Dem rep: Time to get rid of the czars
posted at 4:19 pm on September 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
With the exposure of Green Jobs Czar Van Jones as a conspiracy theorist and radical, Democrats in Congress may finally awaken to the expansion of presidential power at the expense of the legislative branch. One has, at least – Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), a conservative Democrat frequently at odds with his caucus on policy. Boren wants an end to “czars” in the executive branch and a return to normal Congressional oversight on executive power:
U.S. Rep. Dan Boren said Congress should use the power of the purse to push the Obama administration to remove so-called czars that do not go through a confirmation process.
Responding to questions during a telephonic town hall, the Oklahoma Democrat said he was glad Van Jones, who resigned over the weekend as controversy continued to build over past statements, has left his post.
Boren joined others in criticizing the growing trend to name czars to lead efforts in specific areas.
Such officials do not go through oversight hearings or a confirmation vote in the Senate.
Thus far, Boren has opposed Card Check, cap-and-trade, and ObamaCare. Boren voted for Porkulus, which is about all thus far identifying him as a Democrat. Unions went after Boren hard in Oklahoma for his opposition to Card Check, accusing him of wanting workers to die, which apparently didn’t change any minds in Oklahoma, including Boren’s.
Democrats in Congress complained (idiotically) about the “unitary executive” principle during the Bush administration as an excuse for abuse of power, but thus far have entirely missed the very real encroachment by their own President. Under Bush, they argued, his signing statements derogated the oversight of Congress on executive branch activities. With the czars, Obama has put wide swaths of policy out of reach of Congress, and given himself the ability to appoint radicals and nuts to positions of considerable power with no vetting or oversight at all — as the Van Jones scandal showed.
Republicans need to push this issue, but so do Democrats. The precedents set by Obama, and especially the Congressional leadership’s supine reaction to them, will be used by the next Republican president to work around Congress. Congress needs to protect its power not just to limit Obama’s overreach but also to ensure that future presidents don’t make themselves into Hugo Chavez-style tinpot dictators. Thus far, it appears that the only objection Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have to tinpot dictators is the orientation of the pot.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
This guy is in for a tough three years…
d1carter on September 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Not my Rep, but we okies still keep an eye on him. We like to think of him as our “California Republican”
MikeInBA on September 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Guess who’s going to be the next one to go…? I’ll give you a hint, it won’t be a czar. We’ll see how well the 0ne tolerates dissent within his ranks.
4shoes on September 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM
“Boren wants
an end to “czars” in the executive branch and a return to normal Congressional oversight on executive powerto get re-elected in 2010.”perroviejo on September 9, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Congress needs to protect its power not just to limit Obama’s overreach but also to ensure that IF WE HAVE future presidents don’t make themselves into Hugo Chavez-style tinpot dictators.
tatersalad on September 9, 2009 at 4:23 PM
YES!
Also this:
petefrt on September 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Didn’t George W. Bush have like 25+ czars as well? Is that different? Not to excuse Obama’s gang of criminals.
The Dean on September 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Fellow conservatives, we really should be glad that the far left picked an incompetent fool like Obama to lead their party.
His lying, overreaching and lack of judgement and experience are glaringly obvious and making this administration (and the far leftists who continue to support them) one colossal joke.
Can you imagine if they picked someone who actually knew what they were doing, like a Castro or a Chavez? We’d really be screwed.
We’re screwed bad enough, but at least we can easily fight back and actually win some of the battles.
UltimateBob on September 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Dear Mr. Obama,
Please continue in your quest to destroy the Democrat Party, doing a bang up job so far!
Sincerly,
Right Wing Nut Job
jp on September 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Sorry Boren, you’re Pelosi’s b!tch. You’re gonna vote for Speaker Botox for leadership election, and that makes you eligible for midterm @ss kicking.
Apologetic California on September 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM
This is the easiest way for a Dem to distance himself from Obama. I expect to see more as Obama tarnishes and political reality seeps inside the beltway.
ROCnPhilly on September 9, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Racists are popping-up all over in the demorat party.
Bishop on September 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM
They’ve infiltrated the right, so maybe Boren is doing his part to infiltrate the left.
PrincipledPilgrim on September 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM
No.
fogw on September 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Dem on Dem Civil War.
Take the Blue pill.
faraway on September 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM
It’s about time, but does he read any of the bills that he votes on…?
Seven Percent Solution on September 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM
I don’t know if it was 25, but he did have czars. None were communists as far as I know, but regardless, this needs to end. And Obama supporters playing the “well, Bush did it too” card is usually a sign they’ve lost the argument.
