What do all of the following people (see list below) have in common? They are "czar's" in the Obama Administration.
What is a "czar" exactly? Wikipedia defines it this way:
Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch).
Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian, supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.[2][3]
Now to be fair, Obama did not invent the position of czar in Washington. Many Presidents have had them. However, he appears to be on the verge of appointing yet ANOTHER czar to his already large family of czar's and in doing so will own the title of President with the Most Czar's. As stated in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:
The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.
The administration is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to act as a pay czar for the Treasury Department, these people said.
Make no mistake, he knows exactly what he is doing. This is a first-rate power grab by a power-hungry President. You see the great thing about czar's is that they operate with impunity and they are "under the radar" when it comes to making policy. They are accountable to nobody, except the administration.
So in effect we have NON-ELECTED officials, who are backed by The White House, who are given the tools and resources to do the bidding of the President and they are accountable to NO ONE! These czar's don't have to undergo Senate Confirmation Hearings, they just get appointed.
So as long as we are going to be serving all of these "kings" we should at least know who they are. In case we need to bow to them at some point. The following is a list of Obama's Czar's/Kings:
Energy czar Carol Browner
Urban czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
Infotech czar Vivek Kundra
Faith-based czar Joshua DuBois
Health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle
New TARP czar Herb Allison
Stimulus accountability czar Earl Devaney
Non-proliferation czar Gary Samore
Terrorism (I thought they didn't use that word) czar John Brennan
Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein
Drug czar Gil Kerlikowske
Guantanamo closure czar Daniel Fried.
So there you have it. Obama's Kings.
Does anyone know ANYTHING about these people? Guess what? That's the point. You don't know them so they are anonymous. It's easier to "get things done" when you are anonymous.
Anonymous, unaccountable, invisible.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
TruePatriot1
Barbara Joanne
UncleChri
Tommy T
rwnutjob
Caroline K
Salon.com
Comments
Any President gets to appoint a lot of people. Did you know who all of Bush's appointees were? No, you didn't. Did it bother you? I'm guessing it didn't.
And, one last thing. You don't need to put an apostrophe in when you make a word plural. There is one "czar". There are many "czars". Sorry, but that one just drives me crazy.
Anonymous, unaccountable, invisible."
first of all, just because you know nothing about these people doesn't mean they're anonymous, unaccountable, or invisible. they, their careers, and the legally created postions they hold are a matter of public record, so please stop acting so clueless. or maybe you're not acting?
more to the point, do you know ANYTHING about how government works? are you not aware that every single president we've ever had is legally entitled, no, REQUIRED actually, to appoint all sorts of people to do the things that need to be done to make the executive branch work? get a grip please djohn, and try writing a post for once that actually makes sense.
Time's 2 minute bio: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1866567,00.html
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner
EPA: http://www.epa.gov/history/admin/agency/browner.htm
You might try Google.
Also, we should talk about apostrophes.
Time 2-minute bio: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880883,00.html
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Carri%C3%B3n,_Jr.
New York Times: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/adolfo_jr_carrion/index.html
No apostrophe is required for plural nouns. Czar (or tsar) is singular, and czars (or tsars) is plural. The apostrophe before the "s" denotes possession, as in the Tsar's appointment was made by Barack Obama in 2009; or it can be a contraction of "czar is" or "czar was," as in "The Czar's (or Tsar's) got excellent credentials which are well known and thoroughly reported in many national news outlets such as Time Magazine and The New York Times."
Sorry.
I wish they would come up with something else to call them. It makes you feel like you are living in Russia no matter what they are doing. I don't like the fact that there are no checks and balances over so many people that are in charge of so much of our money as well
And to get picky with dictionary definitions...Djohn and Natalie, you are both right.
American Heritage Dictonary says:
czar (zär, tsär)
n.
1. also tsar or tzar (zär, tsär) A male monarch or emperor, especially one of the emperors who ruled Russia until the revolution of 1917.
2. A person having great power; an autocrat: "the square-jawed, ruddy complacency of Jack Farrell, the czar of the Fifteenth Street police station" (Ernest Hemingway).
3. Informal An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity: a racetrack czar; an energy czar.
[Russian tsar', from Old Russian ts2sar2, emperor, king, from Old Church Slavonic ts-sar2, from Gothic kaisar, from Greek, from Latin Caesar, emperor; see caesar.]
In any case I feel it is too much bureaucracy. More Bureaucracy just ends up costing us more money. I understand delegation...and a certain amount of that is good, but perhaps some of that stuff doesn't need administrating...like Faith Based Czar...What is that about? Shouldn't government be staying out of that? And Anti proliferation Czar; why can't Hillary take care of that? Too much government alltogether for my taste.
