileo. I guess your mother never told you, I dont care what your friends are doing. Precedent aint all its cracked up to be.

[Jasongreat]

I never suggested any line of reasoning like that. Just the opposite. The President is responsible for all executive power, delegated to others or not. Are you suggesting that the President must personally pull each trigger to defend us if we are attacked, instead of delegating power?

Did you misread my posts?

I might have, and if so I apologize. But the constitution specifically says that as president he will be commander and chief of the military. Where does it say he can delegate the powers given to him? Would you allow him to delegate commander in chief to one general? Of course obama would be responsible for the generals action, at least at the next election, what could happen in four years? How long did Hilter take to march across europe? How long would it take to institute martial law in the u.s.? I realize these are extreme examples, but one needs to see where decisions could lead, not just if they believe in the decisions made at this time. We do live in a precendential society so if you overstep the constitution once, you give all other ideas(even ones you disagree with) a way to overstep the next time. Our constitution was written as a limit on government, what good is it if we allow them to go beyond these well defined limits? For example the same precedent that says you can tell me not to smoke, is the same precedent that will allow me to tell you you cant be gay(and no I dont believe in either of the examples).

[Al68]

No one but the president himself can weild executive power. since all executive power is VESTED in the PRESIDENT(not the president and his delegates). That's simply not what the word vested means. No one has suggested that executive power is vested in his delegates. Vested means it's all his responsibility, not that he can't have help. There is no prohibition in the constitution on the President delegating vested power. The executive actions are delegated, not the "vestment". The President remains vested and is still responsible for it.

National defense is executive power. Must the President wield it all alone? I hope he has a big gun.

[Al68]

I might have, and if so I apologize. But the constitution specifically says that as president he will be commander and chief of the military. Where does it say he can delegate the powers given to him? Would you allow him to delegate commander in chief to one general?The constitutional title "Commander in Chief" belongs to the President. Every President has delegated all military power to military officers. That's their only purpose. The power is still vested in the President even when delegated.

As far as I know, no sitting President has ever exercised military power personally.

I think we agree in principle. Note that delegated power can be undelegated or revoked at any time by the President because he only delegated it, he didn't give it away.

[Jasongreat]

That's simply not what the word vested means. No one has suggested that executive power is vested in his delegates. Vested means it's all his responsibility, not that he can't have help. There is no prohibition in the constitution on the President delegating vested power. The executive actions are delegated, not the "vestment". The President remains vested and is still responsible for it.

National defense is executive power. Must the President wield it all alone? I hope he has a big gun.

According to the 1913 websters(closest definition to 1789 I could find)
vested: (law) Not in a state of contingency or suspension;FIXED; as vested rights, vested interest.
The consitution defines what the federaL government may do, if its not listed in the constitution specifically, it is left to the states or OR TO THE PEOPLE themselves, it's not whatever isnt defined can be claimed by whoever wants to. However, in the brilliant foresight(and humility) of our founders, they left an avenue to change those powers through constitutional ammendment, but that is to hard, so now politicians and judges are content with just changing the meaning of words.
As to your last statement see my above post about this(commander in chief of the military is one of these defined duties).

[Al68]

According to the 1913 websters(closest definition to 1789 I could find)
vested: (law) Not in a state of contingency or suspension;FIXED; as vested rights, vested interest.
The consitution defines what the federaL government may do, if its not listed in the constitution specifically, it is left to the states or OR TO THE PEOPLE themselves, it's not whatever isnt defined can be claimed by whoever wants to. However, in the brilliant foresight(and humility) of our founders, they left an avenue to change those powers through constitutional ammendment, but that is to hard, so now politicians and judges are content with just changing the meaning of words.
As to your last statement see my above post about this(commander in chief of the military is one of these defined duties).I agree with everything said here. I never suggested otherwise.

[Jasongreat]

I agree with everything said here. I never suggested otherwise.

Well then, what were we arguing about? LOL. I must of mis-understood, sorry.

[Wax]

Bush had 31 Czars. What's the big deal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#By_administrat ion

[Jasongreat]

So the czars all started with FDR, what a surprise. You can sure find the believers in the all powerful national government easily. The majority of presidents chose not to follow that precedent to the same degree as the original grabber of un-constitutional authority, and it also makes it hard to argue that Bush was a conservative(thank god i've never tried to argue that point).

