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

[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 without 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. 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 that's even worse than delegating his reponsibilities, he's delegating power he doesn't 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 their 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 their duties to check and balance each other. Also, I would have to say that the people arent doing their duty to keep the government in check either, if they allowed that law to pass, with no political consequences.