My Perspective: What’s Up with All The Presidential Czars?

What’s Up with All The Presidential Czars?

President Barack Obama is doing something at an alarming rate that no other President in American history has ever did. President Obama is appointing czars of practically everything from healthcare to the economy. However for those who don’t know what a czar is than Webster’s dictionary describes a czar as an emperor specially the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution or one having great power or authority, ex. a banking czar. But a more precise and concrete definition of the word is a male monarch or emperor, especially one of the emperors who ruled Russia until the revolution of 1917 or a person having great power; an autocrat. But what Obama is doing with the word czar is the informal definition which is an appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity: ex. a racetrack czar; an energy czar.

Still President Obama’s czar system has been drawing concern since early March. Obama at the time had only 'super aides' for healthcare, the economy, energy and urban issues, with more to come -- prompting some lawmakers and groups to worry that he may be concentrating power and bypassing Congress. As President Obama names more policy czars to his White House team -- high-level staff members who will help oversee the administration's top initiatives -- some lawmakers and Washington interest groups were raising concerns that he may be subverting the authority of Congress and concentrating too much power in the presidency.

The idea of these "super aides," who will work across agency lines to push the president's agenda, is not a new one. President Nixon may have named the first "czar" with his appointment of William E. Simon to handle the 1970s energy crisis. Other presidents have followed suit. But none has embraced the concept, presidential scholars say, to the extent that Obama has. Obama has appointed special advisors who will work from inside the White House on healthcare, the economy, energy and urban issues, with more to come. "The challenges coming at us are bigger than anything we've seen since the Depression," said Jim Messina, deputy White House chief of staff. "It's crucial to have people in these positions who can help us meet them head-on."

But some lawmakers and outside experts fear that Obama is setting up a system that is not subject to congressional oversight and creates the potential for conflict among his many advisors. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example.

"They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege," Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions. At times, he said, one outcome has been to "inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability." "The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd said. However since the letter that Byrd sent, Obama had named two women to lead his effort to overhaul the nation's healthcare system. One of them, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, was tapped to be Health and Human Services secretary. At her confirmation hearings, senators will be able to probe her views on health policy and demand detailed documentation of her credentials.

But the other, Nancy-Ann DeParle, who was named health czar, can begin work right away, without outside review of her abilities or opinions. And whereas lawmakers can ask Sebelius for testimony in the future and control her budget, DeParle may remain largely outside the gaze of Congress. Paul Light of New York University, an expert on the presidency, said Byrd has a valid constitutional concern about Obama's use of czars. Light too is worried about Obama's expansion of the czar system, but his apprehension is focused on more-practical concerns. He points out that previous presidential czars became frustrated because they had no permanent staff, and their power was diffuse and unclear. Besides, he said, "there are so many czars in this White House, they'll be constantly bumping in to each other."

In addition to naming DeParle to coordinate healthcare policy, Obama has tapped Carol Browner to be White House energy czar, a post that could overlap with the functions of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department and other agencies. Adolfo Carrion Jr., a former Bronx borough president, is urban affairs czar, a job that may dovetail with the functions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And Paul A. Volcker, Obama's big-picture economic czar, must coordinate with the Treasury Department and other agencies. The confusion about competing roles played by czars and their Cabinet counterparts was on display Monday as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to explain how authority would be divided between DeParle and Sebelius as they steer health reform through Congress.

At first, Gibbs declared that DeParle "will be in charge." Then he acknowledged a role for Sebelius and others. "I think obviously this is something that spans across many platforms, not unlike, say, something like energy independence, that a lot of people that work in this building and in different agencies will be involved in," he said, pledging to get back to reporters with details about how the health policy team will work. Before Inauguration Day, transition director John Podesta said in an interview that Obama deliberately was building a strong, centralized White House organization, one that grew naturally out of his disciplined presidential campaign.

It's far too early to tell whether Obama's quest for efficiency will lead to overstepping the bounds of presidential authority, but the latest appointment announcement could offer a few clues. For example, Podesta said, a coherent White House energy policy "needs input not just from the Energy Department," but also from the EPA and the Interior, Commerce and Agriculture departments. Thus, an energy czar made sense. Podesta saw little potential for the czars to undermine the authority of Cabinet agencies. "As long as the White House staff is respectful of the power and authority of the people in the Cabinet, as I know they will be, I think it will be a very workable model," he said in January. Now that the White House is launching the system, aides are refining the description a bit. Messina emphasized that the czar positions rank below Cabinet positions.

He said the confirmation-free appointments do not violate the Constitution because the czars are aides to the president and his team. "They're super-staffers and report to the president and to Rahm," he said, referring to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "I meet with them. I don't meet with Cabinet secretaries; they're above me." Czars mainly will do their coordination work behind the scenes, and secretaries will serve more as what Messina calls the "public faces" of the administration. That description does not allay Byrd's concerns, said his spokesman, Jesse Jacobs. "If the czars are working behind the scenes and the secretaries will be the mouthpieces of the administration, it calls into question who is actually making the policy decision," he said. "Whoever is making the policy decisions needs to be accountable and available to Congress and the American public." It's still very early in the Obama presidency, but others also question the czar setup.

