bobbyw24
09-06-2009, 07:52 AM
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2009-09-06/story/czars_out_of_control
Czars: Out of control
The list Twenty-eight advisers have been listed, by the administration, as federal czars. There are six more who seem to have czarlike duties but don't have the title. The 28: - AIDS czar - Border czar - California water czar - Car czar - Copyright czar - Cyber security czar - Domestic violence czar - Drug czar - Economic czar - Energy czar - Faith-based czar - Great Lakes czar - Green jobs czar - Guantanamo closure czar - Health reform czar - Information czar - Intelligence czar - New TARP czar - Nonproliferation/weapons of mass destruction czar - Regulatory czar - Salary/pay/compensation czar - Stimulus accountability czar - TARP oversight czar - Technology czar - Terrorism czar - Urban czar - Weapons czar - Weather/science czar Source: U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga.
The Environmental Protection Agency has 17,000 employees and a budget of $10.5 billion.
Apparently, that's not enough. President Barack Obama had to appoint a Great Lakes czar, a California water czar and a Green Jobs czar.
In fact, according to a list provided by U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., the United States has 28 czars.
Many have apparently overlapping duties.
There is, for example, a New TARP (federal bailout of financial institutions) czar and a TARP oversight czar. There's a weapons czar and a nonproliferation/weapons of mass destruction czar.
Nothing, it seems, is too parochial to get its own federal czar.
And that's only the official czars. Six others have the functions of a czar, but apparently have never been given the designation by the administration, Kingston says.
Duplication
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner is officially the energy czar (not to be confused with the energy secretary).
But, the media also call her the climate czar. Kingston says he didn't count her as a climate czar because the administration has never given her that moniker.
"As climate czar," CNN says, she's "working inside the White House on policy issues."
Newsweek says she has the "power and budget to clean up the environment."
So, what's the purpose of having an EPA?
Apologists say czars have been around since the Reagan administration. True. But the previous four presidents had only nine czars combined, Kingston reports, a fraction of the number created by Obama.
Lack of accountability
Why do czars matter? Let's mention a few reasons:
- The Constitution requires that Cabinet members, who are supposed to be the ones advising the president, be subject to approval by the Senate. Using czars avoids that constitutional requirement.
- Czars are expensive. They make up to $172,000 each, says Kingston, and are provided "staff, office and travel budgets."
That doesn't look good when deficit spending has spiraled out of control and a high unemployment rate is causing economic hardships among nongovernment workers.
- Their spending habits, in some cases, are grandiose - and would be, even in good economic times. The stimulus accountability czar, Kingston says, spent $18 million setting up a Web page.
Think of it this way: There are 28 czars with big budgets and considerable power. Yet, there is no accountability.
Shadow government
Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin put it well: "The Obama administration has created a two-tiered government - fronted by Cabinet secretaries able to withstand public scrutiny ... and then managed behind the scenes by shadow secretaries with broad powers beyond congressional reach."
Fortunately, that could be about to change.
Kingston has written legislation that would deny further funding to czars until they have been subject to "the advice and consent of the Senate."
That wouldn't necessarily eliminate any czars but, at the very least, it would hold up the appointees and their missions to congressional scrutiny.
The response has been underwhelming. There are only 34 co-sponsors. Just two are from Florida, and neither represent the Jacksonville area.
That should change.
Creating a czar when a similar bureaucracy already exists makes a clear statement that government is out of control.
An efficient government would reform the bureaucracy before creating another layer of government.
If it is incapable of doing that, then perhaps the people need to step in and amend the Constitution.
Regardless whether czars are the right or wrong thing to do, their czardoms should at least be created the right way.
Czars: Out of control
The list Twenty-eight advisers have been listed, by the administration, as federal czars. There are six more who seem to have czarlike duties but don't have the title. The 28: - AIDS czar - Border czar - California water czar - Car czar - Copyright czar - Cyber security czar - Domestic violence czar - Drug czar - Economic czar - Energy czar - Faith-based czar - Great Lakes czar - Green jobs czar - Guantanamo closure czar - Health reform czar - Information czar - Intelligence czar - New TARP czar - Nonproliferation/weapons of mass destruction czar - Regulatory czar - Salary/pay/compensation czar - Stimulus accountability czar - TARP oversight czar - Technology czar - Terrorism czar - Urban czar - Weapons czar - Weather/science czar Source: U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga.
The Environmental Protection Agency has 17,000 employees and a budget of $10.5 billion.
Apparently, that's not enough. President Barack Obama had to appoint a Great Lakes czar, a California water czar and a Green Jobs czar.
In fact, according to a list provided by U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., the United States has 28 czars.
Many have apparently overlapping duties.
There is, for example, a New TARP (federal bailout of financial institutions) czar and a TARP oversight czar. There's a weapons czar and a nonproliferation/weapons of mass destruction czar.
Nothing, it seems, is too parochial to get its own federal czar.
And that's only the official czars. Six others have the functions of a czar, but apparently have never been given the designation by the administration, Kingston says.
Duplication
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner is officially the energy czar (not to be confused with the energy secretary).
But, the media also call her the climate czar. Kingston says he didn't count her as a climate czar because the administration has never given her that moniker.
"As climate czar," CNN says, she's "working inside the White House on policy issues."
Newsweek says she has the "power and budget to clean up the environment."
So, what's the purpose of having an EPA?
Apologists say czars have been around since the Reagan administration. True. But the previous four presidents had only nine czars combined, Kingston reports, a fraction of the number created by Obama.
Lack of accountability
Why do czars matter? Let's mention a few reasons:
- The Constitution requires that Cabinet members, who are supposed to be the ones advising the president, be subject to approval by the Senate. Using czars avoids that constitutional requirement.
- Czars are expensive. They make up to $172,000 each, says Kingston, and are provided "staff, office and travel budgets."
That doesn't look good when deficit spending has spiraled out of control and a high unemployment rate is causing economic hardships among nongovernment workers.
- Their spending habits, in some cases, are grandiose - and would be, even in good economic times. The stimulus accountability czar, Kingston says, spent $18 million setting up a Web page.
Think of it this way: There are 28 czars with big budgets and considerable power. Yet, there is no accountability.
Shadow government
Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin put it well: "The Obama administration has created a two-tiered government - fronted by Cabinet secretaries able to withstand public scrutiny ... and then managed behind the scenes by shadow secretaries with broad powers beyond congressional reach."
Fortunately, that could be about to change.
Kingston has written legislation that would deny further funding to czars until they have been subject to "the advice and consent of the Senate."
That wouldn't necessarily eliminate any czars but, at the very least, it would hold up the appointees and their missions to congressional scrutiny.
The response has been underwhelming. There are only 34 co-sponsors. Just two are from Florida, and neither represent the Jacksonville area.
That should change.
Creating a czar when a similar bureaucracy already exists makes a clear statement that government is out of control.
An efficient government would reform the bureaucracy before creating another layer of government.
If it is incapable of doing that, then perhaps the people need to step in and amend the Constitution.
Regardless whether czars are the right or wrong thing to do, their czardoms should at least be created the right way.