House Republicans Introduce Bill to Eliminate Obama’s 39 Czars

[Capitalist]

(The Hill)- A group of House Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday to rein in the various “czars” in the Obama administration.
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans introduced legislation to do away with the informal, paid advisers President Obama has employed over the past two years.
The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration.
The bill defines a czar as “a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President” who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.
​

 

[California Girl]

This is ridiculous.

 

[editec]

That will be as effective as reading the entire constitution in the House for dealing with the nation's economic woes

No doubt it plays well in Peoria, though.

 

[Article 15]

Dumb.

 

[ba1614]

I would like the policy of using these czars(by both parties) to go away, but it should be down the list a bit.

 

[midcan5]

Thought the republicans wanted to create jobs not eliminate them?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah let's create jobs at the taxpayers expense.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thought the republicans wanted to create jobs not eliminate them?

I thought liberals hated the rich. Do you think obama's czars are poor people?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have to admitt the attempt is good but rght now this is a waste of time. This was not their mandate. repeal or defunding obamacare was.

 

[jillian]

This is ridiculous.

of course it is. the loons are going to spend a lot of effort wasting their time on pointless shows like this.

 

[rightwinger]

By all means lets get rid of the czars..

lets call them "Special advisors to the President"

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is waste in government that need be addressed and the overuse of so called czars is certainly an area that should be considered for budget cuts.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1925564,00.html

The more interesting criticism, however, is the charge that czarism simply doesn't work. Czars generally don't have budget control or other real authority, and are often caught up in turf battles among Cabinet secretaries and fellow West Wingers. "There've been so many czars over the last 50 years, and they've all been failures," New York University public-service professor Paul Light told the Wall Street Journal. "It's a symbolic gesture of the priority assigned to an issue."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1925564,00.html#ixzz1AM59buXC

I tend to agree with this criticism. Should we really be wasting taxpayers' money on useless, ineffective symbolism?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By all means lets get rid of the czars..

lets call them "Special advisors to the President"

How about we have a checks and balence system for them?

 

[Jarhead]

By all means lets get rid of the czars..

lets call them "Special advisors to the President"

Not sure exactly where the czars are an issue. Call them czars call them advisors call them assistants call them liaisons. They are there to help the President govern as he can not be everywhere all the time.
As for their salaries.....are we going to cut back on spending by having less advisors to the president?
If anything, get rid of those multiple assistants to the congresspeople and instread have them work 5 days a week like the rest of us.

 

[Jarhead]

By all means lets get rid of the czars..

lets call them "Special advisors to the President"

How about we have a checks and balence system for them?

They are liaisons...not legislators. Why do we need congressional approval for them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By all means lets get rid of the czars..

lets call them "Special advisors to the President"

How about we have a checks and balence system for them?

They are liaisons...not legislators. Why do we need congressional approval for them?

The EPA has more authority than Congress. Tey can enforce regulations even if Congress does not enact any.
Reference cap and trade.

 

[Jarhead]

How about we have a checks and balence system for them?

They are liaisons...not legislators. Why do we need congressional approval for them?

The EPA has more authority than Congress. Tey can enforce regulations even if Congress does not enact any.
Reference cap and trade.

Yes, and I have an issue with that.
But I do not see the "czars" as anything more than liaisons. They do not have the right to regulate....just offer the President information. Am I wrong?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Czars don't do anything but are merely window dressing to convey a sense of urgency about whatever is perceived to be the crisis of the minute.

They are nothing but a symbolic gesture to con the sheep into thinking the president is actually doing something.

 

[Jarhead]

Czars don't do anything but are merely window dressing to convey a sense of urgency about whatever is perceived to be the crisis of the minute.

They are nothing but a symbolic gesture to con the sheep into thinking the president is actually doing something.

So they are advisors and are observing situations the President does not have the time to personally monitor.

SO I again ask...and the issue is?

 

[bodecea]

How about we have a checks and balence system for them?

They are liaisons...not legislators. Why do we need congressional approval for them?

The EPA has more authority than Congress. Tey can enforce regulations even if Congress does not enact any.Reference cap and trade.

Well, first of all the EPA is IN the Executive Branch whose job IS enforcement of the laws. Second of all, can you name a regulation that the EPA enforces that was NOT enacted by Congress? TIA