White House "czars" a good idea?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's getting to the point where the White House has more "czars" than Russia used to have. The latest estimates put the number at 30. These special advisers are nothing new... many presidents have had them, including Republicans.
Van Jones served as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in the White House Council on Environmental Quality from March until earlier this month.
The "czars" work on issues ranging from health care to Middle East peace. But - the problem is how many President Obama has - combined with the fact that they're not subject to congressional oversight or Senate confirmation.
Republicans were already steamed about this - but now it's boiling over with the resignation over the weekend of the president's green jobs czar. Van Jones quit under pressure from many of his past statements and affiliations. He was on the record referring to Republicans using a vulgar collective noun; and he signed a petition calling for an investigation into a 9/11 cover-up by the federal government.
It's all just more ammunition for Republicans to go after President Obama. And it's yet another political miscalculation by the president.
One Republican calls the number of czars in the Obama White House an "affront to the Constitution"... and another GOP lawmaker has called on the president to suspend any future czar positions until Congress can check out those already in place... But that hasn't stopped President Obama... who just yesterday appointed an auto czar.
Democrats say the number of czars isn't the issue... because all administrations have them. The problem is no one apparently vets these people very well until it's too late and a Van Jones manages to embarrass the entire administration. Sort of like nominating people to cabinet posts who didn't bother to pay their taxes.
Here’s my question to you: Are White House "czars" a good idea?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Julie writes:
It seems to me that anyone who is going to spend billions of our tax dollars should be vetted completely, maybe even approved by Congress since they seem to have so much power. My bigger issue with Van Jones is some of the racist comments that I have seen him make on clips on the internet
Steve from Oregon writes:
Here’s the problem: using your words, Jack, "they’re not subject to congressional oversight or Senate confirmation." I voted for Obama but this is not transparency. Even the term "czar" only fuels the outrageous claims that Obama is a socialist; it still does not help his credibility. To answer the question, no one should be inside the White House, but outside the system of checks and balances.
Zennie from Oakland, California writes:
Jack, Leave Van Jones alone. You don't know the man. He's not as conservatives have painted him. And yes, the Obama administration should have vetted his past better, but he's done a lot of good here in Oakland and could run for Mayor and win.
Catherine writes:
I don't mind if a president has a few czars. I do mind when they are self-proclaimed communists and reverse racists. I hope no other czars are controversial. You are who you hang with. I am beginning to think that Obama did know what Rev. Wright was all about after all.
Pat writes:
Conservatives want authority to approve whom Obama takes advice from? I say it's mighty polite of him to notify them.
Michael writes:
Czars are a fine idea, Jack, because it allows the president to have people in place with the skill set needed to attack immediate problems. The difficulty arises when you don't perform the vetting process properly. Then instead of Peter the Greats, you end up with a bunch of Ivan the Terribles.
William writes:
The word "czar" has an odious historical definition. Caesars of ancient Rome were in general despots. The czars of Russia were "terrible" degenerates. Can't we come up with a better name for our despots?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
It's all to do about Nothing Jack.
Yes, White House Czars are a good idea and NO there is no need for them to be confirmed either. The confirmation process only adds to the wasted money tab and that tab is high enough already. Also if the Republicans don't like the number of czars – tough luck, quit your crying and do some real work for once. That's all the Republicans do anyway, cry about this and cry about that;, all they really want constantly is to have everything there way..
I don't undrstand why a person has to resign for what he believe to true at the time. He isn't the only one, that believe this so why is so many people surprise.
David
Martinsburg,WV
CZARS are a bad idea. Having 30 CZARS or so that weren't vetted by Congress managing the government is a scary thing. Our founding fathers meant for Cabinet level administrators to manage the government so that the Legislative branch would have control over the Executive Branch. CZARS are unconstitutional and boarder line illegal.
I'm absolutely positive that the new czars will be as effective as the drug czars have been in controlling the drug trade.
David, Las Vegas
I had an opportunity to meet Van Jones and to hear him talk. The man is an expert on "Green". What a shame that he had to resign his post in the White House. I have to wonder, if he were not an Afro-American intellec tual, would anybody discredit him? I am starting to fear the direction this country is taking. As far as the 9/11 petition, I would have signed it too. Look at what we are finding out now about the last Administration.
Most of Obama czars wouldn't get through the Vetting process that Congress would put them through. Most are card carrying Socialists, Communists, and Marxists. This tells us something about the President and who he associates with.
From the point of view that executive efficiency should include delegating certain responsibilities to sub-directors for specific current issues, having a few Czars around the White House isn't such a bad idea. Cabinet members are not Czars but managers of permanent departments within the Executive Branch of every Presidential Administration. Czars should be chosen as carefully as Cabinet Members and replaced when the job isn't getting done right.
CZARS now thats some really good pizza but can you please cut the anchovies .
NO they are not because they dont achieve crap and obviously they dont give good advice to the president
Yes, I think "czars" are a good idea. The president can't possibly keep up on every single bit of information he has to address – he needs people to condense the info and let him know what's going on. Perhaps they just need to extend their vetting questionnaire to the "czars" as well.
Muskegon, MI
I have no problem with "czars" or "gurus" devoted to specific issues in the administration as long as they are not bought and paid for by outside corporate interests. Presumably, these people are experts in their particular field and among the best and brightest for formulating policy. I can't imaging how any presidential administration could get along without them.
