Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
House Republicans Introduce Bill to Eliminate Obamas 39 Czars
Of course they are, they actually believe that Obama and the dems are the cause of all of our problems.
That is true, if they make their own laws...but I have yet to see that. IF you can come up with a SPECIFIC regulation they enforce that is NOT traced back to a Congressional mandate?You understand what the word "regulate" means?
If Capo Tarde is not made into law what is there to regulate? If the EPA gose over the heads of Congress they become a power unto themself.
Yes or No?
I don't really get the point of doing this, just seems like political show games to me. The GOP should focus on real issues if they really want to improve the country.
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.
A Brief History of White House Czars - TIME
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: A Brief History of White House Czars - TIME
I tend to agree with this criticism. Should we really be wasting taxpayers' money on useless, ineffective symbolism?
They should focus on eliminating unnecessary departments within the federal government and reining in the power of some others, like the EPA and FCC.
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.
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?
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?
You mean like the one we have with corporate lobbyists?
Oh wait..we don't.
(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.
Get rid of the Czars. Just another example of a bloated administration.
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?
You mean like the one we have with corporate lobbyists?
Oh wait..we don't.
How about we have a checks and balence system for them?
You mean like the one we have with corporate lobbyists?
Oh wait..we don't.
Thaks that two for obama.
Lobbyist and CZARS.
How about we have a checks and balence system for them?
You mean like the one we have with corporate lobbyists?
Oh wait..we don't.
lol.
When are we all going to wake up and realize that our government is out of control with power?
They have us so divided, there is little we can do about it.
Maybe we should start a new party....the party of the people.
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?
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?
These special advisors (for all Presidents not just the redistributor in chief/marxist/commie/liberal/nazi/alien and whatever else the loons want to call him) have no signatory authority, theyre just staff.
Grandstanding or stupidity?
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.
How about we have a checks and balence system for them?
These special advisors (for all Presidents not just the redistributor in chief/marxist/commie/liberal/nazi/alien and whatever else the loons want to call him) have no signatory authority, theyre just staff.
Grandstanding or stupidity?
Some of them do have authority to make rules that is backup by law.
How about the EPA?