Sage-What I really find hilarious is that all of these people who protested the "evil" government in the "60's are now the same one's who endorse it's gigantic growth some 40 years later. LOL!
is that supposed to be an answer to the points people have raised here djohn? if you think it is you need to go back to thinkin' school my friend. you post this retarded screed which is based on nothing but your own ignorance and hypocrisy, then, when people who actually know how to think come and tear it apart, your best comeback is "put down the koolaid." you're a joke djohn, and what's worse you're a fool as well.
These are people who have held positions in the public eye. You don't know them yet, but others do. That's how people get to be known. I don't see anything shady in this procedure.
Want to talk about why we need them at all?
"first of all, just because you know nothing about these people doesn't mean they're anonymous, unaccountable, or invisible. they, their careers, and the legally created postions they hold are a matter of public record, so please stop acting so clueless. or maybe you're not acting?
more to the point, do you know ANYTHING about how government works? are you not aware that every single president we've ever had is legally entitled, no, REQUIRED actually, to appoint all sorts of people to do the things that need to be done to make the executive branch work? get a grip please djohn, and try writing a post for once that actually makes sense."
the only reply you made to that was to say "don't drink the Kool-aid."
so djohn, if you'd like to avoid being called a fool stop acting like one and answer what i said there. here's the thing though; you aren't CAPABLE of responding to what i said with anything better than an inanity about Kool-aid, which means you're a FOOL who posts shit that's is patently absurd then doesn't even have the ability to coherently defend his postion. fool is as fool does my friend.
I've NEVER heard anyone complain about these positions until now. Bush created the Faith Based Czar.
Oh and by the way, if this story doesn't catch on, did you hear that Obama put Dijon mustard on a burger?
BTW, One thing I'm sure of is Obama doesn't want of this DJohn on his burger.
This guys knows more about nothing and nothing about more things, than anyone I've ever known.
And as I've said before, he mixes 1/3 of his bullsh*t, 1/3 chickenshit, and 1/3 of chopped liver and thinks it's gourmet pate, wears a red, white, and blue jockstrap around his head and thinks its haute couture.
Since you didn't READ the post I will address these here.
"Do you know ANYTHING about how government works?" Out of the two of us my friend I'm the only one who has actually WORKED for a President before. I've also worked in the Pentagon and know a great deal about "how government works" as you put it. I've been privy to information that you will never see and seen things that you could not imagine.
Are you not aware that every single president we've ever had is legally entitled, no, REQUIRED actually, to appoint all sorts of people to do the things that need to be done to make the executive branch work?" Yes. I am. This is what you would call his cabinet. Every President has one. Each of these individuals must be confirmed by the Senate and in effect makes them accountable to the people...that's US! However, these czars are NOT confirmed. They are appointed and usually report to a member of the cabinet. The "org chart" looks alot like that of the mafia. You have the Don at the TOP (Obama), His Caporegime (Cabinet Members) and then there are the soldiers (czars). They are well insulated and operate under the radar.
I hope this is clearer for you now. Here endeth the lesson.
I read it in Leviticuss chapter 13 v69, when it talks about heathens and cretins.
that your comments to ratings makes you the undisputed king of such stats, but you'd never know.
It takes you both hands to add two plus two and you still keep coming up with three.
Bet you're really really good at baseball stats, though.
you write:
This is what you would call his cabinet. Every President has one. Each of these individuals must be confirmed by the Senate and in effect makes them accountable to the people...that's US! However, these czars are NOT confirmed. They are appointed and usually report to a member of the cabinet. The "org chart" looks alot like that of the mafia. You have the Don at the TOP (Obama), His Caporegime (Cabinet Members) and then there are the soldiers (czars). They are well insulated and operate under the radar.
"I hope this is clearer for you now. Here endeth the lesson"
with all due respect djohn, you're completely full of shit. or, to phrase it a different way, you're an obfuscator and a distorter of the truth. the executive branch, going back many administrations before obama, of course has many sub-cabinet level positions which are filled by appointment and which don't require congressional confirmation. so what? the doings of those appointees are only as "under the radar" as citizens here choose to let them be. your fevered comparison of them to the mafia, while dramatic sounding and worth a laugh, is bunk. as far as the term czar, which appears to offend you more by it's slavic nature than any rational reason you've named so far, it was first popularized by one of your heroes, ronnie ray-gun, when he used the term for the head of his ridiculous and self-defeating war on drugs.
you ideologically-driven, knee-jerk republican types are fascinating because of the blithe hypocrisy with which you bemoan things which are standard features of modern government and which you thought were just dandy as long as it was your team running things. you lost djohn; your man W drove this country to the brink of ruin, his ruinous policies are discredited, and all your type has left to do now is squeal about the imaginary ways obama is messing things up. i've got to admit though, the squeals are music to my ears, so i'm looking forward to more posts from you:)
I also found this: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/how_did_this_happen.html
He makes some very good points in this article. Among them is the fact that while the GOP and the Dems are busy blaming each other for what happened, the real perpetrators are blame free.