No it's not- it's just a way for this President to get around difficulties he might have with normal Senate confirmation of Cabinet level staff, due to the ideological extremes of these "czars" if they were cabinet level. Why not call them bag(men/women) instead of Czars? Anyone still willing to say we're not headed to socialism?
I think the title "Czar" is ridiculous... the Drug Czar, etc. Having a drug czar has not proved real effective over how many Presidents, republican and democrat?
With all the issues any White House has to deal with and focus on, having a point person to bring it all together for the President is a rnecessary thing...just ditch the title.
Corona, CA
How long does the vetting takes...especially when the country needs to react to this economic situation!
"Czar" is just another word for king or queen, and our country doesn't need any of them I reckon. The Czars' jobs are covered by current government structure,
Of course the President may hire any one he wishes to help advise him. Just call them advisors,not royal names.
It sounds like a CZAR is a way of keeping the money flowing into the right pockets. Why else would Republicans be so upset with the resigning of one. The one's that are most upset are the one's losing the most money.
Czars are just employees. Its just a name. So there was a flake among the employees. There is a flake running South Carolina and people voted for him. Everything this President does is under extreme attack by racist extremists who pretend to be Republicans. They hated Bill Clinton because they feared that he would empower black people and they hate Obama even more for the same reason because after all he is actually black.
What a sad state of affair for a nation that prides itself on fairness. Obviously fairness is just a facade.
if george W would have had more czars maybe he would have seen 9-11, or the housing debacle or high gas prices that directly impacted average americans via home foreclosures and the largest job loss in nearly 70 years.
W-H 'czars' should always be vetted carefully. And they should be qualified for the job. Remember we had problems with Bush appointees (czars) of FEMA etc. And lets not forget Karl Rove (one of the most dangerous men in the white house. Who vetted him?
Jack.
I don't like the idea of employee's with no oversight. That is what the past 8 years was all about and that is why we voted the bums out. I sure hope Obama does not "BUSH" things up.
Mike PHX
Ok Jack, I'm confused. With all this talk of Czars ar e we in the US or Russia? Why aren't these people listed as advisors or over even overseers would be more in line with being in the US–don't you think?
Yes, and they should be vetted better, but the Republicans have nothing to talk about after their fiasco. The Republicans only need to look in the mirror to see “affronts to the Constitution”. The self-vetted previous Vice President, aka: Czar of Illegal Torture and Imprisonment who didn’t think he was even a part of the government or responsible to anyone is a good example. Then there are the legal czars that rewrote the law to coincide with the Czar of Tortures requests. Obama’s czars are managing the rebuilding of this country after its eight years of Republican destruction.
Czars are a fine idea Jack because it allows the President to have people in place with the skill sets needed to attack immediate problems. The difficulty arises when you don't perform the vetting process properly. Then instead of Peter the Greats, you end up with a bunch of Ivan the Terribles.
There are quite a few czars to be sure, but a more important number to focus on is the number of people that Obama has nominated for a position like the GOP wants, but are being held up for petty political reasons. Appointing czars to get things done may be a way to go around congress, but can you blame Obama? We have a lot to get done in this country.
Congressional approval should be required for all political hirings. The next time the Republicans have Congress and the Presidency they should change this law. Because as mad about it as they are now, they should have no problem removing this power from their President.
Oh wait they only want it passed when they don't have power? Go figure.
Heres the problem, using your words Jack, "they’re not subject to congressional oversight or Senate confirmation." I voted for Obama but this is NOT transparency. Even the term "Czar" only fuels the outrageous claims that Obama is a socialist; it still does not help his credibility. To answer the question, NO ONE should be inside the white house, but outside the system of checks and balances.
Hell yeah czar's are a good idea. Would the Republican's just leave Obama alone for picking czar's!
NO, they are not. What happened to separation of powers? These guys have not oversight except for the President. What about Mark Lloyd, the FCC diversity Czar who admires Chavez and is keen reducing opinions not in cinq with the governments?
Every President has had and needs advisors who are not beholden to the political process. It's a shame things have become so politicized that a good, smart, innovative man like Van Jones gets ousted because he signed a petition that might be offensive to the loyal opposition. With criteria like this, none of us has a chance to do anything of significance anywhere ever.
Whenever there are no guidelines set for any given area, abuse generally seems to occur. The number of Czars that the President has appointed should send the message that limits need to be set. Let each President have 10 Czars on the taxpayer dime and the rest should come out of his own pocket.
The czars have to go! Now! Congress should get off it's fat butt and remove them all. Why are we wasting tax dollars on these sycophants?
Denis
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Let's see the Republicans are upset because Obama uses the term Czar. How do they think we felt when they had King George in office? It is just another stupid word. Get over it. They need to check out all the people better when running for office. They could start now and pitch all the bums out.
It seems to me that anyone who is going to spend billions of our tax dollars should be vetted completely, maybe even approved by congress since they seem to have so much power. My bigger issue with Van Jones are some of his racist comments that I have seen him make on clips on the internet but not on CNN, why?
I think they are a great idea if they are helping the President do his job. The number of czars, for me, is irrelevant. If Congress has an issue with how many he has maybe they should pass a law restricting them. All I know is I wish we would stop criticizing everything he does. Can't we all just get along.
Jack, leave Van Jones alone. You don't know the man. He's not as conservatives have painted him and yes, the Obama Adminstration should have vetted his past better, but he's done a lot of good here in Oakland and could run for Mayor and win.
Czars!? Lobbyists!? What's the difference? They are both bad ideas.
