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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I’m wary of anything that pundits push forward as a red alert, at least without verification and corroboration from more journalism-based sources.
ReplyDeleteI don’t have substantial evidence in front of me to indicate that this is necessarily a growing trend. I’m not necessarily saying that it is definitely not a growing trend – I just don’t see evidence indicating that it is. Pundits will cite this or that hypothetical set of supporting data, but it rarely stands up to logical scrutiny. Punditry often fails to bring together data properly to create a picture of reality; it is selective or assertive. What are the exact statistics of previous presidents using such advisors, even if under a different name?
Pundits, no matter their political orientation, never have an allegiance to objective reality, and will play the role of Chicken Little for various reasons, perhaps out of sincere belief, perhaps out of a drive for ratings, and perhaps a combination of both.
I am skeptical not because of political passion in favor of one side or another – I just don’t see a case for alarm. The case put forward is designed to engender fear and suspicion. It presents what seems to be a compelling case of a government gone wild with executive power, but I don’t think that the pundits and commentators are doing anything more than reinforcing their own dislike of the current holders of power. Perhaps they are also pursuing the goal of getting their own world-view across.
‘Czar’ in this context seems to be just another name for an administrative consultant to the President and a personal taskforce leader over a particular issue. I doubt that their actual executive power goes significantly beyond that of any other historical managerial agent serving from within the Executive Branch. Most often, they may not even have any executive power whatsoever, but serve merely in an advisory capacity. Presidents often appoint taskforce agents or commissions to pursue specific topics in order to delegate issues which would be better tackled by people with actual experience in whatever field it is. The practice is very old, although the names and methods of delegation wildly vary.
I suspect that this whole matter is unwarranted suspicion.
The argument they make is that the President try to bypass senate confirmation process that often takes too long by appointing people to oversee certain government programs. Politics is always played when confirming the President's appointees. The senate is still yet to confirm many of the President's appointees...and in a system like that, you're forced to bypass the senate confirmation when you have the chance. Those Czars are like advisers though, they are not in charge of policy making.
ReplyDelete