2) I've never heard of a lot of these people referred to officially as czars. Only perhaps (personally not even, but perhaps) in a dilluted shorthand journo-jargon kinda way.
3) yeah, that's how the executive works. Of course they are accountable. Senate can demand their dismissal as they can of anyone serving at the pleasure of the president who fucks up, and can impeach the president for refusing. I think the House can also issue arrest warrants, but not certain.
But yeah, the president has the power to appoint people to handle matters and head task forces. It's a large part of his job.
Sorry i this sounds snarky, but I think this is another "Obama is a fascist" rant. Y'all complain Washington is clogged up and inefficient, then scream bloody rape when someone takes action to get stuff done.
Cute. As cool a cat as Obie is, we can't claim him. Alls we can cop to is Rahm's dirty moth and Axelplouffe's organizing chops. Which ain't bad. Rahm can cuss him some cussin', he can.
I think you might have had a more valuable post if you wrote about what these czars are set up to lead or "defend."
The problem really isn't that somebody from, oh, say Microsoft will be in charge of a cyber security bureaucracy in government. The problem is that a cyber security bureaucracy will be set up and civil liberties organizations (especially the Electronic Frontier Foundation) fear what could happen to the Internet and the people if a section for cyber security is setup.
This is nothing more than a power play.
p.s. What the hell is it with the grammar police here?
What's more, the "pay czar" is being put in place to oversee something that is already part of the bailout program... limits on certain types of executive compensation at firms that are taking taxpayer money in order to stay afloat. Are all of you people arguing that this is a bad thing in favor of letting corporate executives, who ran these companies into ground, lied about it for months and years, and took tens of millions or even hundreds of millions in compensation anyway, use taxpayer money to give themselves more multi-million-dollar bonuses for failure, instead of using the money to shore up vital areas of our economy?
I think Rich Banks says it well: "appointing qualified people to key administrative positions, in the expectation that they will execute policy and serve the nation. How... diabolical!"
J.E. Robertson
June 13, 2009 10:27 AM
Isn't this what Cabinet posts are for? It is simply another unecessary layer of government thrust upon an ignorant electorate.
DJ, with the help of some valuable contributors , you're doing a very good job of deflecting the nonsense of the resident collectivists, who see no danger in adding ever increasing layers of governmental bureaucracy to our lives.
What do these people think these new czars are going to do? Figure out new and exciting ways Americans can exercise freedom from governmental interference?
Given his total lack of executive experience, which he demonstrates daily, Obama should be indulged to some extent in his efforts to find people who know what they're doing. I'm not convinced that this latest gaggle fits that bill, but that may be because we don't know very much about them. As you say, we certainly didn't elect them.
Nothing-public employee salary (including mine) is available to the public with benefits. Nothing on these people. Few-if any-have any expertise in their area.
As to "hiring somebody to craft policy" well, gee whiz-I thougth that was Obama and Congress's job. Not another lazy government appointee who does nothing, says less and draws a big salary.
All I have been able to find out if that the healthcare "task force" or commission or whatever you want to call it is being funded in the millions (that's right boys and girls-millions) to determine out which of us gets treatment and who does not: so far they have ascertained that self-inflicted health issues (smokers with cancers-binge drinkers with liver disease) will be allocated a minimum of care and the old folks (the baby boomers now-how funny a gen X president is now crafting policy not to treat boomers who are determined never to age!!) will not receive things like new knees, hips and such once they reach "X" age (they are very quiet on the age-waiting until the legislation passes).
The healthcare package now going through leaves nearly 40,000,000 uninsured-they are only about 50,000,000 uninsured anyway.
Ask yourself why would they be writing a plan that leaves so many uninsured (and by the way they are exempting themselves from the plan just like they exempted themselves from FICA taxes until people realized they were not paying FICA and threw a fit in the early 80's)?
If you know the answer you are very astute. If not, oh well, you are drinking the Koolaid and the good news is that you will not be a burden on the "federal government": they ain't gonna cover a bunch of baby boomers who have smoked dope and popped pills for fun (and fun I bet it was).
Be very careful what you wish for: cause it is here. These folks are so much smarter than the average American if they were not hell-bent on destroying our economic freedom and way of like it would be funny. Instead it is just sad.