Monday, June 1, 2009

Czar Mania

Aside from Beck's goofy presentation and theatrics, he is correct in noting that the Constitution says nothing about presidential appointment of "Czars". There is no approval process on these appointments and this is yet another layer of bureaucracy on an ever growing government.

Barack Obama had been in office for a 132 days, and he has already installed more than 14 so-called issues "Czars" in his administration. It's ludicrous! And this is on top of the 22 existing Cabinet-level positions in his administration - except we all know that cabinet members get some scrutiny through Senate confirmation hearings.

If you aren't concerned about these types of new titular appointments then you ought to be. It is putting control into the hands of people at the behest of the President only. This is far different then even cabinet posts.

Who ARE these people?
Why should they skip any kind of vetting procedure?
Why should they exist in these positions at all?

So far here is a list I have found:

Border Czar Alan Bersin
Energy Czar Carol Browner
Urban Czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
Infotech Czar Vivek Kundra
Faith-based Czar Joshua DuBois
Health Reform Czar Nancy-Ann DeParle
TARP Czar Herb Allison
Stimulus Accountability Czar Earl Devaney
Non-proliferation Czar Gary Samore
Terrorism Czar John Brennan
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein
Drug czar Gil Kerlikowske
Guantanamo closure Czar Daniel Fried

Plus more special envoys that fall into the Czar category!

This Czar mania is yet another means of increasing government growth and grabbing more control by the President. And yes, I know Bush did it too; so did Roosevelt*. Czar appointment was wrong then, and it is still wrong. The only person giving these people authority, at the moment, is the President.

Looks like something even the Romanov's would approve of. And that's not just "Czar-casm" on my part.

* The Washington Examiner wrote:
"The first White House issues czar was President Franklin Roosevelt’s “war production czar” Donald Nelson, who was joined by an economic czar, a manpower czar, a food czar and even a rubber czar. Subsequent presidents have either ditched the concept or had one or two czars for pet issues such as drug control or education initiatives."


Anonymous said...

The last czars I remember bad things happen to them in a revolution.

Lori said...

Absolutely right, the Constitution does not give the President this power but unfortunately people are more concerned with what they are getting than what the government is taking away. Hello Czars, goodbye freedom!

Czar Szchmar said...

Interesting what you choose to focus on, Judy. The whole country is aghast at the ANTI-TAX, ANTI-GOVERNMENT, RIGHTWING fanatic who shot Dr. George Tiller IN CHURCH. No comment?

But I guess it isn't the most opportune moment to scoff in indignation at the government's anxiety about angry, gunned-up, rightwing extremists.

Shera said...

Let's see, there have never been any Left wing crazy people that ever murdered anyone right?

Read this:

People like Czar Szchmar are such ideological zealots it is really hard to expect them to think rationally at all.

But we already knew that.

Is Czar Szchmar equally as outraged with this man's murder as (s)he is with the commonplace practice of murdering unborn babies? Late term no less?

The truth is Murder is wrong in both cases and it is a shame that Czar Szchmar sees this in a Left Right perspective instead of a human perspective.

Perhaps that is Czar Szchmar's problem, and unfortunately society's as well.

Anonymous said...

Shera- considering that the Doctor in Kansas ONLY performed those abortions for women who would have DIED without them, I ask you...would you rather those women die?

Anonymous Too said...

Anonymous, I suppose you can absolutely confirm and attest to the medical conditions of all those women. (no you can't)

You don't think any of those late term abortions could have been prevented?

There is no doubt that the doctor's murder was wrong.
Late term abortion can also be considered murder.

When a woman is murdered and she is pregnant (Like Lacey Peterson) the murderer is usually charged with two deaths instead of one. Why is that considered murder and yet a viable baby's abortion is ok? Sounds like some sort of sick double standard.