Over the last few months czars have been getting some attention in the media. While the title keep popping up I was unclear on were they come from and why they were around, so I decided to do a little research and share with you. Obama was not the first president to appoint czars, that was actually President Reagan, and every President since has had czars. However, Obama currently has the most czars that one president has had. The major argumant against czars is they do not need to be approved. This means that in theory they are only accountable to the president, and not the people. Main congresswoman Collins says that the "Obama administration's creation of more that a dozen "czar" positions circumvents congressional oversight and hurts both the transparency and accountability in Washington." The article goes on to say that she wants czars to issue two reports per year to the public so that the people know what they have been doing. Here is the link if you want to have a look at the full article. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/23/senator-wants-obama-czars-to-testify/
An important think to remember is czar is a title given to them by the media, it is not in their offical titles.
After some searching I found several list of czars but here is a link to the most comprehensive one. http://me.jeremybuff.com/blog/list-of-obama-czars/ This list not only names the czars, but also gives a breif discription of their positions, another existing office that could be doing the job, and some of the salaries. Only about 1/3 of the salaries are listed but they range from about $90,000 to $200,000.
I think that it is important to look at the people who are forming our policies. These are the people the Presidnet Obama trust and chooses to surround himself with.
I also watched some youtube video's on Obama's czars and Glen Beck has done some shows on "exposing" the czars. There were several quotes from both the President and the czars that are interesting. I will post one of the links, they are kind of long, but you can watch it if you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZNOfZ18S-I
What do you think of these positions? Do you think that there is a need for the czars? If you have any more information on czars please post them.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama addresses schools:
Yesterday President Obama addressed many of our nations children. He was the third president to do so. President Reagan was first in 1986 followed by George Bush in 1991. Yesterday's speech has spurred a differeance in opinion on if any president should be allowed to address the children while they are at school with or without parental consent. The speech that president Obama gave (http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/) focused on "education and what's expected of all of you this new school year." He goes on to talk about the respnsibility of the student to get their education, and has a brief mention about protecting yourself from the swine flu. After reading all three of the speeches I found that they all had similarities. When Presidnet Reagan addressed (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/51386d.htmthe) the nation's children the country was coming out of hard economic times (not unlike the present) and he encouraged them to get their education and make good choices for their future. Presidnet Bush's speech(http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public papers.php?id=3450&year=1991&month=10) urged children to stay away from drugs and earn an education.
Some people defend the presidents actions. They believe that holding the office of United States President is an influential office and it is good that he is using it to inspire America's youth. The speech was made avalible online to anyone who wanted to read it, so there is no question as to what was said. The most common reply I read from supporters was way shouldn't the president be allowed to address teh children? Most of the information that I found on the subject were not articles, but rather blogs and comments from other citizens. There were several comments like this one, "...[the] ONLY reason for a parent or school offical to not want kids to hear the President of the U.S. is pure ignorance or racism..." (http://www.news-leader.com/article/20090903/BLOGS10/90903019/Should+students+be+allowed+to+watch+president+Obama+s+address)
On the other hand some parents have been upset that the schools would show this video to their children. They say it sets a president for the President to address their child without them present. One differance between President Obama's speech and the others is it included all studnets from Pre-K to high school seniors. Some think that young children may have questions steming from the speech and the parents have to rely on the teachers to answer those questions. The political views of the teacher may or may not reflect the views of the child's parent. Another argument I read was politics like religion is highly personal. Everyone has an individual view point. This is why they have separated religion from schools. Some people don't think that any government official should have the ability to influence their child without them being present the some way they would not want their child being taught religous beleifs at school. One gentleman made the argument that the president addressing children in schools "..crosses a boundary between the political and social spheres." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff310.html) On a face book poll about 430,600 people replied, and the split between yes and no was about even.
Supporters of the address in gerneral say that the fears of the speech are an overreaction and uncalled for. While the general reponse of people who disapprove is how is this going to effect my child and how is this going to impact the future standard? Should the President or any political leader be able to address school children without the parent being pressent or approving or are these concerns an overreaction? Please share your thoughts and opinions.
Some people defend the presidents actions. They believe that holding the office of United States President is an influential office and it is good that he is using it to inspire America's youth. The speech was made avalible online to anyone who wanted to read it, so there is no question as to what was said. The most common reply I read from supporters was way shouldn't the president be allowed to address teh children? Most of the information that I found on the subject were not articles, but rather blogs and comments from other citizens. There were several comments like this one, "...[the] ONLY reason for a parent or school offical to not want kids to hear the President of the U.S. is pure ignorance or racism..." (http://www.news-leader.com/article/20090903/BLOGS10/90903019/Should+students+be+allowed+to+watch+president+Obama+s+address)
On the other hand some parents have been upset that the schools would show this video to their children. They say it sets a president for the President to address their child without them present. One differance between President Obama's speech and the others is it included all studnets from Pre-K to high school seniors. Some think that young children may have questions steming from the speech and the parents have to rely on the teachers to answer those questions. The political views of the teacher may or may not reflect the views of the child's parent. Another argument I read was politics like religion is highly personal. Everyone has an individual view point. This is why they have separated religion from schools. Some people don't think that any government official should have the ability to influence their child without them being present the some way they would not want their child being taught religous beleifs at school. One gentleman made the argument that the president addressing children in schools "..crosses a boundary between the political and social spheres." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff310.html) On a face book poll about 430,600 people replied, and the split between yes and no was about even.
Supporters of the address in gerneral say that the fears of the speech are an overreaction and uncalled for. While the general reponse of people who disapprove is how is this going to effect my child and how is this going to impact the future standard? Should the President or any political leader be able to address school children without the parent being pressent or approving or are these concerns an overreaction? Please share your thoughts and opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
