House Republicans Introduce Bill to Eliminate Obama’s 39 Czars

[Sheldon]

ok, one more time for the terminally stupid

list of u.s. Executive branch czars - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that could also be helpful for the benignly stupid. :d

YMMV
know what i mean?

Yes. I speak from occasional first-hand experience.

 

[DiveCon]

I would be pleased if that were true. They ALL need to be confirmed, not some of them.

no, the fact is they dont
some are just in an advisory position with nothing more
they do not have to be confirmed
those that are actually cabinet level positions with cabinet level authority, do

You can play that silly liberal word game that somehow the president is appointing people without any power, which somehow is supposed to make sense. He appoints them and they have no power, zero, they can't do anything. And they are there because????

But do you know what George Bush, Obama and you have in common? None of you get to decide that. The Senate decides who does not need Senate confirmation. All the people in departments now, the Senate approved at below what level they do not need to be confirmed. Not the Executive branch.

You seriously want George Bush deciding who needs Senate confirmation? I don't. I don't want Obama deciding that either, it's not his call.

wrong again, the constitution decides who needs senate confirmation
PERIOD
and presidential advisers do NOT


btw, you calling me a liberal only further weakens your case

 

[Sallow]

Why doesn't the President just voluntarily cut his posse? It could put an end to this issue. Does he really need 39 Czars? How bout some Bipartisanship? I think if he agreed to ditch half his Czars,this issue would go away. The People want Bipartisanship no?

Bullshit.

This is a first too. No other congress went after "Czars".

Bush also played the role of the Unitary Executive to the hilt. His administration refused to answer questions in inquiries..and when some of them finally did..the refused to swear to anything.

Rove's still in contempt.

 

[Care4all]

Well, you're right in the part that when Bush did it, it was just as unconstitutional. According to Bush and Obama they do have power. The Constitution is completely clear on that, they must get Senate confirmation. Do you know what the term "czar" means? Just the name says the President is putting them there to make decisions. How does it even make sense that the President names a czar of something who so clearly can't do anything they don't need confirmation?

BTW, what czars got Senate confirmation?

this list is over a year old but is still an example, the ones on the list with an asterisk next to them, have been confirmed by the senate.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf

this actually seems to be more up to day, and doesnt double count any like that one does

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

As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress.

Czar Search | FactCheck.org

fact check did not duplicate, they cut it down from the 47?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

End all the czars. If the President had to appoint a czar its probably not a job the government should be doing in the first place

 

[DiveCon]

this list is over a year old but is still an example, the ones on the list with an asterisk next to them, have been confirmed by the senate.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf

this actually seems to be more up to day, and doesnt double count any like that one does

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

As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress.

Czar Search | FactCheck.org

fact check did not duplicate, they cut it down from the 47?

yes, they did
if you look in the list
they have homeland security czar and several others listed twice
they were the same position, but different people served in those positions, factcheck wants to count that as two
it isnt, its one

 

[kaz]

no, the fact is they dont
some are just in an advisory position with nothing more
they do not have to be confirmed
those that are actually cabinet level positions with cabinet level authority, do

You can play that silly liberal word game that somehow the president is appointing people without any power, which somehow is supposed to make sense. He appoints them and they have no power, zero, they can't do anything. And they are there because????

But do you know what George Bush, Obama and you have in common? None of you get to decide that. The Senate decides who does not need Senate confirmation. All the people in departments now, the Senate approved at below what level they do not need to be confirmed. Not the Executive branch.

You seriously want George Bush deciding who needs Senate confirmation? I don't. I don't want Obama deciding that either, it's not his call.

wrong again, the constitution decides who needs senate confirmation
PERIOD
and presidential advisers do NOT


btw, you calling me a liberal only further weakens your case

Making things up weakens yours. Since you don't want to read the Constitution, here you go:

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

There is no provision for the President to appoint anyone without the Senate. There is no provision for whether or not they have any actual power. As I correctly told you, below a certain level PER THE CONSTITUTION the Senate has said they don't need confirmation. Czars are outside the structure, show me where the Senate OK'd that. If you're not a liberal, sorry, my bad. But you are arguing like one.