Browner, whose title is special advisor to Obama on climate change and energy, told reporters two weeks ago that the administration soon would propose new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from a variety of industries. Obama's EPA administrator had hinted at such a possibility, but had not made it clear how things would unfold. Browner's statement set off a nervous response among a few Washington interest groups that objected to the executive branch unilaterally taking the lead on regulating a substance as ubiquitous as carbon. "The issues are important enough that you have to have the give and the take of the congressional process -- and do this in the open," said former Michigan Gov. John Engler, who heads the National Assn. of Manufacturers.

At least one senator wanted to ask Browner about exactly that in a confirmation hearing. As a czar and not a Cabinet secretary, however, she did not have to answer questions on Capitol Hill. "The overall concern is, Carol Browner has been appointed to coordinate all this energy policy," said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). "What's her role going to be? She's not going to be going through a confirmation process. While [agency directors] had to come to Congress and answer questions, she didn't."

However the word “czar” still conjures up the image of one of those all-powerful rulers of Russia many centuries ago. Some still associate it with and think of Ivan the Terrible. That’s the 16th Century Prince of Moscow who turned Russia into a true nation-state. And as the “Terrible” suggests, this was not exactly one of your touchy-feely, sensitive tsars (”tsar” is the Russian spelling for czar). So, what do many people make of Barack Obama’s “czars”? First of all, there are 22 of them – and counting. No previous president comes close to matching that number. In fact if you put Reagan’s, Both Bushes, and Clinton’s czar numbers together, Obama still has twice as many of the 4 previous Presidents before him.

Nonetheless there’s a “czar” for Drugs, Energy, Auto Recovery, the Great Lakes, Borders, Information, Stimulus Accountability, and Urban Affairs. Some people don’t like it. They think the president is circumventing the Congress by naming special assistants who don’t need Senate approval because they work directly for him. Rush Limbaugh has weighed in: “He’s (Obama) a statist. He’s an authoritarian. He wants to rule; he doesn’t want to govern.” Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) complained about Environment “Czar” Carol Browner: “She has not been confirmed by Congress, and there is no way for Congress to hold her accountable for her actions.” Even a member of the president’s own party, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) has criticized the White House. The Senator wrote a letter to the President in February: “(the czars) can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

The White House hasn’t had much to say about all of this. Although Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, told a Chicago Tribune interviewer in late April, “… as I joke in the White House, nobody’s a czar. The reason is czars weren’t good to my people, so I really don’t like the title anyway.” So, why is the president naming so many “czars”? The University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato, author of “The Year of Obama”, suggests that “the likelihood is that Obama simply likes the idea as a matter of presidential style to have a coordinator who is, at least in the public image, given a great deal of power and authority – someone who can command the media spotlight on a particular subject.” But why refer to them as “czars”? That’s what White House press secretary Robert Gibbs did last March when he said to reporters, “Let me address the czar question for a minute.” After all, the word “czar” isn’t in any of the titles of these presidential assistants. Why did Gibbs go on to say it? Isn’t that relevant?

Sabato says, maybe at least partly tongue-in-cheek “Part of it is to recruit them to office. So many well-entrenched, well-off people don’t really want to serve anymore and they do have to make many sacrifices, including tremendous cuts in salary. So if you’re recruiting somebody from the private sector, and you’re asking them to do without several million dollars in compensation, I suppose it’s a nice balance to be able to say, ‘but you’ll be a czar.’” Still somewhere, Ivan the Terrible must be smiling. But the White House response to the question about the czars doesn’t explain what’s up with all the Presidential czars. That’s why so many Americans are unaware that Obama is creating czar positions at a rate that is alarming and with no one being able to question them but President Obama, it is as if super-aides as one White House staffer originally referred to the czars as, can help create policies without anyone questioning them about it.

So it is understandable why when people read or hear the word czar they think of king or ruler and they wonder why Obama or previous President’s have referred to such super-aides as czar. When the word czar only reminds people particularly historians of the Russian czars in the early 1900's that were cruel, oppressive and not liked by the population. In fact those czars’ actions led to revolution and overthrow of the reign of czars. All the thoughts of czars are negative and it seems as if our government embraced the notion of czars or least Obama’s administration is comfortable with having czars or people who report directly to the President and only to the President and no one else except for Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel. Czar are overseeing many parts of American life and business such car, technology, energy, healthcare, housing, mortgage, pay and other areas with more to come in the near future.

The problem with having so many czars is that in the presidential cabinet there are only fifteen members and Obama already has more czars than cabinet members. Cabinet members must be approved by Congress before they can advise the president but czars are just appointed by the president with no approval necessary by the Congress. It appears that the president is bypassing Congress and the Constitution by appointing czars. In fact president Obama’s czar system can’t be explained in detail because previous presidents never had so many czars. Obama has 22 times more than Reagan and Bush Sr. Obama has 7.3 times more than Clinton and 5.5 times more than Bush Jr. So there is little information in regards to what do these czars get paid and if the taxpayer’s money is being used to pay for them but the truth is, one can assume that is the case. What Obama is doing is stretching the Executive Branch of government and making it larger than it has ever been?

