112th Congress .. Here a Czar, There a Czar, Where are the Czars ...now
-
Belly35
GOP ..Czars be gone
Seems the New 112th Congress has a Constitutional Agenda about the Obama Circle Jerk of Czars and their staff …
It is time to cutting out the waste in Obama Administration don’t you agree?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/house-republicans-push-shut-white-house-czars/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5807-house-republicans-target-obamas-czars
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706235.html -
Belly35
Cat got your tongue ..............Democrat
-
I Wear PantsYou know that Czars aren't the official name of these guys and that they've been appointed for many Presidencies right?
You won't read this but you should: http://factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/ -
Belly35
I Wear Pants;634255 wrote:You know that Czars aren't the official name of these guys and that they've been appointed for many Presidencies right?
You won't read this but you should: http://factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/
I’m never apposed to reading and learning …….
IMO Czars are unconstitutional under any administration and should be GONE. Unless the steps written in the Constitution are follow to the letter Czar should be eliminated until the process is upheld by both parties per the law.
I think the attention Obama Czars have gotten is because of their political views, liberal agenda, racial overtones and radical opinions. Plus the fact that many are not confirmed by the Senate or Congress has come to light.
When it comes to cutting the budge Obama going to have to have some skin in the game… -
I Wear PantsHow are they unconstitutional? The Czar title is just what the media and sometimes the administrations call things that either don't have specific titles or have long titles.
Almost all of them are positions that have existed before or weren't even appointed by the president and quite a few have been approved by congress.
* Nine were confirmed by the Senate, including the director of national intelligence ("intelligence czar"), the chief performance officer ("government performance czar") and the deputy interior secretary ("California water czar").
* Eight more were not appointed by the president – the special advisor to the EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan ("Great Lakes czar") is EPA-appointed, for instance, and the assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs ("border czar") is appointed by the secretary of homeland security.
* Fifteen of the "czarships" Beck lists, including seven that are in neither of the above categories, were created by previous administrations. (In some cases, as with the "economic czar," the actual title – in this case, chairman of the president’s economic recovery advisory board – is new, but there has been an official overseeing the area in past administrations. In others, as with the special envoy to Sudan, the position is old but the "czar" appellation is new.)
* In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.
These new "czars" include the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; the director of recovery for auto communities and workers; the senior advisor for the president’s Automotive Task Force; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality; the federal chief information officer; the chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board; the White House director of urban affairs; and the White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, security and arms control. Or, as Glenn Beck would have it, the Afghanistan czar, the auto recovery czar, the car czar, the embattled green jobs czar, the information czar, the stimulus accountability czar, the urban affairs czar and the WMD policy czar.
Some of these new positions would have been meaningless in a previous administration. Previous presidents didn’t need an Automotive Task Force or a Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. These positions are similar to George W. Bush’s "World Trade Center health czar" and "Gulf Coast reconstruction czar" in that they are new advisory positions created to deal with temporary challenges facing the administration. Others do represent new long-term concerns (urban affairs, climate change), but the act of appointing advisers to manage new areas of interest is hardly unique to the Obama administration. The Bush administration, for instance, created the "faith-based czar" and the "cybersecurity czar." -
CenterBHSFan
I often wonder myself why they are "needed". I do agree with Belly that alot of departments should be combined and shaved down.
Also, nothing wrong with starting at the top and working the way down. As we have seen, it will never happen working from the bottom up. -
ptown_trojans_1
Ugh, most of the "czars" are National Security Council personnel, which is perfectly legal under the 1947 National Security Act. Formally Holbrooke, Samore, Brennan, Carter, Ross, and Mitchell are all under the National Security Council for the President and thus are legal under Article II.
NSC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council
Plus, some on the list, like the Director of National Intelligence is not a czar, it is a legally mandated appointed (2004 law) and confirmed by the Senate position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence
Calling the DNI a czar shows how ignorant some people are.
The ones not related to foreign policy are fair game in my view. -
CenterBHSFan
Well I wonder, Ptown, why just foreign policy?? LOL
-
ptown_trojans_1
CenterBHSFan;634681 wrote:Well I wonder, Ptown, why just foreign policy?? LOL
Because, they are under the umbrella of the National Security Council.
