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?