The word "czar" has an odious historical definition. Caesars of ancient Rome were in general despots. The czars of Russia were "terrible" degenerates. Can't we come up with a better name for our despots?
No!!! what have they done for me lately? The gevernment can't come together for the american people then what is a czar going to do? Until this geovernment can control the private sector on how they are raising these CEO's salaries and raising the cost on the american people. I don't see anything the government can do to help the middle class. As shown, the banks are still not helping after getting bailout, and of course the car companies who needed the money and then filed. Not helping us!!!
The very mane Czar alarms me. It sounds like the Soviet Union and leaves a bad rtaste in my mouth. I also don't like the fact that there is no congressional oversight or seante confirmation. I thought Obama promised us a trsansparent administration. H0w many promises is he going to break?
Well its make me think of Russia...thats as far as I go with it. I do feel Senior Program Manager would be a more appropriate title.
maybe if they just changed the name from czar to advisor it would sound much better. You already have right wingers calling President Obama everything from sociolist to communist and the word czar might be the LAST thing he needs to be tied to.
Hi Jack,
Isn't that what the Cabinet Secretaries are for–to be experts in their fields and to advise the President accordingly ! If we need additional experts, they should be called "Experts or Advisors, or Assistants but NEVER Czars. That makes us look as if our leaders admire the Soviet structure. Leave the Czars in Russia.
It is the sign of a good manager that can delegate . Congress could not find its way out of a paper bag
The president should be praised for inviting as many ideas from different people possible into his administration. They're appointed for specific reasons, and while Van Jones may have signed a disrespectful petition without looking into the fine print (as the administration reported), he knew what he was talking about when it came to green solutions to bringing people out of poverty. People getting upset about this are just looking for another scapegoat to moan about Obama.
If the republicans are so upset over the czars maybe they need to stop the holds on the nominees that Obama is waiting for.
These hypocrites whine about czars but, refuse to release those who have gone thru the confirmation but, because the gop wants Obama to fail, they refuse to allow these people to go to work.
Obama has no choice but, to use czars.
And while we are at it, Jack. Where is the so called liberal media in calling out the shameful amount of people on hold because republicans want to play childish games rather then be grown ups and allow the process to work.
Why are these republicans not being asked the hard questions and pushed about this nonsense.... one many silly and spiteful games played by the children known as the gop.
The last 8 years got us into such a mess that if it takes a Czar to get us out then let the president name them. When will we allow the president enough time to correct some of the past mistakes and get us back to being the country we know we can be?
no they are a bad thing no one should have a free ckeck book and no one to over see there actions
perry jones council bluffs ia
I think Czars are a great idea, IF we get great people to do the job. Somebody who truly understands the governance we need in a specific discipline. Someone like Bloomberg would make a great Czar, someone with Star power to pull attention to the subject. Hell..how about Bill Cosby.
why are these kind of people working for obama
Jack, you are totally wrong about Van Jones – he was eminently well qualified for the job he held and did nothing more inflamatory than Michelle Bachman or Rep. Fox have done. Obama was a chicken to fire him.
That being said, Czars are not the problem – it's just a title. Republicans are the problem and it is time for the administration to just ignore them.
Jann
Brunswick, GA
Of course they are a good idea. They serve the purpose of advising the President and carrying out policies set by the President. I cannot imagine why the President would want to or should have to, first of all, wait all of the months that it would take to get his advisors vetted through Congress, assuming they could get through the Republican "no" votes. Secondly, what right has any Congressman to tell the President who can advise him? He is picking people to do his work, not the work of Congress. Leave the man alone and let him do his job, for God's sake. If he did not have people he could put in these posts, there is no way he could take on the issues that face the American people. There is no way one man could do it all.
How about adding a green jobs czar? We need to do something about manufacturing in the USA to create jobs. Sounds like something with heaith care is going to get done. Now lets shoot for unemployment to recover.
Conservatives want authority to approve whom Obama takes advice from? I say it's mighty polite of him to notify them.
I don't mind if a President has a few czars. I do mind when they are self proclaimed communists and reverse racists. I hope no other czars are controversial. You are who you hang with. I am beginning to think that Obama DID know what Rev. Wright was all about after all.
Jack, the lack of investigation for Czar Jones is very disturbing! How many of the other CZARS are tainted?
Hey Jack I never liked the name czar. I think the Dems should call them really educated guys that get to take the time to really look at stuff that may just be commplex. The Repubs can keep the name czar after all it was a republic that coined the title. As far as the parents keeping their children out of school today, the kids should have to make up the time on Saturdays. This might at least teach kids that actions have consequenses in our society.
The term "czar" not withstanding... They are necessary. If I were President I'd probably have 100 or more. You can't know everything you need to know about every issue without someone to help you, to unbiasedly inform you, and that's what a "czar" does. I don't think Mr. Jones should have quit. Everyone is entitled to their private opinions, even when they make them public. Do we have freedom of thought and speech or is that just wall flowers over wall paper? We are all individuals.
I don't think it hurts to have special advisors, Jack, input is a good thing and I don't think Congress should be able to control input.
But what's always seemed laughable is how we use "Czar" for a title... why not "King" or "Emperor"?
When M. Jones was nominated to the Green czar position the President's representative in charge said they had been following this oerson for a while and they were very please to have him join the president's team!!!! What were they watching???What were they watching??? Or did they get exactly what they wanted???
Go figure!!!!!
