Obama Czar Total Count is Now 31 Czars ***UPDATE NOW 33 and Congress Wants #34!!**

**UPDATE AT END OF BLOG**

 

From Taxpayers For Common Sense:

Earlier this week, Deputy Secretary of Interior David Hayes became the latest example when he was named the California Water Czar. He joined dozens of others in what has become a veritable Czar bazaar.

The rationale for creating “Czar” positions is that such individuals can rise above the usual DC turf wars, knock heads together, and make disparate bureaucracies achieve ambitious, overarching goals. Done well, this can demonstrate an administration’s higher level of interest and dedication to an issue. But this ceases to be true when these exalted positions become so commonplace that it’s hard to see where ordinary bureaucracy ends and the extraordinary begins.

By our count there are at least 31 active Czars (see our list here), giving the current administration more Czars than Imperial Russia had in its history. We have a Mideast Peace Czar and a Mideast Policy Czar, a Sudan Czar and a Guantanamo Closure Czar. There’s a Green Jobs Czar, a Pay Czar and an Energy Czar, an Urban Affairs Czar, Technology Czar, and even a Great Lakes Czar.  Thankfully, there’s also an Information Czar.

Clearly there is a place for the Czar function. When you are trying to manage large new initiatives (such as those managed by the Climate Czar and Health Care Czar) these White House-based positions can make sense. Similarly, when crisis situations develop (TARP Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar) such positions may make sense on a temporary basis. But others, like the Drug Czar, have been in place through several administrations with a spotty track record.

As they say, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. When you look at the Czar proliferation (there’s a WMD Czar, too), you have to scratch your head and ask if perhaps we should re-think this approach. Instead of constantly creating new positions to coordinate our government’s activities, might it make more sense to figure out how to make the existing structure perform better for the taxpayer?

Turning to specially appointed Czars to find solutions to some of the most complex problems facing our country is problematic. These Czars occupy an exalted status in our government as part of the Executive Branch but not any agency. Unless expressly provided for by Congress, these officials are not confirmed by the Senate, yet often have power over Cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation. Instead of streamlining government and making it more efficient, an overreliance on Czars runs the risk of papering over problems (Regulatory Czar) while keeping the creaking structure in place.

In the end, naming a Czar often yields a quick media hit and gives the impression of action. But Czars are generally tasked with tackling challenging issues that require a high level of commitment, perseverance, and resources. These issues are intractable for a reason: they involve tough questions, difficult trade-offs, and touch the lives of millions of Americans from all walks of life.

http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=2651&category=Wastebasket&type=Project

 

Then ADD This article from the same website (suggest you bookmark as only source of reliable information in the future). Better yet…..PRINT IT OUT. The internet CZAR will probably regulate what you see soon.

 

TOO Many Czars (Daily Citizen)

July 8, 2009

It has taken President Barack Obama less than eight months to do what imperial Russia could not do in 400 years.

Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that Obama has appointed 31 “czars.” That’s more than ruled Russia during its entire imperial history.

Obama has appointed a California water czar, a Mideast peace czar and a Mideast policy czar, a pay czar (to determine how much the private sector should pay, not the government), a health care czar, an energy czar and a green jobs czar, a Sudan czar, a climate change czar and numerous others, with the promise of more to come. And, if you can’t keep track of all the czars, don’t worry. Obama has also appointed an information czar.

The president should feel right at home when he visits Russia this week.

Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.

Taxpayers for Common Sense says all these appointments don’t guarantee that the federal bureaucracy will work any better. If anything, the group notes, the appointments simply add another layer to that bureaucracy, something that rarely makes the government more responsive to taxpayers.

More worrisome is the clear trend towards the government, especially the federal government, getting involved in an increasing amount of our daily lives. Equally troubling is the idea that the solution to any problem that faces us is a stronger hand on the reins.

The czars did Russian no favors. We have no reason to expect they will do the United States any good.

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=2659&action=Headlines%20About%20TCS

 

My end note here:

1.  Obama has circumvented our U.S. Congress by naming Czars; most of whom do not need confirmation.  They will answer ONLY to Obama; no one else.

2.  Will Obama claim he has “Saved” or “Created” jobs by appointing these Czars?  The Czars will need “operating” staff (secretaries,receptionists,researchers, legal teams, etc.) at a cost to taxpayers of WHAT AMOUNT per year? ($1 MILLION)?  Heck MICHELLE OBAMA’s “operating budget” is $1,400,000/year for her staff and clerks (Didn’t know that America?)

3.  WHERE will they be “housed”?  Will an arm of the House or the Senate have to give up one of their buildings near the Capitol?  Will they be “housed” in the White House? [ After all The White House includes: six stories and 55,000 ft² (5,100 m²) of floor space, 132 rooms and 35 bathrooms, 412 doors, 147 windows, twenty-eight fireplaces, eight staircases, three elevators, five full-time chefs, a tennis court, a (single-lane) bowling alley, a movie theater, a jogging track, a swimming pool, and a putting green.  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080207000511AAiEj08  ]

 

 WHY doesn’t our own Congress ASK him?

 

Does the HOUSE and the SENATE realize they are probably being “phased” out? Think about that.  It could be a possibility.  WHY YOU ASK?

Even Cabinet and Secretarial positions may be phased out for Czars.

Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) SHOULD be involved/over; Afghanistan/Pakistan, Middle EastPolicy, Middle East Peace,Sudan,….right?  Nope…now we have Czars for each specific area.

Shouldn’t Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security) be involved/over; our Borders, National Intelligence, Terrorism, etc.?  Nope….now we have Czars for each specific area.

Shouldn’t Tim Geithner (Sec. of Treasury) be involved/over; Economic Recovery, Executive Pay for bailed out companies, Auto industry (since we now own a % of GM), Stimulus accountability, TARP money,etc.? Nope….now we have a Czars for each specific area.

Etc., Etc., Etc.

America: See the pattern?  Remember these CZARS answer to NO ONE but Obama!

 

And some Americans (voted for Obama) CAN’T understand the “tea bag swinging people”?

There has been an EXPLOSIVE Power grab in only 160+ days by Obama.

 

Cabinet Secretaries are being turned into “Yes” men/women.

Congressmen/women are being turned into lemmings.

Americans will end up being “worker ants”….

Get the picture yet?

Totalitarianism at its finest!

“Yes We Can”……..sound familiar?

 

 ***UPDATE***

From the Boston Herald:

Another day another czar

Do you know how many czars have been appointed by the Obama administration? 33 

Congressional Democrats want another one to bring the grand total to 34.  This new czar would oversee health insurance. 

According to the AP the responsibilities for this new czar would include “determining who qualifies for federal subsidies to help buy coverage, setting standards for handling grievances and appeals for claims denied, determining plan benefits for each year, policing insurance marketing campaigns, and enforcing a requirement that the insurers spend on medical care at least 85% of what they collect in premiums.”

There are several problems with adding a new czar to the federal government.  First, states already have insurance commissioners who protect consumers.  This would be a duplication of effort.

Second, these czars are being granted sweeping new powers and yet none of them have gone through a confirmation process.  The term czar means emperor or king.  So Obama administration has already created 33 kings in the federal government.  They don’t have to report to Congress or a Cabinet Secretary, but yet they have all this power. 

It is time to stop the czarring of our government.  This is the United States not Russia

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/lone_republican/index.php/2009/07/08/another-day-another-czar/