FDR had internment camps. Whats the big deal? (Its racist)
Hoover abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. Whats the big deal? (It started the great depression)
FDR spent large amounts of debt, in a recession(after Hoovers programs caused the recession). Whats the big deal? (It prolonged the gd)
First Bush and now Obama are following the same pattern. Whats the big deal? (Only time will tell, but so far I would have to say it doesnt look too good)

Isnt that the purpose of history? Learning from your mistakes. It is not to insure the same things happening again, because it has happened in the past. What would the point of that be? Do we have to accept czars solely because other generations believed them to be neccesary? Or even other recent administrations, one party or the other.

[TheStatutoryApe]

So the czars all started with FDR... :snip:

Ok... so what's the big deal? Has anyone figured out yet what these "Czars" do that is so horrible, wrong, and apparently borderline illegal? I really don't get it.

[Jasongreat]

Its not so much what the czars do, it is more the fact that the general government was never given the power to create a czar. It is that certain executives have decided that it would be more efficient to spread around the power(and responsibilities) of the executive, a power they were never given the right to do. If I have to blindly follow the laws government creates, why dont they have to blindly follow the laws that supposedly govern them? They actually take an oath as to what their responsibilities include, my responsibility is just assumed because I was born into this society.
So what do the czars do that is so great, right, and most of all is successful? We have a drug czar, but drugs are easily found anywhere in the country. We have an education czar, and yet have a terrible education system. We have a health czar, and are still some of the most unhealthy citizens of the world. I cant see one czar that has succeeded at their title, can you name one? So they are not brought in to succeed, just to take some weight(responsibility) off the executive? If they are worth keeping, lets add that to the constitution, remember it can be ammended at any time, the governmental officers dont need to grab power all they have to do is ask, but we may say no, it is just much more efficient to grab the power, but is it legal? If they can create any power they want, what is the purpose of the consitution? If any governmental officer wants help with their official duties, I say let them have it, but since he/she is dishing out his/her responsibilities they are the ones who need to pay them, not us(the taxpayer). I cant imagine obama paying over 30 czars the kind of money they are making out of his own pocket. Would this kind of thing fly in the real world? If you hired someone to do a job for you, and you were quoted a certain price that you agreed to, and then after the job was started he came to you to receive payment and you noticed that he added three workers to the initial price, and that he was expecting you to pay them, because they helped him get the job done. Would you say ok, or would you say ok but their wage is coming out of your initial contract not in addition to it?

[lisab]

Ok... so what's the big deal? Has anyone figured out yet what these "Czars" do that is so horrible, wrong, and apparently borderline illegal? I really don't get it.

I agree, SA. Like I said many posts ago, I hate the "Czar" title (dang, what idiot thought of that?!?), but I don't think it's wrong for the President to assign one person to manage one issue, and to be his go-to-person regarding that issue. I can even see where that might make government *more* efficient.

[Wax]

So the czars all started with FDR, what a surprise. You can sure find the believers in the all powerful national government easily. The majority of presidents chose not to follow that precedent to the same degree as the original grabber of un-constitutional authority, and it also makes it hard to argue that Bush was a conservative(thank god i've never tried to argue that point).

FDR had internment camps. Whats the big deal? (Its racist)
Hoover abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. Whats the big deal? (It started the great depression)
FDR spent large amounts of debt, in a recession(after Hoovers programs caused the recession). Whats the big deal? (It prolonged the gd)
First Bush and now Obama are following the same pattern. Whats the big deal? (Only time will tell, but so far I would have to say it doesnt look too good)

Isnt that the purpose of history? Learning from your mistakes. It is not to insure the same things happening again, because it has happened in the past. What would the point of that be? Do we have to accept czars solely because other generations believed them to be neccesary? Or even other recent administrations, one party or the other.


According to your reasoning, every single president who used a Czar created some type of social disaster and that the Czar had some type of direct relationship to the disaster. Do you know what a fallacy means?

[WhoWee]

I agree, SA. Like I said many posts ago, I hate the "Czar" title (dang, what idiot thought of that?!?), but I don't think it's wrong for the President to assign one person to manage one issue, and to be his go-to-person regarding that issue. I can even see where that might make government *more* efficient.

Let's not forget the President has a Cabinet.

[Jasongreat]

According to your reasoning, every single president who used a Czar created some type of social disaster and that the Czar had some type of direct relationship to the disaster. Do you know what a fallacy means?

No, according to my reasoning, presidents that have grabbed power not given to them by the constitution have had bad consequences come from those assumptions. I did include Hoover, who had no czars according to the wiki article.

I was answering the question of since bush had czars, whats wrong with obama having them too. Just because it has been done, doesnt make it right. I tried to show examples of some of the biggest un-constitutional power grabs, and the consequences of those. I never said czars caused anything, but I have stated czars havent and wont solve anything, except for getting the president out of doing what he was hired to do.

[lisab]

Let's not forget the President has a Cabinet.

