I know that Obama is not the first to use such types, but is probably going to end up having the most ever in one administration.

What is the purpose of such positions and why can't the proper Cabinets deal with such tasks?

Is this a power grab?

These appointees do not have to go through any Senate confirmations, nor are they repsonsible to anyone but the POTUS.

 

Who pays these people's salaries? I have seen a few who are making in excess of 100k a year.

It seems to be going waaaayyyyy overboard on many levels.

It seems to be going waaaayyyyy overboard on many levels.

 

Not sure if being called the "AIDS Czar" is a proud title to have?

Because we're trying to make the government as big as we possibly can? :idunno:

 

(while circumventing that annoying balance of power thing)

I don't know how this could be a power grab. The Czars are no more than advisors. They have no power to do anything that the executive branch can do. It's a way to provide supporters with jobs, though.

I don't know how this could be a power grab. The Czars are no more than advisors. They have no power to do anything that the executive branch can do. It's a way to provide supporters with jobs, though.

 

Yeah, probably with tax payer money. And these guys are advising the president and they have never been vetted.

The czar is supposed to be an advisor on a subject that crosses the responsibility of more than one cabinet position.

No. One of the objections to the use of "czars" is that they are being used as substitutes for constitutional cabinet positions, and are being used to create policy under the guidance of the President, bypassing the constitutional role held by Cabinet positions. They are NOT subject to the transparency and accountability laws that apply to Cabinet positions, cannot be subpoenaed, are made privy to heretofore privileged information, are not subjected to peer review or background checks, and cannot be placed under oath or cross-examined.

 

The "czars" position was greatly expanded by George W. Bush's administration, who got legislation passed relaxing the relay of privileged information to person with whom he made contact. I vehemently opposed it then, and still do so now. It is an abuse of the office in my opinion.

 

The negative aspect of this for Obama is that he claimed during the campaign to want to make his office more accountable and transparent thatn the previous administration, but through the use of 31 Czars (to date), he has actually followed GWB's suit and made the Presidency less transparent and accountable.

Are the czars really any different than Andrew Jackson's "kitchen cabinet?"

No. One of the objections to the use of "czars" is that they are being used as substitutes for constitutional cabinet positions, and are being used to create policy under the guidance of the President, bypassing the constitutional role held by Cabinet positions. They are NOT subject to the transparency and accountability laws that apply to Cabinet positions, cannot be subpoenaed, are made privy to heretofore privileged information, are not subjected to peer review or background checks, and cannot be placed under oath or cross-examined.

 

The "czars" position was greatly expanded by George W. Bush's administration, who got legislation passed relaxing the relay of privileged information to person with whom he made contact. I vehemently opposed it then, and still do so now. It is an abuse of the office in my opinion.

 

The negative aspect of this for Obama is that he claimed during the campaign to want to make his office more accountable and transparent thatn the previous administration, but through the use of 31 Czars (to date), he has actually followed GWB's suit and made the Presidency less transparent and accountable.

Who coined the term "czar"? Was that during President Bush or President Obama?

Who coined the term "czar"? Was that during President Bush or President Obama?

 

Of course, the term derivated from the old "tsar" described for Asian (China, Russia) provincial leaders (and later rulers). However, it was first used in the context it is now in 1942 when Roosevelt created a WWII "rationing czar."

Of course, the term derivated from the old "tsar" described for Asian (China, Russia) provincial leaders (and later rulers). However, it was first used in the context it is now in 1942 when Roosevelt created a WWII "rationing czar."

 

:irked: Well I knew that (in regards to Russia). What I meant to ask is was the term used during GWB's presidency? I've only heard it used with President Obama, but I hardly followed politics during GWB till the very end.

:irked: Well I knew that (in regards to Russia). What I meant to ask is was the term used during GWB's presidency? I've only heard it used with President Obama, but I hardly followed politics during GWB till the very end.

 

Yes. GWB had 35 czars (and 40+ appointees) in his 8 years if office. Ashcroft was originally referred to as the "Homeland Security Czar." At the time, his 35 czars were more than all prior Presidents combined. Followuing that trend, Obama, in less than one year, has 32 czars and 42 political appointees. So much for the campaign promise of transparency and accountability.

At least Obama is creating some "jobs"..

Of course, the term derivated from the old "tsar" described for Asian (China, Russia) provincial leaders (and later rulers). However, it was first used in the context it is now in 1942 when Roosevelt created a WWII "rationing czar."

Actually Tsar (czar ) is the Russian word for Caesar .