For domestic policy, no such organization in the Presidency, outside a Cabinet office, has been established by order from Congress. -
Belly35
So Ptown you work under a Czar ...are you a "serf"
-
ptown_trojans_1
Belly35;634767 wrote:So Ptown you work under a Czar ...are you a "serf"
Sure, why not.
But, czar is not an official title, only one used by the media. -
QuakerOatsHere we go again ........ the old "that's the way it's always been" mantra ........
When will people in government get it through their THICK heads that we have to turn this thing upside down, shake the hell out of it, and start over, from scratch in many instances???? In private enterprise, when people say "well that's the way we've always done it", they are generally the first to have to hit the road. It is time to start thinking outside the box, to understand and ACCEPT the fact that we can get by just fine with about half the government that we currently have. It is time to gut the pig ---- get on with it. The quicker and deeper we cut the bettter, as most turnaround experts know. -
ptown_trojans_1
As I said before, the domestic policy ones are fair game.QuakerOats;635352 wrote:Here we go again ........ the old "that's the way it's always been" mantra ........
When will people in government get it through their THICK heads that we have to turn this thing upside down, shake the hell out of it, and start over, from scratch in many instances???? In private enterprise, when people say "well that's the way we've always done it", they are generally the first to have to hit the road. It is time to start thinking outside the box, to understand and ACCEPT the fact that we can get by just fine with about half the government that we currently have. It is time to gut the pig ---- get on with it. The quicker and deeper we cut the bettter, as most turnaround experts know.
As to the foreign policy related ones, it is more a matter of restructuring the National Security Council and perhaps transitioning some of the positions back to the DoD or State. But, most of the positions are to directly link State and DoD and get them on the same page, or to coordinate multiple agencies inside the White House to better define a policy.
If we are to get rid of most of them, then what are they going to be replaced with or offset by? -
I Wear Pants
I believe it'd be more intelligent to go about it on a position by position basis and evaluate the usefulness and need for each position before just getting rid of everything because we have a media built paranoia with anything that involves the government (especially when the media uses terms like "czar" to describe the assistant undersecretary to whatever).QuakerOats;635352 wrote:Here we go again ........ the old "that's the way it's always been" mantra ........
When will people in government get it through their THICK heads that we have to turn this thing upside down, shake the hell out of it, and start over, from scratch in many instances???? In private enterprise, when people say "well that's the way we've always done it", they are generally the first to have to hit the road. It is time to start thinking outside the box, to understand and ACCEPT the fact that we can get by just fine with about half the government that we currently have. It is time to gut the pig ---- get on with it. The quicker and deeper we cut the bettter, as most turnaround experts know.
As for the bolded that doesn't really mean anything. -
BGFalcons82
I Wear Pants;635472 wrote:I believe it'd be more intelligent to go about it on a position by position basis and evaluate the usefulness and need for each position before just getting rid of everything because we have a media built paranoia with anything that involves the government (especially when the media uses terms like "czar" to describe the assistant undersecretary to whatever).
As for the bolded that doesn't really mean anything.
I agree it should be position-by-position, however there should be a goal of say, at least 50% reduction, like QO proposes above. If the whining and crying begins, such as, "we MUST have the communications czar because the world would collapse with them", then they will have to buck up and grow a large pair to pare.
-
I Wear PantsWell I mean, what does a communications czar do? Because it could very well be an important and useful position.
Cuts should definitely be entertained though because if there are positions that we don't need then they definitely must go. I don't think you should go in with a percentage goal of what you're going to cut because then you'll end up cutting that much no matter what just so you don't miss the goal.
