T Nation

Ending the Reign of the Czars?


#1

Dan Boren, Democrat from Oklahoma, wants to defund Obama's czars and put an end to them:

[i]U.S. Rep. Dan Boren said Congress should use the power of the purse to push the Obama administration to remove so-called czars that do not go through a confirmation process.

Responding to questions during a telephonic town hall, the Oklahoma Democrat said he was glad Van Jones, who resigned over the weekend as controversy continued to build over past statements, has left his post.

Boren joined others in criticizing the growing trend to name czars to lead efforts in specific areas.

Such officials do not go through oversight hearings or a confirmation vote in the Senate. [/i]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090908_298_0_WASHIN375895&allcom=1

A Democrat interested in reaffirming the democratic process. Refreshing, and so crazy, it just might work. I'll be contributing to his campaign coffer.


#2

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dan Boren, Democrat from Oklahoma, wants to defund Obama’s czars and put an end to them:

[i]U.S. Rep. Dan Boren said Congress should use the power of the purse to push the Obama administration to remove so-called czars that do not go through a confirmation process.

Responding to questions during a telephonic town hall, the Oklahoma Democrat said he was glad Van Jones, who resigned over the weekend as controversy continued to build over past statements, has left his post.

Boren joined others in criticizing the growing trend to name czars to lead efforts in specific areas.

Such officials do not go through oversight hearings or a confirmation vote in the Senate. [/i]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090908_298_0_WASHIN375895&allcom=1

A Democrat interested in reaffirming the democratic process. Refreshing, and so crazy, it just might work. I’ll be contributing to his campaign coffer.[/quote]

I think Robert Byrd, ROBERT BYRD (!!!), just might be onboard with this. I never did like this czar thing. It’s like the 5000 committees in the legislative branch only not accountable, even symbolically, to we the people.

To be fair, they’re just glorified specialized advisors in the end, but their formalized nature do put muscle on the executive branch that was not intended to be there.


#3

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

To be fair, they’re just glorified specialized advisors in the end, but their formalized nature do put muscle on the executive branch that was not intended to be there.[/quote]

Well, if only they were. The czars have been given policy-making responsibilities, mainly the discretion to direct taxpayer money to selected recipients.


#4

This is more good news.


#5

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

To be fair, they’re just glorified specialized advisors in the end, but their formalized nature do put muscle on the executive branch that was not intended to be there.

Well, if only they were. The czars have been given policy-making responsibilities, mainly the discretion to direct taxpayer money to selected recipients.

[/quote]

I didn’t think of that. Not appropriation itself, but specific allocation once appropriated. Good point.


#6

Circle jerk!


#7

robert byrd is on board i believe, but this article was written a long time ago. It was before Obama, not to be out done by bush in any way, created more czars than ever before in our history. So it is obvious that this fell on deaf ears to the Obama administration. It would be interesting to get his take on it today.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/02/25/25greenwire-byrd-questions-obamas-use-of-policy-czars-9865.html

a couple notable quotes:

[quote]“The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Byrd wrote in a letter to Obama. “At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
[/quote]


#8

Everything falls on Deaf ears in the Obama administration. It’s only when there is a large amount of overwhelming pressure, That they respond. Even then they respond very quietly so as to not look like they obviously back tracked on something.

Like the Van Jones thing. The news of his resignation his on Sat and Early Sunday. A time frame guaranteed to have to lest attention. I wonder Why the underhand move again. Rest assured i believ all presidents are shady. They all serve other interests, but the Obama administration is doing what everyone else did but very nonchalantly.