Doughboy on September 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Well, they COULD change their party afiliation to (R). That would be easy to do, too. And most of their voters probably wouldn’t even notice. Too many people just look for the incmubent’s name, and pull the lever for them.
UltimateBob on September 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Apologetic California;
I was born in Oklahoma and most of my family still lives there. The Boren family has been involved in politics for years now and they have always been conservative. I am surprised Boren is still a Democrat. He might get kicked out in the midterms, but it will take a lot to beat a Boren in Oklahoma.
Terrye on September 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Bush had 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
Sugarbuzz on September 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM
This is not a Dem vs Rep thing; it is a Collectivism to Support Elitism project which would destroy our Freedom. Hooray for the Blue Dogs.
DL13 on September 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM
And Obama goes under his own bus. This will be first in a series released over the next year folks as Democrats seek reelection and employment past Jan 2011. Please stay tuned to see who else wants to tattoo some tracks across obama’s forehead with the bus he loves to drive over his former homies so much.
ted c on September 9, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Every president since Carter has employed the “czar” system. But there’s never been the spigot of taxpayer money available for the czars to spend without having to go through Congressional vetting to access the funds until now.
Obama went around Congress to put Van Jones in charge of $30 billion of spending without any oversight other than from the new media. That’s a huge difference compared to even the Carter or Clinton appointees (and many of the previous czars had prior experience and records at the federal level and in some cases had been previously vetted for other jobs by Senate or House panels. As of now, they’re just being bypassed and the leadership doesn’t care about the precedent, because the end justifies the means).
jon1979 on September 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I wrote John Dingleberry about exactly this, telling him I demand his support for the elimination of all CZAR type positions of power directly answerable to the president, with a huge budget to boot, and answerable to the people.
This is the shovel full I got as a response.
While technically true within a hairs breadth in some spots, it’s still a shovel full of horseshit he’s going to have to eat. Soon too.
Spiritk9 on September 9, 2009 at 4:37 PM
so are we.
JiangxiDad on September 9, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I suspect that the use of this many czars are part of the playbook from Soros to implement the shadow government that was (and still is) in place when BHO got elected, before the inauguration. Remember the “Office of the President-Elect” and all that business. BHO is a big-eared puppet who is being manipulated by Soros and is just one of his minions. He doesn’t have the intelligence to come up with all of this on his own; the people in these czar positions (and the other positions of power in this admin) were pre-determined by their allegiance, service to Soros & co., and their consistently radical beliefs, and this of course includes the president.
I do not see this crowd ceding power peacefully if by chance they get elected out of office in 2012. The 52% didn’t know what they were electing (at least a percentage of them didn’t know) and now the whole country is stuck with this abomination.
God help us all.
txrmctague on September 9, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Dear God, let’s hope not….see Duvall thread.
PappaMac on September 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I can hear the horn honking…..bus driver Obama has fired up the bus and is getting ready to take it for another spin.
Koa on September 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
According to Wikipedia (see here), G.W. Bush had 35 which is roughly equal to Obama. They may not be avowed communists in the last administration, but they are still authoritarian central-planners.
Obama should be criticized for continuing what his predecessor started.
The Dean on September 9, 2009 at 4:42 PM
UltimateBob on September 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM
By easiest, I meant less likely to cause an explosion. It’s not about health control or the cap-and-trade (Make-Al-Rich scheme). Besides, changing parties always looks cowardly and self-serving. No matter who does it.
ROCnPhilly on September 9, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Ed, are you KIDDING? Bush did the SAME EXACT THING. He had more czars than Obama. Some were confirmed some were not, just like Obama.
Please correct the record or else you’re falling into the “lying” territory. This is not my any means a precedent set by Obama. Get your facts straight.
P.S. Did you ever complain about czar appointments when George W. was in power?
Tom_Shipley on September 9, 2009 at 4:44 PM
I’m guessing an OK conservative Dem is 8X more conservative than a “moderate” Republican from Maine.
angryed on September 9, 2009 at 4:47 PM
And Oliver has run himself over!! What a great twit!!
(This would normally link to the Twit of the Year Contest from Monty Python…but work blocks You-Tube :( )
DrAllecon on September 9, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Name 3
angryed on September 9, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Tom:
No, Bush did not do the same thing, he did not have more czars than Obama and none of them were known to be whack jobs either.
Obama has something like 34 czars, and Bush had about 24 or so. But the point is that the nomination of this czar has simply made it all that much more obvious that an unprincipled President can use the practice of naming czars to get people into positions of authority that never otherwise pass scrutiny.
Terrye on September 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM
U.S. Rep. Dan Boren is suffering from Town Hall Syndrome.
When is the next recess?
Keep. It. Up!!
