OMG, has it all come to this? Has it really? This is what the overall level of political discourse has stooped to in America? How many Czars one has?
Lets call these people what they really are, no matter who they work for. ADVISORS. Somewhere along the line someone somewhere decided it would earn them a couple of points to describe them in a way harkening back to the evil pre-revolution Russia with thier imperial autocratic monarchy.
Glenn Beck has shown himself to be simply misleading in his pathos to the point where it is simply libel and irresponsible. God bless the 1st amendment.
This is an issue definitely worthy of discussion. The "czar" appointees have traditionally been for a specific purpose. Some have been purely advisory, others have been much more powerful.
Some have been interim appointees, pending legislative action (such as the Homeland Security) when a newly proposed department requires Congressional approval, and the appointees may be originally at Presidential discretion but ultimately will end up with Senate approval.
Some appointees have become Cabinet positions, so again are interim, as needs change to the complexion of the Administrative branch. Others have become ambassadorial in nature.
The problem, as I see it, is the fact that so many of Obama's "czar" appointees show a tendency toward permanence and expansion of power, and are not subject to any type of Congressional approval. Or establishment.
Another new twist is that some are being appointed by "other" sources, such as his "Border" czar, or Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, under the auspices of Homeland Security, and appointed by the Sec. of Homeland Security. This is going out of the bounds of normal process, and possibly stressing the checks and balance to remain Constitutional.
At present, eight (8) of the new czars have been appointed by departments or individuals OTHER THAN the President, which is totally unprecedented and calls into question the accountability and control factors. To put this in perspective, there have only been a total of 10 of these appointees where the descriptive parameters apply as labeled "czar", and the other two were by FDR and Eisenhower. Ike's received Senate confirmation, FDR's was a war-time appointee.
The actions in these appointees in less than 9 months is mind-boggling. The character and political leanings of these individuals is another concern, but I'll not include in the pure "volume" discussion.
Again to the original point, that Bush had more "czars" than Obama. Over eight years, he had numerous positions that had successive appointments, that the tally includes. For example, the AIDS czar, aka Director of the Office of National Aids Policy (begun by Clinton in 1993) entails three of Bush's "czar" appointees, Scott Evertz (2001-2002), Joe O'Neill (2002-2003) and Carol Thompson (2004-2006). So between the two administrations there were a total of 6 appointees, plus one more for Obama. I would therefore take 3 off Bush's total, and one from Obama's.
Side point - if you'd like to claim Glenn Beck is misleading and irresponsible, and possibly libelous, please cite your facts for such. If you can refute his claims, please feel free to present your evidence.
