This Whole Czars Thing

[boldbidder]

A friend of mine sent me an e-mail today with a link to an article bemoaning the Obama adminstration and all the various 'Czars' that are being created/appointed (California Water Czar, Tooth Fairy Czar, etc...). My question to the group is what are your takes on this whole thing? Is the title of Czar the troubling part or just the extra folks being given some responsibilities in the various arenas?

My quick take: it's a management style. I've led lots of large projects and I don't fancy myself a micro-manager so I delegate and do status reporting by exception. I identify or appoint (if you will) highly competent resources in all the relevant areas and they become my go to people. When I really need to know what's up e.g. the timeline is frakked, budget is frakked, we're all generally just frakked, etc... these folks will give me the straight dope. That's my view of the whole Czar thing, people Obama knows (conceivably) that won't sugarcoat or BS about the issues they've been tasked with to improve.

Thoughts? Is Jango Fett's clone army about to take hold?

[hubcap]

To me it seems as if the entire czar issue is skirting the intent of the Constitution. The president's cabinet advisors are supposed to be approved by the Senate. It seems the czars are actually part of the cabinet but do not have to face the constitutionally mandated scrutiny.

[Warrior]

We already have positions in government for knowledgable, competent resources in all the releveant areas - they are Secretaries of Insert Department Name Here and they form the cabinet. The problem for this president is that none of the "advisors" he wants to hear from have the credentials necessary to pass a confirmation hearing, so he appoints a bunch of showmen to the cabinet and completely bypasses the confirmation process. Now we have a bunch of crazies (yeah, I said it) running amok in the government with no oversight that tell GL what he wants to hear.

How many times has GL met with his cabinet? Once. I think that about says it all.

I think the whole situation is completely out of control. I never really liked it when we had just a few of them. Consider the drug czar position. We already have a Secretary of Health and Human Services. What do we need a drug czar for? I'd like to see all of them go away.

[Mader]

These are paid positions. They include some paid staff.

Advisors are necessary, I agree. No one person can handle all of this work. Ford Motor Company did not take a hand out - so, is the car czar a Ford?? No? Why not? Who got the job, and why?

These czars are not a kitchen cabinet of close, life long buddies/confidants who show up for a Friday night beer and a little chit-chat about issues. Not an effort to keep the President grounded, to keep the President in touch with "the little people". These people have authority and are certainly not free. Are these "czars" top people in their areas of "expertise"? Who is the car czar???? We now have a czar in charge of California water problems??????? Who? Why (do we need one)? Why (did this person get this job)? Yeah, lots of quotation marks, you are correct if you read sarcasm.

They are receiving tax dollars, my money and yours.

Welcome to Chicago politics. Keep the power close, keep the power people indebted to you (on payroll is even better!) and keep your powerful people out of the public eye (to prevent public scrutiny, of course). Too bad that the rest of the country doesn't want to play the same game.

When you are in charge of something you have to be very careful who you listen to and who you surround yourself with. Are you listening to people who are smarter than you are? Do they have more experience in their area of expertise? Do you pay them? If yes, then they may well be "yes-men", agreeing with whatever you want just to keep the job. The President needs to look around and find someone who will say "You are full of shit, Mr. President". THAT is a person who may be trustworthy. Someone, like us.

[LaoTzu]

Why the hell are they bemoaning the Obama admin for the "Czars" thing?? It's been around for ages... I think it started with the Drug War a few decades ago...


Personally, I find the title 'Czar' to be passe. It's a colloquialism. It's rubbish. Should have died a long time ago. It's almost more used than "in tha' hizzay"

I think those in power consider it funny... And its a "fun" way to denote who the absolute last word belongs to. Someone has to have that job... It probably started as an inside joke, and some schmuck reporter decided to run with it.

Again... Czar's have been around a looooong time in US Politics. Anyone giving Obama shit over the title needs a punch in the face.


Seriously.


And to actually...uh , answer the question...

People who hate Obama will cry cronyism. And people who hated GWB cried cronyism.
People just want to root for their own team....
Fact is, someone runs the government. It ain't just Obama. You don't want to have to elect every single person who runs some department in the country. People don't pay enough bona-fide attention to the issues as it is. (Bona-fide meaning: have real working knowledge of the facts as they are...not how they are 'provided' to them by the media or 'their side')

Someone will have to run those departments.. no matter what you choose to call them.



Again: like people who use the phrase "Touch-Base" ... those who use the term Czar need to be punished severely.

[Night Runner]

That sounds like a great way for INTJs to get both power and money. It's even better than becoming an ambassador - there are no confirmation hearings, no public scrutiny, and only one person to report to.

[nacht]

The Obama administration doesn't usually call them "Czars," and some of the positions that people are bemoaning are appointed by the Senate (Cass Sustein, "Regulatory Czar" aka "Director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs"), others are carry overs from previous administrations. To the best of my knowledge, there are only two incidents of Obama even using the term. Biden also referred to the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy as the "drug czar."

Politifact concluded (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that the definition of a "czar" is "it's whenever the media says so" and that frequently it is mostly a form of shorthand, because "Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security" (John Brennan) doesn't roll of the tongue quite like "Terrorism Czar."

For what is worth and depending on how and who you count, it even seems likely that George W. Bush had around the same number (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[jtcambridge]

To be compeletely honest, the stupidity displayed by elected officials in tagging those titles with any word that sounds remotely bad is enough for me to dismiss those politicians as inferior and their politics the matters of inferior people.

[Warrior]

Why the hell are they bemoaning the Obama admin for the "Czars" thing?? It's been around for ages... I think it started with the Drug War a few decades ago...


Personally, I find the title 'Czar' to be passe. It's a colloquialism. It's rubbish. Should have died a long time ago. It's almost more used than "in tha' hizzay"

I think those in power consider it funny... And its a "fun" way to denote who the absolute last word belongs to. Someone has to have that job... It probably started as an inside joke, and some schmuck reporter decided to run with it.

Again... Czar's have been around a looooong time in US Politics. Anyone giving Obama shit over the title needs a punch in the face.


Seriously.


And to actually...uh , answer the question...

People who hate Obama will cry cronyism. And people who hated GWB cried cronyism.
People just want to root for their own team....
Fact is, someone runs the government. It ain't just Obama. You don't want to have to elect every single person who runs some department in the country. People don't pay enough bona-fide attention to the issues as it is. (Bona-fide meaning: have real working knowledge of the facts as they are...not how they are 'provided' to them by the media or 'their side')

Someone will have to run those departments.. no matter what you choose to call them.



Again: like people who use the phrase "Touch-Base" ... those who use the term Czar need to be punished severely.

I'm giving him shit over it, just like I have every other president that has used them, so punch away. We don't elect every person that runs the government. In fact, in the entire Executive branch of the federal government, there are only two elected positions - the president and vice-president. Instead of electing every cabinet member, we have a system where people have an indirect say in their appointment through Senate confirmation. The problem with the while notion of a Czar is that it skips the whole confirmation process and allows the president to give responsibility equal to a cabinet position to anyone he wants.