"Czars" are a very bad and wasteful idea...just what our governent is good at. We have enough unqualified and useless people in the government (435 in the Rayburn Building alone). The President dosen't have to add more. The only thing they accomplish is to add fuel to the argumenyat that Mr. Obama has no skill in selecting personnel, and even less in good judgement and leadership ability. I am a conservative, yes, but I hate to see thePresident making so many errors in judgement.
The issue isn't czars. It's personal attack machines. Van Jones was never a White House "czar" and never referred to himself as such. He was thoroughly vetted and was considered by a wide range of labor, business, environmental groups and social justice groups as one of the great leaders of the green collar economy. President Obama could not have picked a more knowledgeable, qualified and energetic leader to address Green Jobs.
I've known Van for many years and have always found him to be a kind, forthright, brilliant, visionary, strategic, funny and competent leader. It's sad that some pundits have found a few past statements Van has made and turned on their attack machine. Our country is losing a wonderful, qualified leader.
I recently was hired as a Mutuels Teller, a job that entails taking bets on horse races at a local Racino.
I had to fill out a 20 page questionaire, get fingerprinted, drug tested, and have a complete background check before being licensed.
Somehow, you would think that becoming a"czar" at the white house would require a bit more investigation.
"Czar" is a pejorative term for experts you disagree with. I'd file the czar-talk with the accusations of Obama's "elitism" when he was running for election. While respect for the public must always inform a politician's decisions, there is and will always be a need for educated experts on technical, scientific, and complex topics–experts who, by virtue of their knowledge, have more relevant opinions than others. Despite the claims of politicians (usually Republicans, but "folksy" Democrats are just as guilty), many academics seek knowledge to help society, whether they believe in liberal, conservative, or radical policies–academics aren't simply there to make you feel stupid.
No. The word Czar denotes that the President is ruling a kingdom. Their title should be director instead. Of course the Republicans will continue to find failt with everything President Obama does or says. They are still burning mad they lost the election and feel cheated. Most of them are from the ideology of a male dominated society where only white Christians are capable of ruling the nation. The whole crew of Republicans need a reality check and come into the 21st century.
yes the czars are a good idea.
lets not get this confused jack lets call it for what it is, the latest belly aching from the re-THUG-licans is just another attempt to protest something and go against obama.
the czars are not subject to governmental oversigh or constituent influence and as such are able to actually get a job done as opposed to just do things in order to fish for votes or keep their job like other cabinet positions. if used right i think they would be fine. honestly i don't know why he stepped down. many republicans are on record for saying and doing crazy stuff and aren't budging. Maybe if he had just said he was hiking in the Appalachian trails he wouldn't be in trouble...
Presidential advisers are not a bad idea. Presidential advisers with the power to develop policy, with staff, office expenses, and their own political agenda are a terrible idea. The current group demonstrates to anyone who cares to look the extreme far left personal ideology of Mr. Obama.
In Atlanta, Jack, have you taken the time to look at this guys bio. He is an activist. Before it was cool to be green he was fighting garbage dumps being placed in black neighborhoods. He was there when Rodney King was beaten to a pulp and demonstrated against it. When he signed a petition asking questions about why the Saudi's where evacuated before 9/11 along with hundreds of otther Americans. He is black and he is an activist, So What. He underwent a background check by the FBI and passed, Case closed!
How about renaming the "czars"...."special advisers"!
With the mess he was left, President Obama should be entitled to have as many "special advisers" as he feels he needs.
In Canada, our Prime Minister selects his own executive (czars) without consulting the Opposition. Allowing the Opposition to interrupt this process would bring the government to a halt and political anarchy would soon reign.
The word czar has an odious history. The Roman Caesars were in general despots. The Russian czars were for the most part "terrible" degenerates. Can't we invent a better name for our despots? Incidentally, one reason why so many people are opposed to the President's health proposals is not for what they say, but what is left unsaid. We simply do not trust the government any more than we trust insurance companies.
Van Jones WASN'T a czar he was a junioir- to mid-level staffer whose only skill was self-promotion. Czars and senior staffers have the political judgment and common sense to understand that when the staff becomes the story, the job doesn't get done. There are plenty of talented people out there who can do these jobs – and won't risk the mission because of their own need to be in the public eye (I mean really – picking a fight with a man who has an hour on the air everyday – who did he think would win?!) . Obama's only mistake was in hiring a self-absorbed fool who put his own ego before his commitment to getting the job done. He set back an important mission – good riddance.
If memory serves me, Richard Nixon appointed Jerome Jaffee Drug Czar in 1971. The term has been around for years. what is the new uproar about?
Personally, I have always thought it a sign of wisdom to listen to advisors and other viewpoints before making a decision. I give the President credit for not thinking he knows it all and that he cannot handle everything by himself. "Czars"? I thought czars where rulers. Do President Obama,s advisors have any authority?
I think not unless there is congressional oversight...but then again, congressional oversight doesn't seem to mean that much since the start of the Bush years.