I don't know what most of the "czars" do so I can't really detract from or defend their usefulness. -
Belly35
Bypassing the authority of Congress
1. Herbert Allison Jr., bailout czar, [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
2. Alan Bersin, border czar
3. Dennis Blair, intelligence czar [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position]
4. John Brennan, counterterrorism czar
5. Carol Browner, energy czar
6. Adolfo Carrion, urban affairs czar
7. Ashton Carter, weapons czar [actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and so subject to Senate confirmation]
8. Aneesh Chopra, technology czar
9. Jeffrey Crowley, [openly gay white man] AIDS czar
10. Cameron Davis, Great Lakes czar
11. Nancy-Ann DeParle, health czar
12. Earl Devaney, stimulus oversight czar
13. Joshua DuBois, religion czar, aka God czar
14. Arne Duncan, education czar
15. Kenneth Feinberg, pay czar
16. Daniel Fried, Guantanamo closure czar
17. J. Scott Gration, Sudan czar
18. Melissa Hathaway, [soon to be] cybersecurity czar
19. David J. Hayes, water czar [a Deputy Interior Secretary and therefore subject to Senate oversight]
20. Richard Holbrooke, Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar
21. John Holdren, science czar
22. Kevin Jennings, safe schools czar [nominated to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, a newly created post; openly gay founder of an organization dedicated to promoting pro-homosexual clubs and curricula in public schools]
23. Van Jones, green jobs czar (Fired)
24. Gil Kerlikowske, drug czar
25. Ron Kirk, trade czar
26. Vivek Kundra, infotech czar [Shoplifted four shirts, worth $33.50 each, from J.C. Penney in 1996 (source)]
27. Douglas Lute, war czar [retained from Bush administration, married to Jane Holl Lute, currently a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security]
28. George Mitchell, Mideast peace czar
29. Ed Montgomery, car czar [replacing Steve Rattner, who stepped down amid controversy over his former firm’s role in a possible kickback scandal]
30. Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence czar
31. Dennis Ross, Mideast policy czar
32. Gary Samore, weapons of mass destruction czar
33. Todd Stern, climate change czar
34. Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar
35. Larry Summers, economic czar
36. Michael Taylor, food czar
37. Arturo Valenzuela, Latin-American czar (nominee) [although this post is referred to as a czar, he is nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and so is subject to Senate confirmation]
38. Paul Volcker, economic czar number two
39. Elizabeth Warren, TARP czar [chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Trouble Assets Relief Program; note that Herb Allison is more frequently called the TARP czar]
40. Jeffrey Zients, government performance czar [replaced original nominee Nancy Killefer who withdrew her name after issues with her personal income tax filings surfaced]
Positions established but not yet filled:
41. behavioral science czar
42. copyright czar
Positions being planned:
1. income redistribution czar
2. land-use czar
3. consumer financial protection czar, aka mortgage czar (source)
4. radio-internet fairness czar
5. student loan czar, to oversee a program of mandatory service in return for college money (source)
6. voter list czar
7. zoning czar -
I Wear PantsWhy did you list "openly gay" like it was something that should be shocking?
Like I said before though, I'm not opposed to cutting positions as lord knows we need to cut a lot of things. But even knowing their titles I don't know what they do so I cannot judge whether they're worth having or not. I wouldn't be opposed to Congress forming a comittee to take a look at them though. -
ptown_trojans_1
Belly, half of those positions are either Cabinet level or under the umbrella of the National Security Council, which was established by law in 1947.
Also, if they are Senate confirmed that does not make them czars since they did not bypass the Congress so that is an awful list. -
QuakerOatsThere is nothing wrong with rescinding agencies, bureaucracies, positions, departments etc..... "by law". We spend forever attempting to rationalize things as they currently exist (especially when the rationalizers are government employees themselves ---- no conflict there). I am looking at it from the standpoint of what occurs in the private sector when an entity is essentially in triage; if we do not look at this from such a perspective and act quickly (and yes with some judiciousness) then it will be another exercise in futility. I can guarantee you this, when FORCED to make tough decisions because you HAVE TO, there is a will and a way, and it happens every day. It can be harsh, unpopular, divisive, and sometimes unfair, but when it has to be done, it simply has to be done. We could put turnaround experts in charge of government restructuring and change would be swift and severe, but we would accomplish all that needs accomplished. Anything short of that is a sellout and we would be fooling ourselves .......... again.
-
pmoney25
What does openly gay white man have anything to do with the position of CZAR?
9. Jeffrey Crowley, [openly gay white man] AIDS czar
As for the topic, I agree with a lot of what Quaker said. We cannot let the government continue to gain so much control and power over every aspect of this country. -
BGFalcons82
I Wear Pants;635519 wrote:Well I mean, what does a communications czar do? Because it could very well be an important and useful position.
Exactly...what does this person do for a living, what staff do they have, and what section of the Constitution gives them authority to exist? Don't we already have an FCC and aren't they about as powerful as it comes when public communication is involved? How is this position necessary or useful if we already have a federal commission set up for it (careful...loaded question)? -
BGFalcons82
ptown_trojans_1;635692 wrote:Belly, half of those positions are either Cabinet level or under the umbrella of the National Security Council, which was established by law in 1947.
