The President’s Czars
CZAR:
- an emperor or king.
- (often initial capital letter) the former emperor of Russia.
- an autocratic ruler or leader.
- any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry.
- an informal term for certain high-level officials in the United States Executive Branch who wield unspecified power, and operate independently of the United State Legislative Branch, as they do not undergo a confirmation process and are directly appointed by the Chief Executive.
I’ve been watching the Obama Administration the past few months, and I’ve been concerned about the number of new Czars that have been appointed:
- The Health Reform Czar – This was originally a position created for Tom Daschle, but it is filled by Nancy-Ann DeParle
- The Energy Czar – While this is not a new post, the media are acting like it is. I’ve found Energy Czars all the way back to the Ford Administration; currently it is staffed by Carol Browner; she has also been called the “Global Warming Czar” and “Climate Czar”, making this research even more confusing.
- The Chief Performance Czar – this is a new Czar post that Obama’s team came up with. It was supposed to be filled by Nancy Kiffefer. Currently, the seat is vacant.
- The Car Czar – This has been the one in the news the most, but it is also the most confusing, there appear to be TWO Car Czars: Edward B. Montgomery (Though it appears his role is shifting towards “Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers”) and Steven Rattner appears to now have the title of Czar.
- The Cyber Czar – The newest Czar was announced last month, and while there is no official announcement yet, signs point to an appointment for Mellissa Hathaway.
- The Technology Czar – A new position filled by Vivek Kundra whose official title is “Chief Information Officer” (but isn’t that a “Cyber Czar”?)
- Copyright Czar – A position created by President Bush to help alleviate the complaints of the Music Industry and online downloads of copyrighted material. Obama has promised to appoint someone, but appears not to have done so as of this writing.
- The Economic Czar – Though not an official title, Larry Summers is the Director of the National Economic Council. This position was created in the Clinton Administration.
- The Mortgage Czar – Congress wants Obama to appoint a Mortgage Czar, no word from the White House if they will do so
I’m not against Czars, but I am concerned off all the middle management. Some of these positions even look redundant. That has been one complaint of Obama’s choices to create these positions: “Super Saturation of Czars”.
Another complaint is more of a Constitutional one, that through the use of Czars, the Executive Office (which is more than just the Chief Executive, in my opinion) is gathering power without Legislative, or Judicial Oversight. I’m sure that if there was a challenge, the Judicial Branch would look at the validity of Czars, but so far, to my knowledge, this has not been done yet.
There is no mention of “Czar” in the Constitution.
But “Czar” is just a buzzword, isn’t it?
How did we start calling these people Czars? I don’t get the connection. Though aren’t these positions basically just presidential advisers specializing in one topic? Kind of like “project manager” back in your cube jungle.
And really Jeremy? Mr. “W” mug… you are suddenly concerned about the executive branch grabbing more power??
Comment by Cisco — June 2, 2009 @ 11:35:49 AM
I think the term comes from Definition #4; but I’m not sure.
From what I understand of the Car Czar (When it was first introduced back in the first GM Bailout) this was the Executive Oversight of the Automotive Industry (the description was kept vague)
Much like a Project Manger, back in the Cubicle Jungle; but I would equate them with those Greek Ninja Masters, who could take over a project, or a process for their own diabolical means. (I’m talking about the Blackbelts, not the Czars, but it could happen, couldn’t it?
As for your charge about hypocrisy: How much of a Power Grab did “W” actually do?
Comment by Jeremy — June 2, 2009 @ 11:51:42 AM
The “anything goes” in the name of combating terror comes to mind as a good example… wire tapping, torture, prisons outside the bounds of the judicial or even military justice systems.
Just continuing a recent history of power grabbing really, and I will say that congress is complicit (and negligent) in their willingness to give up that power in exchange for never being blamed for actually taking a stand.
Comment by Cisco — June 2, 2009 @ 1:58:39 PM
Some might argue (And I’ve not seen this argument myself, cause I’m making this up as I type) that the things you mention are, by definition, arms of the Executive Branch.
If the Legislature makes the laws, and the Judicial interprets the laws, then the Executive executes said laws. Now, one might argue that the Execution of said laws needs more Judicial Oversight (and that is not arguable) but is it really a power grab by the executive, when those items are essentially Executing law?
So if that is a domain of the Executive Branch (albeit an unlawful one) is it really a power grab?
A power grab, in my definition is something that does not exist in the domain of a particular branch of government: For example: A Judicial Branch that in essence writes laws, or a Legislative branch that executes law (I can’t think of a good example of that from the top of my head), or an Executive Branch that establishes law.
Comment by Jeremy — June 2, 2009 @ 10:56:58 PM
Ok… I can buy that. the constitution is significantly vague on executive powers. Nixon made the same argument I think. But then can’t that same argument be used for Obama’s predilection for Russian monarchs?
Comment by Cisco — June 3, 2009 @ 7:42:17 AM
All we need is a Czar Czar to rule over them all.
Comment by Cisco 2 (Electric Boogaloo) — June 4, 2009 @ 5:00:20 PM
I think the problem comes in when these Czars have the ability to actually manipulate with what the private business sector is doing rather than simply advise the president on the situation. In the recent car deals, the contracts and restructuring plans actually had to be approved by the Czar to allow it to go forward. Business economics would not typically include a governmental OK on a plan. Instead, a plan would be formulated, good or bad, and it would be seen through with the outcome being also good or bad.
The key to a capitalistic society is free market including successes AND failures. The government is trying to prevent failures and take all the risk out of the equation; however, this is not capitalism and ends up bringing the downfall of the capitalist society.