Maybe it would be better to call them what they are – Chief advisors in a particular area of expertise. The Republicans seem to have a problem with the term Czar probably because they are still paranoid about anything foreign, and would like to relive the cold war. Strange because the czar was overtthrown by the socialists/communists, you would think they would embrace the elitist regal term. Calling them Cheif advisors would keep the door open for the president to simply state he doesn't take theri advice on everything. Like in this case he may ask for the cheif advisors on jobs his opinion but what they think about 911 isn't relevant. Its still alot to do about nothing. Mark-Republican in PA
Common sense says that the czars of any administration Democrat/Republican/Independent should be "vetted," and if done properly can have a real positive contribution to the U.S. It is impossible to expect one man/woman to study all the issues the world has to offer. But why stop there, why can't we start "vetting" the lobbyists who seem to be hurting the common consumer/citizen of this country more than any one person specializing in a certain issue. Yes the "specialist" can influence the President to consider a certain bill/idea. But the President can't pass that particular bill/idea until it is accepted by the House of Reps. and The Senate. But if a certain company sucessfully funds the campaigns of the active Senate/House members, then they are the "Invisible Hand" of a once free country.
Why ask us? Do we have a say so in this country? The only difference from any other President he just gave them a Russia title. We elect just under 550 to take care of running this country, our only say so (and I'm not so sure about that anymore.) We give them a blank check in which to do so. They pay themselves well then hire aids, czars, etc. to do the work for them with great benefits for them and their selves. It's nice to have socialized benefits paid for by the people, ask any US Senator or Congressperson. And if they run low from over spending they just raise our taxes. And Jack, That proves to me our government administration doesn't get embarrassed. If they can vote themselves Socialized benefits, shouldn't the taxes payer get something back for footing about 40% of their wages to taxes of one sort or another.
Oregon.
Of course they are a good idea. The problem is not that we have czars, the problem is that we don't have any civil discourse. We are coming very close to losing our freedom of speech, when an American can be denied a position because he said something controvercial. If this is the policy going forward, Republicans will have a hard time finding clean candidates for any future Republican Administration.
Mountain Home, Idaho
VAN JONES: The white polluters and the white environmentals are essentially steering poison into the people of colored communities.
This is one of the things I heard him say. He sounds racist, I thought President Obama was going to move us away from this kinda stuff. I feel like I got the "bait and switch" here, especially with the transparency thing. Not happy with this guy, this is not what I signed on for.
No to CZARS, sounds to Third World like in (ORDER). Just call them ADVISORS. I would like to know where all this tansparent stuff our President talked about in 2008? Who is interviewing these individuals? Sounds like the same person who interviewed his Cabinet Nom's.
The President has not been able to fill 43% of the positions that require confirmation and, yet, he's hired 30+ czars who have hopefully not been vetted. If they have been, and someone like Van Jones was hired anyway, there are bigger things to worry about than what to call them!!
There is nothing wrong with Czars, another name for assistants.
With the numerous problems our country is faced with we need
all the help we can get. And the idea of congress etc approving
them is a joke. In the first place there are many more important
things that need approval, And, with the party of no it would never
happen.
Jack, why don't you and the media lighten up some??
Hi Jack
Other presidents have had czars but the fact that Obama is black it is probably not a good idea
When blacks came out with that music in the 30's and 40's "Blues" the world was changed forever ie.. look at 60's music. The Rolling Stones, Lead Zeplin Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin were all copying the old forfathers of the blues.
When Mo Town hit the music scene again music was changed .
When black athletes hit arena's, all of sport's changed, most recently when Tiger Woods hit golf , golf changed.
Whatever it's been... black have done it equally well if not better and white businessmen have prospered because of it.
Now back to that issue of Czars if a white President can have one what is the problem letting Barack have them.?
Frankly, I don't see the "czars" as anything bad, just silly. They shouldn't be necessary. Any and all of the issues that these czars are being appointed to deal with are all issues that members of the cabinet should be responsible for dealing with. What we don't need is a presidential harem of faux figureheads running around. It could just be the connotations of the word, or the fact that they're not subject to congressional oversight, but it seems to me that they're a bunch of unofficial advisers carrying out official government business without much precedent to be doing so.
didn't FDR had the kitchen cabinet, which proved to be a good idea. Czars give the President a more 360 view of the nation, and grants him to act swifter during tough times.
New York, NY
Jack you should know that Czars are right because Republicans want to stop them.
Having a leader who knows that he is not superhuman and omniscient and who relies on the advise of people in the know in various aspects of our existence is not a bad idea at all. It is indeed a wise thing to have as many czars or advisers as possible considering that we exist in a universe of ever-expanding spheres of endeavor. The unfortunate situation with Van Jones should not blind us to the fact that he was tapped for his expertise in environmental matters and not to serve as a poster boy for good character. Let's have czars for everything. The better informed our president is the better our country will be.
Jack, czars are nothing new they simply collect information, give their opions and follow the orders that the president gives them. He alone is the source of their power . The president should pick these people at his own risk. Perhaps he should appoint a czar to ensure that they are not best described by a vulgar collective noun. Jack from Nice Ca.
They never should have been called Czars, but who really cares Jack ? The power of 'czars' is actually quite limited because they don't control any money. If we have to eliminate everybody who has ever done something 'wrong' - whatever your definition of 'wrong' is - from a position in government, we're not going to end up with people who are the best qualified for the job that we need them to do.
First we get terms like socialists and fascists. Now we're getting terms like marxists and "nazis" and now apparently czars. What's next?
Aside from the seeming cowardice from the administration in throwing this capable man under the bus to appease the right wing lunatic fringe, maybe we should stop calling thse positions czars and start referring to them as Presidential policy advisers. Russia only had one Czar and he had absolute power over everyone and every thing in the Russian Empire' including life and death. None of these people fit that description. The out of power party woud still find something else trivial to whine about though.