 

[BlindBoo]

Let's call them what they are CZARS. The more CZARS you have the bigger the government. It's time to do some real change and make the government small again.

They are not czars, they are special advisors to the President that have no signatory authority.

Using the term CZAR is in fact a denigration, and as long as the MSM allows this type of bull shit, rhetorical form of propaganda from any faction to continue, the country will remain divided along made up bull shit rhetorical lines drawn in the sand by pundits who have no one but themselves to enrich.

30 yeARS OF CALLING THM CZARS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY AREN"T? Sorry that just doesn't work for me, revisionist history is 3rd door on the left

They never were any Czars (in the historical context) in our Republic. I can't help it if you've been fooled by more than 30 years of MSM propaganda tactic of calling some Cabinets heads and lowly advisory positions CZARS. Clearly you don't understand what revisionist history is.

This move by these congressmen is nothing more than grandstandingm to energize their base who, oddly enough have been fooled by over 30 years of...........

 

[DiveCon]

You can play that silly liberal word game that somehow the president is appointing people without any power, which somehow is supposed to make sense. He appoints them and they have no power, zero, they can't do anything. And they are there because????

But do you know what George Bush, Obama and you have in common? None of you get to decide that. The Senate decides who does not need Senate confirmation. All the people in departments now, the Senate approved at below what level they do not need to be confirmed. Not the Executive branch.

You seriously want George Bush deciding who needs Senate confirmation? I don't. I don't want Obama deciding that either, it's not his call.

wrong again, the constitution decides who needs senate confirmation
PERIOD
and presidential advisers do NOT


btw, you calling me a liberal only further weakens your case

Making things up weakens yours. Since you don't want to read the Constitution, here you go:

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

There is no provision for the President to appoint anyone without the Senate. There is no provision for whether or not they have any actual power. As I correctly told you, below a certain level PER THE CONSTITUTION the Senate has said they don't need confirmation. Czars are outside the structure, show me where the Senate OK'd that. If you're not a liberal, sorry, my bad. But you are arguing like one.

you realize that that doesn't cover advisers, right?

 

[Care4all]

this actually seems to be more up to day, and doesnt double count any like that one does

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

As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress.

Czar Search | FactCheck.org

fact check did not duplicate, they cut it down from the 47?

yes, they did
if you look in the list
they have homeland security czar and several others listed twice
they were the same position, but different people served in those positions, factcheck wants to count that as two
it isnt, its one

i am looking at the list, these are separate positions....he has 2 czars in certain areas is what it reads...? one for the whitehouse, one for the Nation type things....

can you show me what you are talking about, with actual example?

 

[kaz]

wrong again, the constitution decides who needs senate confirmation
PERIOD
and presidential advisers do NOT


btw, you calling me a liberal only further weakens your case

Making things up weakens yours. Since you don't want to read the Constitution, here you go:

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

There is no provision for the President to appoint anyone without the Senate. There is no provision for whether or not they have any actual power. As I correctly told you, below a certain level PER THE CONSTITUTION the Senate has said they don't need confirmation. Czars are outside the structure, show me where the Senate OK'd that. If you're not a liberal, sorry, my bad. But you are arguing like one.

you realize that that doesn't cover advisers, right?

Of course it does "all other Officers of the United States." All other isn't broad enough for you?

 

[jgarden]

Number of czars per administration

President - term - positions/appointees
***********************************************
Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945) - 11/19
Harry Truman (1945–1953) - 6/6
Dwight Eisenhower (1953–1961) - 1/1
Lyndon Johnson (1963–1969) - 3/3
Richard Nixon (1969–1974) 3/5
Gerald Ford (1974–1977) - 2/2
Jimmy Carter (1977–1981) - 2/3
Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) - 1/1
George H. W. Bush (1989–1993) - 2/3
Bill Clinton (1993–2001) - 8/11
George W. Bush (2001–2009) - 32/47
Barack Obama (2009– ) - 39/44

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

1. The appointment of government "czars" has occured during 12 presidential administration (6 Republican, 6 Democrat) over the last 78 years.