Also, if they are Senate confirmed that does not make them czars since they did not bypass the Congress so that is an awful list.
ptown - here are some security czars from Belly's list that I find we could easily do without:
1. Border czar. Are you freaking kidding me?
2. Counterterrorism czar. Sounds like there are numerous other departments where this could be held, such as Defense, CIA, NSA, and Homeland Security to name a few.
3. Weapons czar. Once again...are you freaking kidding me? What the hell does our military do for a living?
4. Guantanomo closure czar. Really? We need a czar to figure out how to close down something? Are we THAT impotent?
5. Sudan czar. WTF?? Do we need a czar for individual countries now? Where is the State Dept, CIA, NSA, military, etc. Can we AFFORD czars for individual countries now? This is insane.
6. Mideast Peace czar. What the hell are we paying Hillary for anyway?
7. Weapons of Mass Destruction czar. You need this guy? Once again, what the hell are we paying the military for anyway? Seems to me this fits dead up their alley....so to speak.
There are a couple others, like Afghan-Pak czar, but since that is a war zone, I'll let it go....but once again...aren't we paying folks in the State Dept, the CIA, Homeland Security, and the military for this shit? How in the hell did we get to this point where we have these little fiefdoms set up that have no oversight and we have no idea what the hell they are up to? By the way....we are over $14,000,000,000,000 in debt with no end in sight. Holy fuck, Batman. -
I Wear Pants
I don't know, which is why I'd be fine with a board or something being set up to scrutinize whether we need these people or if they're doing something that can already be done by another office or agency.BGFalcons82;635985 wrote:Exactly...what does this person do for a living, what staff do they have, and what section of the Constitution gives them authority to exist? Don't we already have an FCC and aren't they about as powerful as it comes when public communication is involved? How is this position necessary or useful if we already have a federal commission set up for it (careful...loaded question)?
On the FCC front, I wish they'd actually use some of their advisory power and make some real regulations regarding net neutrality instead of the crap they've done so far. -
ptown_trojans_1
BGFalcons82;635992 wrote:ptown - here are some security czars from Belly's list that I find we could easily do without:
1. Border czar. Are you freaking kidding me?
2. Counterterrorism czar. Sounds like there are numerous other departments where this could be held, such as Defense, CIA, NSA, and Homeland Security to name a few.
3. Weapons czar. Once again...are you freaking kidding me? What the hell does our military do for a living?
4. Guantanomo closure czar. Really? We need a czar to figure out how to close down something? Are we THAT impotent?
5. Sudan czar. WTF?? Do we need a czar for individual countries now? Where is the State Dept, CIA, NSA, military, etc. Can we AFFORD czars for individual countries now? This is insane.
6. Mideast Peace czar. What the hell are we paying Hillary for anyway?
7. Weapons of Mass Destruction czar. You need this guy? Once again, what the hell are we paying the military for anyway? Seems to me this fits dead up their alley....so to speak.
There are a couple others, like Afghan-Pak czar, but since that is a war zone, I'll let it go....but once again...aren't we paying folks in the State Dept, the CIA, Homeland Security, and the military for this shit? How in the hell did we get to this point where we have these little fiefdoms set up that have no oversight and we have no idea what the hell they are up to? By the way....we are over $14,000,000,000,000 in debt with no end in sight. Holy fuck, Batman.
Border czar can probably go away and be the sole focus on DHS.
CT Czar is John Brennan and coordinates DHS, DoD, State and all agencies under the National Security Council.
Weapons czar is Ashton Carter who is not a czar and is an actual DoD personnel working in an actual DoD office.
http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=186
Gitmo is important as it holds all of our detainees and figuring out how to try them in courts and close the facility is pretty damn important.
Sudan, an election is happening there and there is Darfur. Maybe no need.
George Mitchell is the peace czar, an important, some say impossible position, but one again under the National Security Council.
WMD czar under Samore, he links the DoD, State, Energy Dept. and Intelligence Communities on nuclear weapons issues. Recently, he has been really focusing on Iran.
It is all for coordination, because the national security issues facing this country are too much for the National Security Adviser to really sift through, the President, under the 1947 Act, has the power to hire people on specific issues that report to the NSA.
Do not like, then come up with a way to reform the National Security Council than can replace the 1947 Act that Congress granted the President to do under Article II.