Czar is a terrible name - I'm sure those Madison Avenue types can come up with a better label - but the President needs "point persons" on the staff to manage the various issues, and he should be able to hire anyone he wants. He, like any manager, will be judged on the quality of his picks. If the worst we they have is someone who thinks a few weird ideas, after Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, Rumsfeld, and Palin, we know anyone can make a bad pick - so Jones doesn't seem so bad, and he did have enough character to resign – unlike many others from the last administration.
Czars are a good idea for special prosecutors to address special legal matters, but, for the most part, many czars deal with issues that should be consolidated under the work of cabinet secretaries and their associates. This would serve to prevent the duplicity of job functions which I believe is present in the current usage of czars.
- David Southcomb
New Bern, N. C.
"Czars" are fine, especially since they don't need to appease congress. They could probably choose a better name than 'czar', perhaps "competants", as opposed to the congressional in competants. At least it prevents delays because one party dislikes anything about the other.
Czars are a good idea for Obama.
The rumor mill, and the fear mongers don't even try to pretend that they have facts to back up their ridiculous statements. There was no death panel, there is no guarantee you won't lose your health insurance(...and there never has been has been) and 49 million people have lost their insurance by changing jobs, getting sick, reaching their insurance cap, and being middle class.
The more moving targets that the Republicans can take aim at, the more time Obama has to actually do some work instead of dealing with "Obama myths". The Republicans and the white supremists are going to complain about everything Obama does to the point they start critcizing his speech before he even makes that speech. If one czar takes a bullet for the chief, okay. After all the Secret Service is letting people stand in line with assault weapons for Obama's speaking events. Hey, lots of czars sounds like a good plan to me...they either do an incredible job researching ways to fix our government or they can eat a bullet for the president. No wonder Obama is a Harvard scholar and a gentleman.
I think he should appoint a stupid Republican czar. It is clear thar the Republicans don't agree with anthing that's not their idea. All they care about is winning elections. The American people pay the price for their petty actions. I say out with them all. We need a strong third party.
I don't like the term "czar" it holds a laughable, disrespectful, negative connotation.
It's a brilliant move on President Obama's part to use appointees. They are a great way to avoid the republicans attempts to derail the political process. The Clinton admin. was stymied by the gop's successful attempts at blocking cabinet nominees. That is, until he finally began appointing people to serve until the positions were filled by senate approved nominees.
If the number of Czars gets out of hand President Obama will be the first to know and will appoint a Czar to oversee them...Problem solved. Seriously though I think the term Czar rather than the position is what is hard for many to digest. It does sound more appropriate for a Harry Potter story character than American Politics in the 21st century. Perhaps a new moniker like "Dude", "Guy" or "Executive".
Yes, Czars are necessary to even begin to solve the problems that 8 years of George Bush created. All of these problems are extremely complex and they all need the individual attention that a czar and his staff can give them. A Czar, vetted or not, is probably a better choice than most of our elected officials because they are well-known individuals, if not experts in their field and will concentrate and work in depth on each individual problem, rather than constanly fighting and worrying about the next election.
Jack, I am an independent from Palm Beach Gardens, FL. I voted for president Obama be cause I thought he was someone to believe. Well he has let me down at every turn. Transparency, openness, only where is it. He has surrounded himself with as far left as he can. He is a joke with the people he has given important jobs to. Tax cheats and guys that say white people are poisoning black peolpe. He has made all the critics on the right legitimate because of his actions. This is not who I voted for.
Finding it difficult to remember anything a "czar" has done to resolve the problems they were appointed to combat. Poverty, drugs, and education are dealt with in much the same way as they have been for years. If the "czar"s come up with substantial, passable by Congress, solutions rather than blue ribbon panels – they should stay. More results less reports!
Obama's Czars are no doubt important officials within his administration. The fact that they are not subject to congressional oversight is surprising, yet they are not an “affront to the Constitution”. Every administration needs advisers, and as Obama is faced with numerous issues right now I support the idea of a Czar.
As long as Obama pays more attention to the backgrounds of his nominees, and they represent themselves well, the Czars should be practical.
You know what? If we poked enough in everyone's closet, questioning their opinions, especially in Washington, there wouldn't be anyone working up there. Kind of like what we got now but without the fingerpointing and the bickering.
Let's see-does "Czar" mean giving somebody from the "hood" a job? A number of advisors is ok but this isn't Chicago and the ward mentality. This is the USA we are talking about.
So only Republican czars are ok? I seem to remember Reagan having an energy czar and a drug czar. Can we blame the media for using the nickname 'czar' instead of advisor? I don't get it Jack. Reagan & Bush can have czars, but Obama can't have czars. Sort of like other American Presidents can talk to American school children, but not Obama. It isn't silly season, it's silly millenium.
Teri
Palm Coast FL
I think the word "Czars" is troubling since it has it roots in pre-communist Russia and denotes a "position of power and authority"
The Obama "Czars" really have no power beyond their roles as advisors to the President and are qualified, mostly, by their special expertise in a given field. So, Instead of calling them "Czars" why not just call them what they are..."Special Advisors", or... "Obama's Brain Trustees"... Don't ask me why they are needed or how they will actually diminish the discord and ridiculous enmities in Washington. There are already far too many "experts" at odds with one another in Washington. "Czars" will probably just add to the noise and our political confusion.
For the first time since I have listen to your comments, you have made
a conservative statement that maybe all Czars should be looked at more closely of who they are.