TN Mom on September 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM
angryred:
Yes, a Maine moderate could not elected in Oklahoma. Different kind of voter.
Terrye on September 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM
And btw, the practice of having czars goes all the way back to FDR.
Terrye on September 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM
This is great. As is Ed’s post.
Good news, all. Keep it up!!!
Diane on September 9, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Once again the liberals are lying (shocka).
Bush had 35 over 8 years. Obama has had 32 in 8 months.
Of those 35, Bush had 4 separate AIDS czars, 3 separate budget czars, 2 cleanup czars, 2 cyber security czars and so on. Of the 35, he only really had about 20 positions, some of which were filled by multuple people over 8 years.
Obama so far has 32 positions and year 1 is not even over. Surely even the dimmest liberal can see the difference.
angryed on September 9, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Boren is from Tulsa. For survival, he needs to move against Barry the soonest of any dem.
Vashta.Nerada on September 9, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Actually looking more closely, Bush only had 10-12 czar positions. So Obama has 3 times as many positions in 10% of the time.
angryed on September 9, 2009 at 4:54 PM
As the list I linked above shows, Bush had 35 czars. Sure, maybe none of them were as radical as Van Jones. But if we’re going to criticize the concept of the “czars” and that there are too many of them with too much power, it’s dishonest to ignore that Bush had (35) of them. That stands out in comparison to Clinton’s (6) and H.W. Bush’s (2).
The Dean on September 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM
According to wikipedia, the definition of a czar is anyone who has been called a czar by the media at least one time. By your standard, Nancy Pelosi is Music Czar.
Ronnie on September 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM
The general point is that Bush massively increased the number of executive employee mini-central planners, which is true whether you call them czars or something else.
The Dean on September 9, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Most politicians are whores, the remainder are like women who exchange sex for money.
whitetop on September 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Do you have source for that other than one that thinks Nancy Pelosi is our Music Czar?
Ronnie on September 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Are you saying that czars are good or are bad? If they are bad, better late than never in throwing them out, wouldn’t you say?
unclesmrgol on September 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Excellent point – they never think this far out though.
HondaV65 on September 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Should have read the small print at Wiki …………
LOL.
fogw on September 9, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Not necessarily … It’s not dishonest.
We aren’t a people “bound” to certain decisions and ideas – we ARE allowed to evolve them.
For instance – most Americans favored invading Iraq before we actuall did it. Now – it’s a different case. I don’t think you’d call Americans “dishonest” for changing their opinions on this.
And we’re allowed to change our opinions on the Czars also. We didn’t see much of them with previous presidents. This president has taken them to the extreme though. If you want to get our attention – Oh … I think that giving 8 BILLION of our tax dollars to a communist to hand out for “green” projects will do it.
HondaV65 on September 9, 2009 at 5:07 PM
this is an interesting article…
… from 2007.
The article’s main criticism is that appointing “czars” is inefficient, not that this is some sort of executive power grab, mainly because it’s not a power grab — by and large, these “czars” don’t have much power aside from advising the president.
So, Ed and everyone else, quite pretending this is something that Obama has started. BUSH DID THE SAME EXACT THING. You guys didn’t see it as a threat to liberty then, so forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of your opposition to “czars.”
And again, Ed, please correct the record that Obama is setting a precedent here. He’s is not. If anyone did, it was George W.
Tom_Shipley on September 9, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Link to the article:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=wish_upon_a_czar
Tom_Shipley on September 9, 2009 at 5:08 PM
LOL – you’re forgiven for questioning our sincerity on this topic – but what about a very prominent Democrat’s opinion? Hmmmm ….
HondaV65 on September 9, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Filecchio on September 9, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Why is this guy a democrat?
darwin on September 9, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Sour grapes. When the stimulus bill was enacted into law, it gave the executive branch of government the authority to spend the money.
The horse is out of the barn. No comebacks allowed.
percysunshine on September 9, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I’d rather throw them out, but it’s less likely to happen because Democrats have the opening that they are just following precedent.
The Dean on September 9, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Fortunately, not all dems are communist/socialist.
Johan Klaus on September 9, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Repeating your wiki-lie does not make it a fact.
Ronnie on September 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Give the man credit!
This congress needs to understand it too is in the cross hairs.
A shadow government has only one purpose and that is to replace the one it hides from.
JellyToast on September 9, 2009 at 5:54 PM
You left out Dick Cheney:
Everything Czar
/lib
agmartin on September 9, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Come to the dark side Boren
We have cookies
agmartin on September 9, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Wikipedia actually lists the ASSISTANT Secretary of Health And Human Services as a czar. Oh no! Save us from the unaccountable assistants! I think we need a wikipedia czar.
