It is how it has been run here all along. Why the issue now?


Wrong...Nixon was the first to use a czar....


The problem with czars are many;

White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process.

They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. They 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

Nixon was not the first to use appointees, czars do not exist in our government unless someone is using terminology that is not valid.

Ummmm yes...he was.....

the unelected/ unapproved by congress....appointee was not used prior to Nixon appointing a "superaide"

William Simon was appointed to handle the energy crisis....

This is tooooo FUNNY!!! Are you serious?

Janet Napolitano was the Governor of Arizona. She signed some of the toughest legislation in the country to stop illegal immigration!

Since President Bush was failing miserably on immigration, and John McCain (another Republican) was trying to pass an Amnesty Bill, the States had limited power.

Then Governor Janet Napolitano signed the Employer Sanctions Law whereby any company operating in the State of Arizona that knowingly hired an Illegal Alien would have the Business License REVOKED by the State of Arizona.

How you guys doing in Texas?

That is still not true. Appointees have been around all along. Czars have never been allowed in our government.

Everyone is beating around the Bush here. The real reason that these positions/people are being termed "Czars" is that the right wingers like Glenn Beck are using the term frequently in their attack on President Obama.....who they routinely say is a Socialist.

They are trying to scare people.

There have always been appointees since the ratification of the Constitution, but this in itself does not justify expanding appointments beyond what it Constitutional. (there weren't appointments under the Articles of Confederation; they were done at State level till the Constitution was illegally ratified by the Federalist party-http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article7) This only leads to expansion of the State and diminishment of private sector resources (money, in this case).

I never beat bushes, you never know what vermin or other critter might pop out at ya doing that...lol

You are right, of course.


The fact remains that appointees have been allowed by each head of government bodies all they way down to the mayors office since the beginning of this whole thing.

I blows me away how easily some folks are scared into believing BS.

The Mobfather just said that Obama IS Van Jones...forget all this vetting crap...Obama IS Van Jones...one in the same...like Bill Ayres...Saul Alinsky...Mark Loyd...Rev Wright...these men are Obama !!!...

Gio,

Why don't you use your own words?

I say " ditto "...to the Mobfather...

And that is your problem in a nut shell no pun intended.

I don't see it as a problem...I just happen to agree with Rush...Mark Levine...Sean Hannity...99% of the time...as do 2/3 of white males...did you know...that the last democratic nominee for president to carry a majority of the white male vote was Truman in 1948...most white males are conservative...and...vote republican...so actually...I'm just a good Catholic Italian boy...

Gio,

That is not true....2/3 of white males!!

I know many white males with my large family, my friends and my parents' friends, my child's school, church, my ex's friends and more. None of them believe in Rush, Levine, and Hannity. And...half are Catholic.

Also, I would estimate that 98% of the white males that I know voted for Obama. Some of them were Republicans. But..I know 2 Democrat white males that didn't vote for Obama because he's black.

ok..if you are correct....name one appointee that is paid by taxpayers that was not approved by congress...prior to the Nixon Administration

After all, "it is how it's been run here , all along."
Other than ceremonial....and that have direct access to the white house and policy making.

The only person they are accountable to is BHO.
They do not have to answer to Congress.
Too much power without accountability.

Bill O'Reilly called for more "czars" during Bush administration
September 08, 2009 5:38 pm ET

O'REILLY: The Immigration and Naturalization agency has approved student visas for Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi. Of course, both terrorists are dead, killed in the 9/11 sneak attacks. But the INS, six months after these notorious terrorists made the front pages, deemed to send them approval for their student visa applications. The approvals were to attend flights schools.

So why did 9/11 happen? Well, you can lay part of that right on the doorstep of the INS.

President Bush is said to be furious. His administration is roundly embarrassed. But being furious is not enough. INS boss James Ziegler, a Bush appointee, should be immediately fired, and that organization should be reorganized and placed under the jurisdiction of the White House itself.

A presidential counsel should be appointed immigration czar and clean out the INS once and for all. This pitiful government agency has put all of us in danger. It simply does not perform, and all the excuses in the world don't cut it. Shut it down, start again. The INS is a dangerous failure.

Here's some more from FOX:

O'REILLY: Let me repeat the most important points. Only 29 cents on the donated dollar has reached the 9/11 families, and almost a billion dollars is sitting in the bank with no future designation.

The Washington Post has also discovered some lunacy. For example, The New York Times set up a fund after 9/11, and $25,000 of that went to the Jewish Museum of New York for a program on tolerance for Islam.

"Talking Points" once again is asking our federal government to get involved here. Obviously there's an accountability problem with all the money, and obviously the IRS can't handle the situation. And while some charities are doing the right thing, others are not. There's no doubt that some of your donated money is being misspent.

It's time for Congress to act and for the president to appoint a charity czar to oversee the money and hold the charities accountable.

This is an enormous problem and one that must be corrected.

Van Jones

Yupper, and intelligent, articulate, charismatic guy, who kinda looks like Obama, that really scares you doesn't it?