Ina Young
Walnut Creek, Ca
Obama is using these czars to speed up and poll strings to get his policies and plans passed. because he knows rep. dont want him to succeed so they are slowing down the process to get things done and saying no to everything that has to do with obama. And some of them are also trying to use this as pice of their bigger picture of him being a communist, socialist and all the above..
I read that G.W. Bush had several Czars. They were for: cyber security, regulatory, aids, bird flu, intelligence, health, Katrina, manufactoring, drug cazr, domestic policy, war czar, copyright, abstinence, mine safety, Latin american, WTO, corruption, privacy, Sudan Czar, amoung others. I don't think they should be running anyone down, since they had Czars, at least since Nixon.
Jack, the fact that Van Jones back away from the petition is the real problem, not vetting. I have alway wonder how could 15 of the 19 hijackers be from Saudi plus their leader Osama and we don't own that country! But we somehow ended up attacking their neighbor Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.
I believe all the cast of lairs who fabricated all that information to get us into a $10 billion a month war, were vetted. Every now and then a different point of view is needed.
So the bottom line to vetting is, what made us not attack the Saudi? If the National Security Advisor is briefing the President a month before 9/11 about Osama bin Laden to strike America and nothing was done to stop the attack. Should we not investigate why there was no follow up to the security report. I wish we would have had a non vetted Iraq Czar ask some Van Jones type questions. America could uses the extra $1 trillion to clean up the Subprime mess. That remind me, we should have had a Bank Czar, I would rather be embarrassed by a few nutty question from unvetted Czars than a few trillion od lost America wealth and a park full China made tent from Wal-mart with America calling the park home!
Czars belittle the presidency. There will be no czars in my administration. The presidency has depreciated into a power by many. We need to return to the era of the kings.
Our Governor has advisors, I would think the President is entitled to them too. I also don't think he should have resigned for stating what looks to be true from what I see.
Can't we all workfor the good of America for a change instead of this petty prap!
Maybe we should use Emperor. Heck, da Czars are a thing of the past. Whatever catch phrase or words they come up- nobody seems adequate in solving this nation's problems. Instead we play politics, that's all they can do!
How about some "czar-inas?" It might help!
President Obama is a brilliant man who doesn't have any trouble multi-tasking. Because he is expected to keep on top of the many serious issues put before him, appointing a person to oversee a particular issue and report to him, saves time and provides the president with the exactness he demands. If he truly has thirty or more, that means he is working very hard on many things. Go, Obama!
Jack,
The majority of this "czar" issue seems to be centered around the "I don't like Obama" theme. If you dig into anyone's past, you will always find something that could be used against them. Plus, don't forget that at least a handful of the czar's do go in front of the senate for confirmation. On top of that certain other "news" networks have vowed that they are going to go after the other czars, including one commentator singling out another three czars telling his followers to go digging for dirt on them. I personally would love to see those who are making this an issue have their past dug into? I wonder what strange/fringe/controversial things/laws they have done or broken? I think we should shine some light onto those who are making these accusations and see if they can be held up to the same light they are holding Obama and his czars to.
if they work.................great.
if they do not......................next idea.
The word "czar" is a Russian word. Who ever coined that one, has upset just a few loyal American 's who have fought the wars that have brought this "freedom ' you're all talking about.
As Obama stited in his campaign promises, " he wanted a "new DC"! What he has Not been doing, is what is so upsetting to most Americans.
He is meeting behind closed doors, men that we don't know & didn't vote for. Why ? When he wanted Transparency?
Obama is a phenomenom...A Malotto man from almost poverty , gaining respectability through people we don't appreciate [such as the Rev Wright, Ayers,etc., who hate America] and using them for his rise to the PRESIDENCY. You don't think we should be wondering who he's talking to and what he has in place for most Americans??? He said "Yes we can [do what?] I say" Yes we should"[ watch him carefully]. He is an unknown! !Most American who voted for him were and still the people who are wishfull thinkers. "Oh, well, he'll do well and they check nothing out and believe every word he says. We check all his the words and they change daily! Is that what he meant about change?
So, there wasn’t a problem onto now with have a czars, but when someone ask for an investigation into a 9/11 cover-up by the federal government then that person shouldn’t be allowed to work for the government. That make me think there really need to be an investigation into a 9/11 cover-up by the people. Keep the czars, and keep the government honest by allow the people to ask the government what ever questions they wish to ask.
I thought our fathers fought for freedom of speech. I do not always agree with the company I work for – so should I be fired? I think the czars have a job to do and their personal opinions are just that – and I believe there is a need for them. How quickly the Republicans forget all the 'czars' they had they just used a different name for them
I bet the Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman were vetted before the financial collapse. Should have had a nutty Czar asking those to nut jobs about a Government conspiracy!
If it helps get the job done more efficiently, then I am all for it. It's a new world, a new generation and a new way of doing things. The Republicans have get their heads out of, I'll say sand and realize their old ways of doing things is OLD!
Jack, the republicans seem to forget that their lies and whining are the reason they are no longer in power.America voted for Health care and that's what we want.The czars are needed to help with the huge mess the republicans made of this country.
Are White House “czars” a good idea?
At minimum a very bad idea, however, republicans have no room to talk...czarism is indistinguishable from federalism, the latter an authoritarian movement most conservatives support...in any event both democrats and republicans continue to support many unconstitutional policies, their numbers arguably increasing evey year...the only remedy the establishment of a multi-party political system allowing for more personal choices and significantly less government and institutional control...