Ronnie on September 9, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Who the heck cares who did it first? It needs to be stopped because we finally see what evil can be wrought when an unscrupulous president puts all these soros people in the white house without accountability!
Bambi on September 9, 2009 at 6:12 PM
those that point out that BOOOSH had 20+ czars point out something that most of us have been saying…
It’s not a single party that we’re pissed about, it’s the way the entire gov’t has morphed into something that doesn’t even closely resemble the Founding Father’s initial designs. This gov’t hasn’t been for the people since the 30′s (with the exception of Reagan, for the most part)
from the great society to the new deal, we have sat on our duffs, letting our complacency about our freedoms cause those same freedoms to slowly be stripped from us.
I, for one, am PROUD to live in the “LIVE FREE OR DIE” state. However overrun by liberal mass-hole transplants we are in the south, a great many still believe in our state’s founding principles.
viviliberoomuori on September 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Yep, this may be the mouth of the river that leads to impeachment.
petefrt on September 9, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Other presidents have named czars, but only a few at a time to focus attention on special probems and emergencies. This prez is using them massively and systematically with the intent of constructing a shadow government beyond the reach of Constitutional Congressional review; viz, to evade the Constitution. That’s the diff.
petefrt on September 9, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I’ve disliked the whole “czar system” ever since the first one I remember, who was (I think) a drug czar. Dems or Reps, doesn’t matter. It’s still unConstitutional.
Mary in LA on September 9, 2009 at 6:39 PM
I think that a lot of members of Congress got an earful over their recess because of the outrageous porkulous bill. They may be much less willing to put the nation into unrecoverable debt through another trumped-up crisis.
onlineanalyst on September 9, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Leave the Czars for Russia. I want my constitution back.
Mojave Mark on September 9, 2009 at 6:56 PM
ALL THE CZARS MUST GO.
Bigger question for HotAir readers:
Who will take the fall if OBAMACARE fails?
Rahm? SanFranNanGran? Axelnod?
PappyD61 on September 9, 2009 at 7:08 PM
You are exactly right!
silvernana on September 9, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Good luck with that.
It would go to the Sumpreme Court.
davidk on September 9, 2009 at 9:52 PM
You can bet that Rep Boren talked to his Dad, former Senator David Boren, before taking this action. There are rumors floating around OK that he may become a Republican before the next election.
Also he refused to endorse Obama. His 2nd district had some of the lowest vote totals in OK for Obama which is a Democrat district and he said recently Obama would not even get that many votes if the election were held today. Obama got 34% of the votes statewide and less in the 2nd district.
PhiKapMom on September 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Nixon appointed John Love and then William Simon to be his energy czars. Ben Zimmer reported at “Slate.com” last year that Nixon actually used the phrase “energy czar” when he offered Mr. Simon that job. But despite the fact that Nixon actually used the term, the word “czar” wasn‘t actually in the job title. People who have jobs in the administration that are called “the something-czar” aren‘t actually czars of anything. Czar – sorry to say, it‘s a nickname.
The drug czar is actually the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Poppy Bush created that job in 1989.
The intelligence czar is the Director of National Intelligence, created during the George W. Bush administration in 2005.
The AIDS czar – that‘s the nickname for the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy
that job created in 2001.
The border czar, that‘s another one created by George W. Bush. It‘s the nickname for the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs in the Department of Homeland Security.
The science czar, that‘s the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The regulatory czar is the nickname for the Head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which Dave Weigel notes at the “Washington Independent” today is an office that was created back in 1980.
So take your pick. Either these are the czars who are turning America into imperialist Russia. Or these are people with specific policy jobs and long awkward job titles.
So the press calls them czars even though they‘re not actually 19th century Russian autocrats. Bush and Cheney created administration jobs that were nicknamed the food safety czar, the cybersecurity czar, aforementioned regulatory czar and the AIDS czar. They created a bird flu czar and a manufacturing czar and more.
And the right did not freak about those like Bolsheviks in St. Petersburg. But President Obama? Clearly his hiring practices are evidence of him forming a communist-fascist-czarist-Kenyan-Martian shadow government here to take away your guns.
Or he‘s doing what American presidents have done without controversy for generations.
Bill Blizzard on September 9, 2009 at 10:55 PM
But didn’t ALL of these “czars” testify before Congress…numerous times???
There is no real comparison between Bush’s use of czars as presidential advisers and the Obama tactic of using “czars” to bypass Congressional oversight.
While I have no problem with presidential advisers, unaccountable czars have no place in our government and taxpayers should not have to fund any of them.
landlines on September 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM