Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Aug 24, 2009 #1
    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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 24, 2009 #2
    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?
     
  4. Aug 24, 2009 #3

    Wax

    User Avatar

    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:
     
  5. Aug 24, 2009 #4

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  6. Aug 24, 2009 #5

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  7. Aug 24, 2009 #6
    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.
     
  8. Aug 24, 2009 #7
    It's not clear what their responsibilities are - couldn't find anything on the WH site.
     
  9. Aug 24, 2009 #8
    Hey, you might be on to something - The Czar Index available exclusively through the jreelawg Fund.
     
  10. Aug 24, 2009 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2009
  11. Aug 24, 2009 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Googling for the issue does find articles. Here's one:
    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/05/nation/na-obama-czars5
     
  12. Aug 24, 2009 #11
    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.
     
  13. Aug 25, 2009 #12
    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.
     
  14. Aug 25, 2009 #13
    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"?
     
  15. Aug 25, 2009 #14
    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?
     
  16. Aug 25, 2009 #15

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

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

    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?
     
  17. Aug 25, 2009 #16

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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. 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:
    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.
     
  18. Aug 25, 2009 #17
    So then what's the problem?

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

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2009
  19. Aug 25, 2009 #18
    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.

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

    I'm not going to speculate an answer. We'll just have to wait and see. :wink:
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2009
  20. Aug 25, 2009 #19

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :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.
     
  21. Aug 25, 2009 #20
    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?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Here a Czar, there a Czar, everywhere a Czar Czar
  1. They're everywhere! (Replies: 11)

Loading...