House Republicans Introduce Bill to Eliminate Obama’s 39 Czars

[Skull Pilot]

Senate Holds Second Hearing On Obama?s ?Czars? | Judicial Watch

The Hearing touched upon the practical problem of ineffective government management due to a complex system of policy-advisors and czars

So more taxpayer money wasted on ineffectiveness. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Aside from the clear problems of how to achieve effective governance in the absence of any clear lines of accountability, policy-czars also violate the fundamental spirit of the Constitution. This is a problem because White House czars are able to circumvent Congressional authority by the President delegating authority that already is in the purview of other officials (which is arguably the case with Paul Volcker, Nancy Ann deParle and Carol Browner whose duties greatly overlap those of Secretaries).

Gee more redundant government positions. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nice job. About time. These Czar positions are Unconstitutional. None are properly scrutinized by Congress. 39 Czars is ridiculous and are a waste of Taxpayer money. Time to cut the Obamy's posse.

Dumb job. Waste of time. The Advisory positions that have no authority are completely constitutional. These congressmen need to worry about their own house instead of grandstanding to whip their "dumb as dirt" supporters into a frenzy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

LOL. Wasn't the head of the EPA confirmed by the Senate?

The EPA doesn't have a Czar...but don't let that stop Reb.

So you agree that the EPA can over rule congress.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nice job. About time. These Czar positions are Unconstitutional. None are properly scrutinized by Congress. 39 Czars is ridiculous and are a waste of Taxpayer money. Time to cut the Obamy's posse.

You know Libo, you need to inform yourself before coming off like a silly Willie partisan looney tune. Surely you can think for yourself at some point....

Was President bush's 35 czars unconstitutional and did you complain at the time........

btw, from the chart I posted there are not 39 czars of Obama, he actually has 3 LESS czars than President Bush did.

In case you missed it:

Powered by Google Docs

You're speaking about Bush like he was a Republican. Actually he was a rino. His actions proved to be a liberal democrat. Maybe thats why obama has followed Bushes plan.

LOL. Wow, did GW just get thown under the bus?

 

[DiveCon]

By all means lets get rid of the czars..

lets call them "Special advisors to the President"

which is essentially what they are, well, those that aren't cabinet level positions already

 

[BlindBoo]

LOL. Wasn't the head of the EPA confirmed by the Senate?

The EPA doesn't have a Czar...but don't let that stop Reb.

So you agree that the EPA can over rule congress.

Name a law Congress has passed that the EPA has overruled.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I just don't understand how the Hopey Changeys can defend 39 Czars. In a time of such suffering for most Americans,i think the President can cut his bloated posse. These Czars don't work for free. Someone has to pay for them. 39 is ridiculous. The Hopey Changeys really are defending the indefensible. I guess they really are the 'Party of No.'

 

[DiveCon]

This move is another move by the GOP that leaves a person scratching their head. When GWB had his 35 czar's.
When Fox News asked Rep Darrell Issa if the GOP objected to Bush's czars he said,,,No!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyiYV2gOwjU

This is reminds me of how many members of Congress went along with GWB's spending and now, all of a sudden they became deficit hawks.
Everybody has the right to change their mind. Look at Obama's switch on the tax cuts for the wealthy, (of course he got something in return).

This isn't a complaint post, but more so a post to point out the irony of that happens within the Washington Beltway.

Can you say hypocrite?

is Issa one of the 28?

 

[Jarhead]

need to help you out here Plasma..

I never complained about the way you spoke with me. I simply pointed out to you that you regressed to such an approach and I subsequently apologized for possibly having been the one the pushed you to do so.
But by no menas does your approach offend me. To the contrary, it allows me to see the character of the man/woman I am debating with. Sort of like a poker face or lack of one.

Wanting to cut a multitude of government agencies is the idea..and a valid idea...and one that may take years to implement...if it can be acheived at all.

But to implement the idea, there must be a starting point. So, I , again, see no issue where, for whatever reason, you seem to make an issue. I think you just like to criticize those that dont think like you do. Sort of how you are with me....

Relax Plasma....this is nothing more than a discussion baord. An exchange of ideas. Dont take it so seriously. Life is too short

you didnt push me to anything.

i dont think it can be, and the facts that i have seen are based false facts. It being a valid idea depends on ones opinion.

Czars is not a starting point. Its being stupid. A startying point would be taking something like the Department of Education and doing an audit on it, and if anything seems redundant or a waste. Cut it. If in cutting it you find out you dont totally need it outright, get rid of it. THATS an idea. thats not what we have here and not what the TP have been saying.

i'm not taking this seriously. I am responding to you because i dont feel like cleaning.