So you want him to expand his cabinet, to include these one-issue managers? I don't see that these so-called "czars" are covering issues that warrant that.

[WhoWee]

So you want him to expand his cabinet, to include these one-issue managers? I don't see that these so-called "czars" are covering issues that warrant that.

No, I want him to use the tools he has, before creating more departments.

[Hepth]

No, I want him to use the tools he has, before creating more departments.

But he's not making new cabinet positions? And you can't expect EVERYTHING to be handled by a handful of people. So you make new positions. Which cabinet member would you have in charge of WAN/LAN/Internet/web security at the whitehouse, that they should be able to directly answer his questions pertaining to its administration, plans, etc?
Well, its not really feasible to assign this task to DoD or DHS cabinet members, they have so much on their own plate. So you make a new position "Director of the White House Office of Cybersecurity". It happens, since you make a specific position, that you get this unoffical nickname "Czar".

Doesn't seem that wrong/crazy... Seems like intelligent management.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Its not so much what the czars do, it is more the fact that the general government was never given the power to create a czar. It is that certain executives have decided that it would be more efficient to spread around the power(and responsibilities) of the executive, a power they were never given the right to do.
My impression has been that these people are advisors, not that they have been given any special authority or power that is generally invested in the president. It would seem they mostly do research and hold meetings with people who represent interests in their specified domain and then take information and findings back to the president to use in making decisions. This allows the office of the president to gather information for decision making purposes on multiple important issues while the president maintains his general responsibilities and a fairly rigorous schedule.

If I am wrong and these people do actually possess any executive authority then please show me examples, I would like to be enlightened. So far as I have seen though we only have accusations of the president outsourcing his responsibilities and no evidence to back them up.

[WhoWee]

My impression has been that these people are advisors, not that they have been given any special authority or power that is generally invested in the president. It would seem they mostly do research and hold meetings with people who represent interests in their specified domain and then take information and findings back to the president to use in making decisions. This allows the office of the president to gather information for decision making purposes on multiple important issues while the president maintains his general responsibilities and a fairly rigorous schedule.

If I am wrong and these people do actually possess any executive authority then please show me examples, I would like to be enlightened. So far as I have seen though we only have accusations of the president outsourcing his responsibilities and no evidence to back them up.

Here is one example to consider.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57G0E820090817

"U.S. pay czar says he can "claw back" exec compensation
Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:11am EDT

By Steve Eder

MARTHA'S VINEYARD, MASSACHUSETTS (Reuters) - Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's pay czar, said on Sunday he has broad and "binding" authority over executive compensation, including the ability to "claw back" money already paid, and he is weighing how and whether to use that power.

Feinberg told Reuters that Citigroup Inc included the contract of energy trader Andrew Hall in submissions due Friday by seven major companies still locked in the federal government's TARP Program.

Feinberg said he hasn't looked at Hall's contract, which reports have said could pay him as much as $100 million this year.

"Whether I have jurisdiction to decide his compensation or not, we will take a look and decide over the next few weeks," Feinberg said after speaking at a public forum in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, part of a newsmaker series hosted by the Martha's Vineyard Times newspaper.

Feinberg has been consulting with seven companies that have yet to pay back money they borrowed from the government, including Citi, American International Group Inc, Bank of America Corp, Chrysler Financial, Chrysler Group LLC, General Motors Co and GMAC Inc.

Those companies faced a deadline of Friday of submitted proposals to Feinberg for their top 25 employees.

Feinberg said on Sunday that decisions he makes will be "binding," but the law limits his power over contracts signed before February 11, 2009.

He also said he has the authority to use a "clawback" provision to go after compensation for executives from any company that received money from the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Progr.am (TARP).

"I have the discretion, conferred upon by Congress, to attempt to recover compensation that has already been paid to executives not only in these companies, but in any company that received federal assistance," Feinberg said during his remarks.

Asked by Reuters if he could use that ability to target a firm like Goldman Sachs Group Inc, which paid back $10 billion in bailout money, Feinberg said: "Anything is possible under the law."

"I can claw back, but we haven't focused on that at all," he said."

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here is one example to consider.
That's a power of the executive branch? Obama's responsibilities being given to someone else?

[Hepth]

But he was legally appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury as a Special Master of the TARP fund. And according to wikipedia:
"The role of the special master (who is frequently, but not necessarily, an attorney) is to supervise those falling under the order of the court to make sure that the court order is being followed, and to report on the activities of the entity being supervised in a timely matter to the judge or the judge's designated representatives"

Which means he HAS the authority.

I don't understand what you would want, NOONE in charge of TARP's handling? Do you think every single position in the government should be appointed by election?

