The House has voted to defund the Czars.
It always amazed me that more people didn’t realize how fundamentally un-American and undemocratic the concept of a “Czar” is. And I’ve been even more amazed how they’ve been embraced by socialists in the last couple years. The Bolsheviks, after all, had them shot.
[Update a few minutes later]
More change! A federal judge has ordered Ken Salazar to deal with drilling permits within a month. It’s always hard to know if these people are doing these things despite their effect on the economy, or because of it.
Fortunately, elections still have consequences, no matter how much the fascists (like the ones in Wisconsin aided and abetted by the White House) want to fight them.
They’re not czars – they are Special Advisors to the President. They are perfectly constitutional and American, and have been for hundreds of years. They were called czars because newspaper people got tired of typing “Special Advisor to the President for X.”
A perfect triumph of show over substance.
They’re more accurately called “commissars”.
As is Congress’ authority to abolish them.
There’s yer substance.
They’re not czars – they are Special Advisors to the President.
If all they did was offer advice, there wouldn’t be any complaint. However, they’re execising real executive branch regulatory authority without Senate confirmation. That’s the beef and why they should all be abolished.
Well, without all his czars how is Obama gonna have time to work on that short game?
However, they’re execising real executive branch regulatory authority without Senate confirmation.
Bingo.
There’s nothing more central to the U.S. Constitutional system than the separation of powers, and the powers of the Czars broke that rule by being placed entirely within the Executive Branch. They should never have been created with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this is a very, very good change.
Separation of powers and all that Constitution stuff, where is that in “Rules for Radicals”? Clearly the Founding Male Persons of Parentage did not intend that the Executive branch appoint unelected, unveted by the Senate persons with the power to directly affect people’s lives and business. These old fun killing fuddy duddies also required the Executive to obey rulings from that pesky Judiciary branch too.
The interesting thing about the czars, is that because they don’t have to go through any confirmation process, the president is free to appoint people who share his true political ideals and we get people like Van Jones.
Regardless of how long czars have been used or whether or not they should be done away with, they are a window into the political ideology of who appointed them. In Obama’s case, it is an ideology in striking contrast to his public image.
I wonder if we’ll see these permits turned down now with some feeble rationalization, prolonging the game even more.
A number of people have expected Obama to “move to the center” in an echo of the successful Clinton strategy of 95-96 so as to win the 2012 election from whatever the Republicans throw at him. I guess the theory is that it worked for Clinton in similar circumstances, so it ought to work for Obama. The only problem with that theory is that Obama needs to move to the center first.
It’s not high profile, but we see Obama acting in a way that hurts the US economy and costs US jobs, yet again. That’s got to add up when election time comes.
Um, we know they’re not “czars,” Chris. Did you actually think we thought they were Russian descendants of the Romanovs?
Czars and public
employeeunelected bureaucrat unions, two undemocratic institutions of the Permanent USG that must be abolished. The Permanent USG must be crushed.despite or because
The answer is found in the consistency.
They’re not czars – they are Special Advisors to the President.
Czars is one of many words coming from the meaning leader (kaiser, caesar, etc.) So Chris, are they advising or leading, hmmmm?
“A perfect triumph of show over substance.”
Except that they act like..well..czars.