Cutting the czars is not only not a starting point and not only just stupid. It is childish games by the GOP in my eyes.
But again, the TP reps want to cut programs...they may find minimizing them is the answer; they may find there is nothing that can be done at all; they may find eliminating them completely is the answer....and they may find valid ways to do it....and they may not.
There is nothing wrong with having an objective. I dont see it as foolish. I see it as goal oriented.

I dont blame you for not wanting to clean. Responding to me is so much more fun.

 

[Care4all]

LOL. Wasn't the head of the EPA confirmed by the Senate?

The EPA doesn't have a Czar...but don't let that stop Reb.

So you agree that the EPA can over rule congress.

No, the EPA can not over rule Congress....you have it backwards.

The Congress can over rule the EPA measures with passed legislation.

 

[Care4all]

I'm all for Obama taking the initiative to reduce his own advisers down by 25% if possible.

 

[Jarhead]

The EPA doesn't have a Czar...but don't let that stop Reb.

So you agree that the EPA can over rule congress.

No, the EPA can not over rule Congress....you have it backwards.

The Congress can over rule the EPA measures with passed legislation.

I dont believe any agency should have the right to make decisions without legislation.

It should be the other way around.

the EPA should request legislation and then congress should decide....not that congress needs to encat legislation to overule the EPA.

 

[DiveCon]

The first czars worked for Reagan.

stupid

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DiveCon]

So you agree that the EPA can over rule congress.

No, the EPA can not over rule Congress....you have it backwards.

The Congress can over rule the EPA measures with passed legislation.

I dont believe any agency should have the right to make decisions without legislation.

It should be the other way around.

the EPA should request legislation and then congress should decide....not that congress needs to encat legislation to overule the EPA.

didnt the FCC just do that with net neutrality?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not only stupid and childish but an example of acting without consideration of the consequences. A president has a duty, IMO, to gather the facts before he acts. Listening to others, especially when their conclusion might conflict with a presidents initial opinon is good government. In fact, having Czars or task forces to investigate, debate and vet all major policy decision might avoid harmful mistakes. Consider Bush and his decision to invade Iraq. Maybe a foreign policy czar leading a task force might have offered a different persepective than the neo-cons Bush followed.

OK.... We won sit down and shut up. Go to the back. Isn't thst what we heard for the last 4 years?

I don't know what you heard, or who you heard it from. I heard two stories, one from the R's and one from the D's; I suspect the true story is somewhere in the middle.
Notwithstanding of your opinion, the fact is the new right which controls the House promised a new day; you seem to suggest it will be business as usual.
Is so, I suspect you are correct.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Cut the Obamy's bloated posse. It will save American Taxpayers loads of cash and they're probably Unconstitutional as well. The President should voluntarily cut his posse. He shouldn't have to be forced. Time for sacrifice Mr. President.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you agree that the EPA can over rule congress.

No, the EPA can not over rule Congress....you have it backwards.

The Congress can over rule the EPA measures with passed legislation.

I dont believe any agency should have the right to make decisions without legislation.

It should be the other way around.

the EPA should request legislation and then congress should decide....not that congress needs to encat legislation to overule the EPA.

You don't seem to understand the separation of powers.

 

[Jarhead]

No, the EPA can not over rule Congress....you have it backwards.

The Congress can over rule the EPA measures with passed legislation.

I dont believe any agency should have the right to make decisions without legislation.

It should be the other way around.

the EPA should request legislation and then congress should decide....not that congress needs to encat legislation to overule the EPA.

You don't seem to understand the separation of powers.

I did not say "such is the way it is supposed to be; the way it was designed"

I gave my opinion of how I believe it should be.

 

[Care4all]

So you agree that the EPA can over rule congress.

No, the EPA can not over rule Congress....you have it backwards.

The Congress can over rule the EPA measures with passed legislation.

I dont believe any agency should have the right to make decisions without legislation.

It should be the other way around.

the EPA should request legislation and then congress should decide....not that congress needs to encat legislation to overule the EPA.

Yes, the "what comes first syndrome, the chicken or the egg?"

Congress CREATED the EPA and allotted them with certain duties, I believe?

So, unless the EPA is given another directive/goal from congress, or limits what control they were allocated, then I think it is legally and constitutionally, within the EPA's realm to do such.

this DOES NOT MEAN that I agree with the EPA or disagree with the actions of the EPA....I'm just saying I think Congress created them, thus they do have legitimacy. I could be wrong on that, and the department is not one that was created by Congress but they in the least are funded by congress, with their appropriation of such.

 

[Jarhead]

lol..I am finding more and more difficult to express an opinoin on this board without someone giving a dig or questioning your knowledge or intelligence.

Today I have been called a liar, a moron, an idiot; I have been referred to as an ass, and full of shit...and now told that I do not understand the separation of power.

All becuase I expressed my opinions.

Cool....I guess.