Czarist America
The country is in the midst of a czar epidemic. I don’t think anyone has actually been able to keep track of how many czars have sprung up in the four month old Obama administration. However, those who care about this sort of thing estimate we now have about twenty czars—exceeding the eighteen Romanov Czars, which spanned the three hundred year history of Imperial Russia.
There’s a drug czar, a U.S. border czar, an urban czar, a regulatory czar, a stimulus accountability czar, an Iran czar, a Middle East czar, a cyber czar, a Great Lakes czar, a health czar, an energy czar, a car czar, a bank bailout czar and a czar for both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This week we got the Pay Czar—Kenneth Feinberg. This modern day Hecatoncheires will be responsible for setting the compensation for the fallen Wall Street Masters of the Universe.
At best these czars are a colossal waste of time and money, as well as a way of creating new and redundant bureaucratic layers—but they are also an integral part of this administration’s strategy of consolidating executive power and doing an end run around the constitution.
No less a personage than Senator Robert Byrd, renowned for rivaling Jimmy Dean in the distribution of pork and being the only Democratic Senator who carries a copy of the constitution in his hip pocket, is alarmed by the proliferation of czars, and has let the Czar of Czars know about it.
In a letter to His Excellency, Senator Byrd wrote:
“The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff 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.”
That is certainly true. These czars are not accountable to the congress, the cabinet, the American people, nor anyone but the President of the United States. It used to be that the term “czar” was a political insult in American politics—but nowadays we like authoritative leaders who will make everything comfy and safe—and care little about quaint legal technicalities.
But even worse than this end run around the constitution, is the historical tendency to use czars for unconstitutional and unlawful purposes.
Richard Nixon, the first president to be openly antagonistic toward the constitution, started the American Czar movement. Along with the first Drug Czar, Nixon had an Inflation Czar who, with a hand picked council, set wage and price controls over virtually everything. This unconstitutional bit of fascist economic policy had precedence in Roosevelt’s New Deal—but nonetheless it is incredible that Americans accepted it—while relentlessly making fun of French and British socialism.
Like in Russia, our experience with czars has generally not been a pleasant one. Along with massive government deficits, the Great Society, loose monetary policies and Vietnam— the wage and price controls resulted in a massively dysfunctional economy—culminating in the spectacular misery of the Jimmy Carter era.
Since then American Czars have pretty much just been meaningless political stunts— every president since Nixon has appointed an Energy Czar—who hasn’t done jack. And with all due respect, isn’t the God Czar a little bizarre?
But Barack Obama’s Czars are more like Nixonian Czars—they actually do stuff—like run auto companies and establish the wage scale of bank employees.
It took a Lenin to get rid of the Czars of Russia.
It’s gonna take more than a Robert Byrd to rid the Republic of the current crop.
|
About : I'm just a American patriot who believes in freedom for all, even the ones I don't like. It's time to make a stand and take over the media, government, and police of this nation. Join me in the movement and join the forums. |
“Czars” are just alternative names for heads of special offices/teams dedicated to one effort or another. The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is called the drug czar (and was created under Reagan). The first person referred to as a czar in American history was “Czar Nicholas” of the 2nd US Bank. it doesn’t add anything more or less to the budget when a czar is appointed. Their position was in LAST YEARS budget for this year. Appointing a director (or czar” as the press likes to call it) of a certain effort it not necessarily likely to lead to greater expenditures. In fact, such a team leader can be responsible for coordinating various governmental departments efforts so as to MINIMIZE overlap/redundancy and improve efficiency.
Ari, have you read the constitution lately? Their are no provisions for Czars or whatever name they are supposed to go by. If Nixon created the first Czar, that makes it no more constitutional. It is a direct attempt by this executive branch to circumvent the constitutional system of checks and balances. These people would not pass the consideration of the Senate nor the FBI check. Where as previous administrations would appoint one or two “czars” which would be overlooked, this President has appointed 30+ and counting. He has in effect created a government within the executive branch. This among other things MUST be stopped.
Furthermore, the funding for these czars could NOT be in “LAST YEARS budget” as this administration was NOT IN POWER last year. How could it NOT lead to more expenditures when these people, as with most people, will not work for FREE. Not only that, but they also must have secretaries, advisors, deputies, drivers and all the chattel that go along with government positions. If you could convince a czar to work for free, I’m sure these other people would NOT.
Isn’t the President himself or his Chief of Staff responsible for minimizing overlap/redundancy? Wouldn’t adding another minion to the cog of the wheel of government just by itself reducing the efficiency of government?
Ari, what planet do you just drop off of, and can you go back? Or, perhaps your a “shill”. That makes more sense.