[WhoWee]

But he was legally appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury as a Special Master of the TARP fund. And according to wikipedia:
"The role of the special master (who is frequently, but not necessarily, an attorney) is to supervise those falling under the order of the court to make sure that the court order is being followed, and to report on the activities of the entity being supervised in a timely matter to the judge or the judge's designated representatives"

Which means he HAS the authority.

I don't understand what you would want, NOONE in charge of TARP's handling? Do you think every single position in the government should be appointed by election?

Not even the IRS can tell you HOW to spend your money. Perhaps if Congress had READ the legislation - they could have stipulated use of the funds.

[WhoWee]

Does anyone see a pattern developing?

Step 1.) Identify a crisis
Step 2.) Draft a multi-hundreds of billions of dollar - 500 to 1,000 page Bill that nobody has time to read or understand stuffed with pet projects and special interest goodies (yes - lobbys and earmarks included) and force through
Step 3.) Shovel the money out of the door haphazarly with little or no control - not even sure where it went
Step 4.) Realize new problems and consequences have resulted
Step 5.) Over-react to the new consequences with additional Government expansion and "control" - which means more regulation and expense to business
Step 6.) Defend actions to public and identify "bad guys" that caused problem - divert attention away from politicians
Step 7.) Explain to public everything is now under control in spite of efforts by "business people who caused the problem"
Step 8.) Repeat process

Maybe it's a coincidence?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not even the IRS can tell you HOW to spend your money. Perhaps if Congress had READ the legislation - they could have stipulated use of the funds.
In this particular case we are talking about an emergency bill that they probably had little time to consider under the circumstances. And I doubt that many people cared much about people getting large bonuses until John Q heard about it and got miffed.
Its already been fairly well run through the ringer whether or not the government can do much about it or whether or not they should. JQP has mostly forgotten about it and so have most politicians I am sure.


Does anyone see a pattern developing?

Step 1.) Identify a crisis
Step 2.) Draft a multi-hundreds of billions of dollar - 500 to 1,000 page Bill that nobody has time to read or understand stuffed with pet projects and special interest goodies (yes - lobbys and earmarks included) and force through
Step 3.) Shovel the money out of the door haphazarly with little or no control - not even sure where it went
Step 4.) Realize new problems and consequences have resulted
Step 5.) Over-react to the new consequences with additional Government expansion and "control" - which means more regulation and expense to business
Step 6.) Defend actions to public and identify "bad guys" that caused problem - divert attention away from politicians
Step 7.) Explain to public everything is now under control in spite of efforts by "business people who caused the problem"
Step 8.) Repeat process

Maybe it's a coincidence?

Its the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' at work. Any time you put some plan into action there are likely to be unexpected problems that need to be fixed and dealt with. And of course when you are dealing with politicians of any stripe they are likely to try to make sure the buck gets passed.

Step two is certainly something I think we should see changed. I have heard about pushes to reform the manner in which bills are constructed and passed. Unfortunately I doubt it will ever change.

Something I noticed when I recently looked up the executive orders regarding presidential records though was that Obama's new executive order is actually much shorter and more elegant than Bush's was. I am wondering if that is because he is a lawyer and actually oversaw the drafting or even wrote it himself.

[overtherainbo]

