What’s with these “Czars”?

Where does a czar’s reign end and Congress begin?

By Lurita Doan
http://www.israel-commentary.org/

Lurita Doan is the former Administrator of the US, General Services (GSA) administration

US News Today, August 12, 2009

Here we go again. By my count, President Obama has appointed nearly three dozen czars to deal with myriad policy issues from technology to restructuring the auto industry. . Now Congress is keen to add to the stable of existing czars yet another Slavic potentate, the insurance czar, who would be given sweeping new powers to oversee the medical insurance industry. Czars are a terrible idea. The old adage used to be that not everyone could be a chief but, in the Obama administration, everyone can be a czar. Each week, it seems, the president announces yet another one. Historically, there was only ever one omnipotent czar at a time. Obama’s czars, in contrast have neither autonomy nor clear authority and seem only to erode the statutory responsibilities of Senate confirmed Cabinet members.

Do we need czars? The idea of yet another czar brings three questions immediately to mind.
· How will the president ensure that the various czars’ responsibilities do not duplicate the efforts and responsibilities of Senate-confirmed Cabinet members?
· How can accountability be ensured when so many responsibilities are divided among so many masters?
· Where’s the funding for this new position and its accompanying infrastructure?

For Cabinet members, the arrival of yet another czar competing for the president’s attention reduces their influence. Perhaps even more important; the rapid proliferation of direct reports to the president is impossible to manage effectively. Accountability in the federal government is challenging enough, but with czars and pop up all over the place, it is increasingly difficult to know who is in charge, and you can bet the turf wars are ferocious. Too many strong-willed people with duplicative responsibilities and no clear direct line of responsibility are a recipe for confusion.

Who deals with Congress?

What hasn’t been explained by the president is how his czars will interface with the oversight from Congress. When Congress calls with questions and concerns, the White House staff often hides behind the protection of executive privilege. As a result, the agency head, confirmed by the Senate, is held responsible. Agency heads arid Cabinet officials must venture to the Hill and be accountable to Congress. Yet, the actual policy for that grosgrain may well have been managed by one of the ubiquitous White House czars. What happens then? You better believe that when the heat is on, fingers will start to point in many directions and, most likely, the czars will find a place to hunker down.

There’s also the funding issue. Czars come with infrastructure requirements: office space and technology needed to perform the job. One can only wonder why Obama seems to be increasing unnecessary spending when a more responsible course of action might be to cut redundant positions and programs. As Americans, we need our presidents to succeed. The president has the right to appoint whomever he believes will best help him achieve that success. However, for the sake of transparency and for fulfilling statutory obligations, the president might find that he and our country are better served if he allows those whom Congress confirms for the job to be the ones to actually do the job.

In addition, remember, the historical record with czars is rather grim. Many were killed off by rivals and met a nasty end. Expect history to repeat itself.

(Evidently, the writer is either naive or much more likely, not willing to say the obvious - that Obama and his carefully selected henchmen, are interested only in a power grab in order to control the entire government. They are making moves to by-pass the Congress, make “empathetic” Supreme Court Justice appointments, replace our entire society based upon merit and equal opportunity with some hoax called “diversity” that has repeatedly been defeated by the electorate, subvert our national security interests, make porous our borders, diminish our foreign policy strengths and appoint a crew of lackeys based entirely on their proven loyalty to Barack Obama's perverse ideology and the many questionable tactics of his recent election) Jsk