2. The vast majority of these government "czars" (from either party) never time bever received Senate confirmation - even during those periods when the president and the majority in the Senate represented the same party (ie. first 6 years of Bush Administration).

3. Although the GWB Administration didn't invent the position, it introduced it on a far grandeur scale that had ever been envisioned by previous governments.

4. If the position of "czar" is indeed unconstitutional if not accompanied by a Senate confirmation, it is also the height of hypocracy that this challenge come from the very party (and individuals) that were primarily responsible for promoting its widespread acceptance in the first place.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

(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.
​

You forgot the rest of it......

"In the United States, the term czar has been used by the media to refer to appointed executive branch officials since at least 1930s and then the 1940s under President Franklin D. Roosevelt."

If you History-challenged Teabaggin' clowns had any (functioning) brains, you'd be dangerous.....or, at least, evolved beyond your (present-day) Jr. High mentality.

 

[DiveCon]

Czar Search | FactCheck.org

fact check did not duplicate, they cut it down from the 47?

yes, they did
if you look in the list
they have homeland security czar and several others listed twice
they were the same position, but different people served in those positions, factcheck wants to count that as two
it isnt, its one

i am looking at the list, these are separate positions....he has 2 czars in certain areas is what it reads...? one for the whitehouse, one for the Nation type things....

can you show me what you are talking about, with actual example?

i did, the homeland security czar
its listed twice because he had Tom Ridge first then when he resigned he was replaced with Chertoff

 

[DiveCon]

Making things up weakens yours. Since you don't want to read the Constitution, here you go:

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

There is no provision for the President to appoint anyone without the Senate. There is no provision for whether or not they have any actual power. As I correctly told you, below a certain level PER THE CONSTITUTION the Senate has said they don't need confirmation. Czars are outside the structure, show me where the Senate OK'd that. If you're not a liberal, sorry, my bad. But you are arguing like one.

you realize that that doesn't cover advisers, right?

Of course it does "all other Officers of the United States." All other isn't broad enough for you?

no, Officers is not advisers

 

[Care4all]

yes, they did
if you look in the list
they have homeland security czar and several others listed twice
they were the same position, but different people served in those positions, factcheck wants to count that as two
it isnt, its one

i am looking at the list, these are separate positions....he has 2 czars in certain areas is what it reads...? one for the whitehouse, one for the Nation type things....

can you show me what you are talking about, with actual example?

i did, the homeland security czar
its listed twice because he had Tom Ridge first then when he resigned he was replaced with Chertoff

ok, i see that ONE now, but what others? that makes it 34 instead of 35?

 

[chikenwing]

Doesn't matter from what era,or which president did it also sorry ass excuse,this is a great place to start spending cuts,at the top not chiseling away at the poor slob at the bottom.

 

[Care4all]

also dive, they were SEPARATE Positions....no?

look:

23. *Homeland Security Czar (Assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism) – Tom Ridge
24. *Homeland Security Czar (Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security) – Michael Chertoff


it does not count tom ridge as the secretary of homeland security, it is counting him as an assistant to the president....imo this must have been BEFORE the new dept of homeland security was created....perhaps?

 

[Care4all]

Doesn't matter from what era,or which president did it also sorry ass excuse,this is a great place to start spending cuts,at the top not chiseling away at the poor slob at the bottom.

it's a lousy place to start....there are MANY more crucial places to START....

besides the fact that it is BS and it is up to the president to reduce his advisers.

 

[DiveCon]

i am looking at the list, these are separate positions....he has 2 czars in certain areas is what it reads...? one for the whitehouse, one for the Nation type things....

can you show me what you are talking about, with actual example?

i did, the homeland security czar
its listed twice because he had Tom Ridge first then when he resigned he was replaced with Chertoff

ok, i see that ONE now, but what others? that makes it 34 instead of 35?

there are more
but the number it drops them is not worth the time to go through and list
the Wikipedia page is just more accurate on that topic