Dear friends,
I am so pleased to read these and other comments of this nature; for several months now I have been so concerned that little things like the White House informant site might thoroughly crush debate. And these are truly among the serious issues; but, boy, some of you are really missing the important points!
1) an advisor advises; he exorcises no authority beyond his own office staff. He makes no policy, and passes no regulations that have the force of statutory law. If he is smart he will be invisible rather than generating headlines with his remarks and activities. He is generally neither vetted nor questioned by Congress, as his role is usually specific to the individual serving as President.
2) a cabinet member advises; the President has delegated a fragment his authority to a cabinet-member to control a specific activity, and that cabinet-member through the agency he heads will enact regulations ( with the same statutory force as laws enacted by Congress ) to organize, enforce, and punish those who transgress. Generally the main body of regulations remain intact, and react slowly to changes within the environment they are designed to control; agency regulations are published through the Government Printing Office and are not mysterious.
3) A cabinet-member is vetted by Congress - the person is known by his professional record, etc.
4) In the case of cabinet-members or the case of the President as Commander-in-Chief there exists a specific chain-of-command of delegated, specific authority; there are oaths of honor and trust to be upheld.
5) There exist specific laws to be applied to malfeasance or dereliction to a specific office whether elective or appointed; the oaths of professionals like doctors, lawyers, and CPAs, and the oaths of an office, elective or appointed carry a sanction: those who fail in their duty can be punished with the loss of a career and removal from office.
6) But - and this is very much the issue - if the President has placed these people in a position to exorcise any sort of power, how is that power defined?
a) They haven't been vetted by Congress; so if they are tax cheats, felons, or persons of dubious character nobody knows.
b) What is their mission and authority? Has it been defined in print so that any citizen can know if he is about to be arrested by one of the new Czars for activities that were legal before Jan. 2009? The new Czars' missions are vaguely defined and seem to overlap the authority of agencies that already exist; agencies with very clearly defined areas of activity, clear chains of command populated with known officers, published regulations, Inspector-Generals, Congressional oversight, and designated rules for administrative arbitration and judicial review--additionally, the "hard look doctrine" can almost guarantee additional interest from Congress, and that the agency will explain their decisions to Congress.
c) if a person with delegated authority to act in the President's name performs an outrageous act, how do we address the act? Since he does not exist in the framework of a specific office, there exist no rules to define the act or punish the offense. If Obama has not delegated his authority to a person with professional credentials, those cannot be stripped for professional misconduct. We are currently living in a defacto one party republic; Obama can literally do anything and there is only an infinitesimal possibility that Congress will do anything, or, indeed, show any interest.
d) I am not a conspiracy theorist, but on it's face, it looks like Obama is trying to do an end-run around Congress by appointing people to operate in areas of activity that are properly the sphere of activity regulated by a duly constituted agency with oversight by the Congress. This evades all the normal controls that ensure fair treatment to common citizens. This is the very establishment of a shadow government that duplicates the offices and activities of the constitutional government, that executes the powers of the administration beyond the courts or the legislature, eventually by-passes legitimate authority, and eventually renders the legitimate government irrelevant.
e) There is one government in recent history known to have operated in this manner. The head of the government was legally elected, but in short order he found that the economic considerations, rampant partizan politics, and emergencies had so disrupted the State that he needed to rule through emergency decrees. His political party had long since duplicated the administrative offices of the legitimate government so that he simply delegated new orders and operations to his party members and by-passed balky administrative types who insisted on following the rule of law. His second-in-command reorganized the various municipal police forces into one federalized police force; and with new laws exempting the police and their activities from judicial review, they began rounding up dissenters. The leader was supported by an aggressive political party with street thugs as enforcers; the legislative branch existed as a rubber stamp; the only remaining news organizations and labor unions were organized and controlled by party leaders; and life down to the suburban block was controlled by low-level party hacks, and youth groups sang praises to the Leader and were rewarded for reporting dissenters and those were unenthusiastic. The Leader was the Times Man-of-the-Year, and appeared of the cover of the magazine numerous times before 1940.
But even after Hitler conquered the whole Europe, and had armies fighting from North Africa to the outskirts of Moscow; even after rumor of concentration camps and the slaughter enacted by the SS death squads following in the wake of Blitzkrieg; even after some 20 million people lay dead on the world's battlefields, and experienced the treachery that lead to the ruin of Pearl Harbor nobody expected Congress to pass thousands of pages of legislation with out reading the freaking bill. FDR didn't use intimidation, he didn't empower thugs to act as enforcers, his legislation, however radical it may have seemed at the time, was at least subjected to the normal, legal Congressional debate. Obama has done everything to arouse my fears. Sincerely, Overtherainbo

[Jasongreat]

That's a power of the executive branch? Obama's responsibilities being given to someone else?

No its not a power of the executive, IMHO thats even worse than delegating his reponsibilities, hes delegating power he doesnt and wasnt supposed to have. It seems to me you are arguing that since he is not delegating his power, but inventing power and giving that power away,it is all right for him to do so.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2, subpart 2 states:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided 2/3 of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the senate,shall appoint ambassadors, other ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers not herein provided for,and which shall be provided for 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.

It seems the framers didnt trust the executive branch too much, since everything listed in this section has to be approved by the legislative branch, either by the senate giving thier advise and consent, or by congress passing a law giving consent that way. So if you can show me the law that says he can appoint czars without consent, executive orders excluded, or the advice of the senate, I guess I would have to agree that there is nothing wrong with him appointing czars, until then I am of the opinion he(and quite a few other presidents) have overstepped the bounds of the constitution. If there is a law, that gives any president a blank check to make up offices and fill them with whoever he wants, then I guess my problems with executives overstepping the bounds of the constitution will have to be re-focused on the legislative, and maybe even the judicial branches, since by allowing the executive to over step, the others branches are not fulfilling thier duties to check and balance each other. Also, I would have to say that the people arent doing thier duty to keep the government in check either, if they allowed that law to pass, with no political consequences.