This is why so many are outraged by the czar system that Obama is implementing. Plus some are bothered by the lack of approval by Congress for the czars and the fact that the legislative branch is not allowed to check the executive branch in regards to czars. This is clearly something that many on Capitol Hill don’t like because it is as if policies will be created and crafted in secrecy by all the czars before it is passed to Congress to implement on behalf of the President. The checks and balance in the czar framework is just not there and some feel that Obama is acting like he wasn’t elected with the appointment of so many czars as if he was a king.

The rise of the czars in America is extraordinary and historical but the real issue is that these czars override the checks and balance system that our constitution was built on and the fact that no one can question the czars and they are appointed by the President rather than confirmed by Congress is questionable since they are the ones who will be held accountable for the policies on the very issues that they put in control over. So if the drug czar policies doesn’t curb the drug problem in America, Congress can’t question the czar cause they have no power over him and it is no way to understand what information the drug czar or any czar for that matter is using to come up with the policies they will try to implement. Thus, supporters of presidential czars say the positions are helpful by focusing attention on a big issue and making someone responsible for it but that person is only responsive to the President. So we the American people can’t really hold the czars accountable because they are behind the scenes people and not the mouth pieces of the policies that will be implemented only the brain which is what White House administration have said. However critics claim czars can lead to turf fights and add another cumbersome bureaucratic layer to government which is what right now it seems like.

The number of czars seems to being growing by the week and at this rate, we the taxpayers will be paying for nearly 30-50 czars by the end of Obama’s first year in office. That’s why Obama and his administration have to outline specifically the duties of the czars to us the taxpayers since the policies they will craft will affect us and the salaries of all the czars need to be made public unless they are all getting $100,000 a year as President Obama said his top staff will be capped off at $100,000 in the early days of his Presidential term. This is important because no one has ever appointed as many czars as Obama and it’s as if the government will control everything that has something to do with life at the rate Obama is appointing czars to be supreme rulers over all things that deal with life almost.

A look at how recent presidents have expanded the number of czars:
President Reagan: 1 Czar
Drug Czar
Carlton Turner: 3/12/1985

President George H. W. Bush: 1 Czar
Drug Czar
William Bennett: 3/10/1989
Robert Martinez: 3/21/1991

President Clinton: 3 Czars
Health Czar
Ira Magaziner: 1993

Drug Czar
Lee Brown: 6/21/1993
Barry McCaffrey: 3/1/1996

AIDS Czar
Kristine M. Gebbie: 6/25/1993
Patricia S. Fleming: 11/10/1994
Sandy Thurman: 4/7/1997

President George W. Bush: 4 Czars
National Intelligence Czar
John D. Negroponte: 4/21/2005
Mike McConnell: 2/13/2007

Cybersecurity Czar
Rod Beckstram: 3/7/2008

AIDS Czar
Scott Evertz: 4/9/2001
Dr. Joseph O’Neill: 7/19/2002

Drug Czar
John Walters: 12/7/2001

President Obama: He has 22 Czars (and counting) but I could only find the names of 15 Czars
Drug Czar
Gil Kerlikowske, former Seattle police chief

Energy and Environment Czar
Carol Browner

Homeland Security Czar
John Brennan

Health Czar
Nancy-Ann DeParle

Urban Affairs Czar
Adolfo Carrion, Jr.

Economic Czar
Paul A. Volcker

Regulatory Czar
Cass R. Sunstein

Technology Czar
Vivek Kundra

Government Performance Czar
Jeffrey Zients

Border Czar
Alan Bersin

WMD Policy Czar
Gary Samore

Intelligence Czar (Director of National Intelligence)
Dennis Blair

Car Czar
Steven Rattner

Pay Czar
Kenneth R. Feinberg

Great Lakes Czar
Cameron Davis


Sources:
President Obama's czar system concerns some
By Tom Hamburger and Christi Parsons
March 05, 2009
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/05/nation/na-obama-czars5

What is Up with These Presidential Czars's?
June 12, 2009 by Tom Treloar
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1840615/what_is_up_with_these_presidential.html?cat=75

Rise of the Czars
by Web Producer
http://glennbeck.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/09/rise-of-the-czars/

White House czars’ power stirs criticism
By Christi Parsons and Tom Hamburger
March 05, 2009
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/mar/05/nation/chi-czars_for_thursmar05

Why all the Obama ‘czars’?
By Carol Costello - Contributor, CNN's American Morning
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/15/czars-everywhere/

Why does Obama need so many czars? Looking past the chain of command
http://www.examiner.com/x-12684-Houston-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Obamas-czars

Pay-Czars other Czars
Author: Michael Kraft
Published: June 10, 2009
http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2009/06/pay-czars-other-czars/

Time to Demand that President Obama Resign
South Orange, NJ
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
By Alan Caruba
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/Time_to_Demand_that_President_Obama_Resign,200927251.aspx