Despite the potential for flawed appointments, I do believe Obama's "czars" serve a very real purpose: they're intended to cut through a quagmire of government bureaucracy, report their findings directly to the President's office, and be in a position to expedite a problem-solving agenda in a timely manner. Obama has, by necessity, had very ambitious plans to confront the economic crisis, global energy concerns, shortcomings in the education system–the list goes on and on. Since it's impossible for him to personally oversee each critical area of concern, he's very wise to delegate these duties to persons chosen by virtue of their expertise in a relative field.
I think I would be more concerned if he neglected to appoint experts to advise him through the myriad issues the US is currently confronting.
Czars are absolutely not a good idea. They add more layers of bureaucracy, which we all know leads to out-of-control spending. When too many cooks are in the kitchen, it’s hard to know who messed up the recipe. Obama promised us he would cut costs and reduce government spending. It’s hard to believe him when he continues the same, old tired practice of campaign promises that are quickly forgotten after the election, when they get their hands on the power and the money. I just learned he made a big loan to Brazil to drill offshore, yet I don’t get a cost-of-living raise in my social security—and to add insult to injury, our withholding for Medicare is increased. No more czars—more attention paid to voters—even old ones.
It seems to me that the president needs advisors to keep him as well informed as possible on a wide range of issues. Perhaps they should not be called “czars”, but “advisors”. I want our president to be well informed and this seems to be a logical way to accomplish that. Even a Van Jones beats the misinformed, hate-filled, and biased rage coming from critics that clouds every issue that comes along.
Change the name from Czar to Senior Facilitator!
Jack, Please tell me how to apply for one of these czar jobs since I could use a job and they seem plentiful..Whats one more czar right..I could be the new snow czar or the new rain czar..I'm not picky..
Yes. Many advisors are very helpful. The republicans are going to trash everything that the new president does because they are like spoiled brats who, if not getting their way, will try to destroy things for everyone else. They will keep it up until we vote more republicans out of office in the next election.
I have never seen such ignorant men in responsible positions.
As a devout christian, I am ashamed of the people who claim to be christians yet on every issue act like devils.
Isn't that what the President is suppose to be ?
Oh that's right, since Bush wasn't smart enough to actually be a President, he had to have extra help... and called it a CZAR.
Jack
To burden the American people with payments for dual "governments" and apparently Secretaries that he doesn't want to advise him is ridiculous. We are a bankrupt nation and some of this foolishness has to go!!!
Sandy
I can't think of one good reason for their to be all these "czars". One or two is Ok, what are we trying to do-out-czar the Russians?
Hello,
I find myself more relaxed and confident about a President that reaches out to experts in order to be informed about the problems our Nation faces. Good solutions and decsions are informed and I applaud President Obama for identifying areas that he needs the advice of good expert people (czars if you like). Effective leadership is a process where an individual can call on the support of others and direct others toward accomplishing a goal. Not relying on experts would be abject failure, especially when the Nation is faced with numerous challenges the least of which are health care reform, economic stability, environmental policy, and the war on terrorism. I'd suggest we are in the place we are because the past administration failed to reach out to experts (czars)?
I don't know.. but I do believe that America is truly "a shining city on top of the hill." The world needs this country to be strong and to set a good example.. and I truly hope we don't destroy this great hope of the world from inside out.
If an issue or topic is enough of a problem to warrant the appointment of a "czar," then perhaps our Cabinet agencies are failing to do their jobs. Why not examine that possibility?
Let's hope none of these "czars" turns into a Rasputin!
Wasn't it the media that labeled the administration positions as Czar?The term itself clearly is being used to generate a negative reaction. By definition a czar (/zɑr, tsɑr/ )is:
–noun 1. an emperor or king.
2. (often initial capital letter) the former emperor of Russia.
3. an autocratic ruler or leader.
4. any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry.
Jack,
How long did it take to get Sec. Sebelius confirmed? How many other posts have and still are being held up by the Republicans. Yes, folks should always be properly vetted. But, work needs get done and we can't afford to keep playing politics with America's productivity
Los Angeles, CA
Read the Constitution and decide for yourself!! The Constitution says Congress must advise and consent any Presidential Advisers! This includes Czars!!
Obama claims to be a Constitutional Scholar and Professor!! He certainly knows how to ignore the Constitution, and do as he pleases!!!
Sure, Czars are a great idea, for an communist nation. There is a reason that cabinet members go through a vetting process and are confirmed by congress. So that we dont get communists and super socialists in the White House. Now if we could just put the president through a vetting process and a House and Senate confirmation. Then we wouldnt have a communist as a president. But with idiots like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as elected officials, I guess we would probably get a communist president eventually anyway.
czars seems to have been ok while George Bush was president.
i notice jones had to step down, but the republican politicians can
say any disrespectable thing they want about pres obama or his
administration and nobody has to step down. with this administration
anything goes it's like it was in the south back in the 40's certain
races were not counted as human or a part of society and therefore
did not deserve respect. what jones said was true it's just that certain
americans just can't face truth. there are scores of americans out
here that is "SICK & tired of the power hungry right wing that will go to
any length to completely bring obama down even if it hurts all citizens
in america. the media is helping them by giving their radical retoric
television time making people nauseous. i've never ever seen any
thing like this and maybe you don't want to admit it but everything the
white house does will be wrong in the eyes of those that hate him
at least one minister had the guts to come out and admit it.
j. horne