Thread: Even One Czar Is Too Many

Even One Czar Is Too Many

By Richard Olivastro
August 10, 2009

The Executive Branch has too many czars.

In office less than seven months, Barack Obama has appointed dozens of "czars" including: health care, auto industry, energy -- the list goes on.

So many czars have been installed that Sen. John McCain's humorous quip, "Obama has more czars than the Romanovs who ruled Russia for three centuries," is, worrisomely, spot on.

Why worrisome?

There are, at least, three reasons:

First, there is no authorization for such positions in the U.S. Constitution.

Second, these powerful executive branch appointments by President Obama do not require confirmation by the legislative branch of the federal government.

And, third, such executive branch actions can be seen as usurpation of power.

Even Robert Byrd criticized the President's actions when he said "these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch".

Senator Byrd also warned that such executive branch actions "can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances".

The wily West Virginian - longest-serving democrat in the U.S. Senate - used words of wisdom to warn both his party and fellow citizens that the president is going too far.

So, why has President Obama appointed czars?

By his actions, is the president, perhaps, telling the American people that he really does not have confidence in the individuals constitutionally designated as his Cabinet Secretaries?

Are we to conclude, that his cabinet appointees were mere political selections? That, Obama believed those individuals -- while politically more likely to gain the congressional approval required by the Constitution - are less likely to be able to manage and lead their cabinet departments in the direction he wants to go?

Or, did New York University expert of government, Paul Light hit the nail on the head when he described the presidential use of czars this way: "It's a symbolic gesture of the priority assigned to an issue, and I emphasize the word symbolic".

Professor Light's conjecture that czars are "a symbolic gesture" is interesting. After all, politicians love symbolism.

But, more interesting is what Light also said:

"When in doubt, create a czar."

Could that be it?

Is it possible, that Mr. Obama is uncertain - and "in doubt" - about what to do; or, what he wants to do? So, he installs czars to, only, buy time?

Many still cling to the "audacity of hope" wishing that to be the case.

If it is, Obama's commitment to the U.S. Constitution will, hopefully, begin to percolate. When it does; and, he manifests such constitutional certainty - all the appointed czars will be gone. Then, many Americans will breathe the proverbial sigh of relief.

While such a wishful scenario remains possible, the difficulty with Americans clinging to it is the current reality itself... so many czars... buying so much time... on so many issues... in so many segments... of American society.

As a result, it is no wonder citizens increasingly are worried that all the czars being positioned could represent 'under construction' chess moves to form the skeleton of a parallel government.

If that is the case, when it becomes apparent, many Americans will begin breathing repeated sighs of disbelief.

At that point, it won't matter the total number of czars appointed along the way.

The U.S. Constitutional checks and balances, now being ignored, will be gone.

And, one czar will remain.

---

Richard Olivastro is president of Olivastro Communications -- an executive leadership development company; a professional member of the National Speakers Association; and founder Citizens For Change.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/ ... 0810.shtml

Hello all. I got an e-mail from D-Virginia Foxx and she tells about the czars. She does a very good job in informing of what is transpiring.
[quote]What do czars tell us
about government?

By Congresswoman Virginia Foxx

In the 1970’s Richard Nixon appointed the nation’s first “drug czarâ€