Comment by Chan — June 4, 2009 @ 7:21:11 PM
We aren’t a purely capitalist society and never were, as much as republicans seem to believe. And we aren’t socialist either as much as republicans fear we are (or are becoming). We are a hybrid. Always have been, probably always will be.
So are you suggesting ANY government intervention will cause this downfall? What evidence? If not “any” where do you draw the line between success and collapse?
Comment by Cisco — June 4, 2009 @ 9:43:47 PM
The US economy wants to recover and will if left alone by the government. Our founding fathers actually believed that the government had the right to protect the citizens (i.e. from other nations) and punish those that break the law-and that is all the government had the right to do. The government has slowly grabbed more power (all three branches) moved us into a more government controlled society. The idea that the government can take what belongs to one and give it to another to be “fair” is, in itself, anti-american. If the government continues in this mentality it will hinder the economic recovery.
In its essence, all this bailout is really giving to those what they have not earned simply because they deserve it. People get to keep their houses that they didn’t deserve because they couldn’t afford it simply because the government owes it to them to make sure they own a house. Sounds pretty socialistic to me. Had the government not intervened, these people would not have bought the houses because they would not have qualified. Thus, they would not now be defaulting and very likely would still be comfortably living in their rental house until they could truly afford to buy a house. Examples go well beyond this. Government needs to stick to its job of protecting and punishing and leave the other areas alone.
Incidentally, I saw the news report this morning that Obama is now ready to appoint a “Pay Czar”.
Comment by Chan — June 5, 2009 @ 8:39:13 AM
I could buy that. It’s just a very different economic model than we’ve had for at least the last 100 years. And it’s not likely to go back. It’s much easier to add something than it is to take it away.
No one is keeping people in houses they can’t afford in order to keep a roof over their head. It’s to keep some form of money going back to the banks that lent it to them in the first place. Without that they get nothing and then the banks collapse and then you lose all your money even though you didn’t do anything wrong AND you didn’t bail anyone out.
It’s simply a matter of volume. If I’m hungry and go steal a sandwich for lunch, then I get arrested. But if a million people go steal sandwiches, it’s impossible to arrest them all… and so everyone gets a sandwich they didn’t pay for, and the deli’s all go out of business. And then there’s no sandwiches for anyone. So how do you fix that? It’s a lose-lose. Lots of people crying about the debt we’re accumulating, but what’s the alternative? If the economy collapses and your money is worthless, what good did it do you to stick to your principles? One way or another you (and I) are going to pay for this. I don’t know how much of a difference it makes as to who I make the check out to.
Comment by Cisco — June 5, 2009 @ 11:40:00 AM
I blogged too soon, Team Obama has announced the creation of a Pay Czar
And there you have it a “Czar Czar” (People must have read your comment Cisco 2)
Comment by Jeremy — June 5, 2009 @ 12:18:58 PM
Good point, Cisco, about it being harder to take things away. That is what I am concerned about with all these social-esc type programs. Obama will get everyone on the government payroll then no one will want to give up their government check.
Comment by Chan — June 7, 2009 @ 11:06:23 AM
I’m not sure what “social-esque” programs you’re referring to. The bank/mortgage thing is not something that feels like it would be hard to stop… unlike a welfare or added governmental departments, etc.
Comment by Cisco — June 8, 2009 @ 11:33:48 AM
That is exactly the issue. Obama is somewhat stealthily working to increase the numbers of people who qualify for welfare, etc. In addition, the government is gaining power over many of the private sector’s corporations in an attempt to gain control, effectively making them a government run program as well.
The issue with the mortgage thing is that it was the government that caused the whole mess in the first place. It should be a wake up call to the US that the government is incapable of managing things outside its intended sphere of authority. We’ve seen how well the government has managed it’s current social security and healthcare programs. How is it that people think the government can do a better job with more when they can’t run the stuff they already have?
Comment by Chan — June 9, 2009 @ 8:59:21 AM
You assign a nefarious nature to his actions which I’m not sure are warranted and while I can agree that expanding programs like welfare is AN issue, I certainly wouldn’t say it is THE issue. Not right now anyway.
I don’t think a lot of people think the government would do a good job running anything, I’m also not sure how much “running” they will actually be doing. But we do know the banks and car companies already proved they can’t do it. Again, what’s the realistic alternative? It’s easy to point out horrible costs of a particular solution… because all the solutions have horrible costs!
I would also dispute the blame of this crisis on the government.. at least not solely, or even primarily. Not Obama’s government, not Bush’s government and not Clinton’s government (or even Reagan’s). I would agree that incentives were put in place by the government that may have sparked it, but there were also oversights in place that failed miserably to appropriately gauge risk which thereby allowed this to spin horribly out of control. If securities backed by mortgages weren’t falsely rated triple A, there would never have been the money available for the bad loans that were made in the first place.
Comment by Cisco — June 9, 2009 @ 11:33:12 AM
The powers in the Constitution are the only powers the three were granted. If is was not explained in the Constitution, then that branch DID/DOES not have that power. During the Depression FDR took it upon himself to take powers under the quise that it was not in the Constitution so I should have those powers. Actually, some of this started with Teddy. I might suggest reading “The Forgotten Man”
So, that being said, yes, the czars are unconstitutional. Why has nothing been done, ask George Soros or read Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals”
Comment by debbieh — August 11, 2009 @ 12:37:28 PM
This isn’t helping me understand how a Czar is unconstitutional. If they are just helping the president carry out his constitutional authority, then I don’t see it. If they are imbued with powers that are outside the president’s authority, then I would agree.
Comment by Cisco the Unregistered — August 11, 2009 @ 3:25:47 PM