Republicans introduce bill to eliminate Czars

[LBJ Revivalist]

epublicans introduce bill to eliminate presidential 'czars'
By Michael O'Brien - 01/06/11 04:15 PM ET

A group of House Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday to rein in the various "czars" in the Obama administration.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans introduced legislation to do away with the informal, paid advisers President Obama has employed over the past two years.

The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration.

The bill defines a czar as "a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President" who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.

Republicans had complained about the president's use of czars to help advance his agenda in Congress. In particular, the GOP had harped about the personal history of Van Jones, the president's czar for "green jobs," over past comments Jones had made about Fox News came to light. Jones eventually resigned.

Another prominent czar over the past year was Carol Browner, the president's energy and environmental adviser. She helped head up efforts in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the ultimately unsuccessful effort for an energy and climate bill from Congress.

Republicans introduced several bills to eliminate czars in the last Congress, but similar legislation could conceivably advance in the House now that the GOP controls the chamber.

"We haven’t gotten an indication of an exact timeline for committee action, considering that the bill was just filed yesterday," said Scalise spokesman Stephen Bell. "We hope to have this discussion in the near future as the congressman works to pursue all the bills he has introduced in the 112th Congress."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136487-republicans-introduce-bill-to-eliminate-presidential-czars

[exopolitician]

Any chance Republicans will introduce something with relevance to real problems being faced right now?

Probably not.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I thought the "czar" thing was stupid in any administration........but do they need to do this right now?

[LBJ Revivalist]

Any chance Republicans will introduce something with relevance to real problems being faced right now?

Probably not.

0%

[afleitch]

Eliminate Czars? Bloody Bolsheviks.

[LBJ Revivalist]

I thought the "czar" thing was stupid in any administration........but do they need to do this right now?

Yes. Czars are only a problem when Democratic Presidents have them and when said Democratic Presidents are effective in getting an agenda passed that the Republicans don't want.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I thought the "czar" thing was stupid in any administration........but do they need to do this right now?

Yes. Czars are only a problem when Democratic Presidents have them and when said Democratic Presidents are effective in getting an agenda passed that the Republicans don't want.

What part of "any administration" didn't you understand, and what part of my feeling that it's a horribly low priority did you miss?

The Dems should have done this during the Bush years.

[Franzl]

Is this really an important issue?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Is this really an important issue?

Late to the party as usual, my friend. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"If not now, when?"


Obama delayed his promise to reign in earmarks because, "it wasn't as important".


For those of you asking, "is this really important"? What is so pressing that they could otherwise be doing? Fixing the economy is like achieving world peace. There is no magic bullet to do it and spending a few hours or even days to pass a much needed reform doesn't seem like a waste to me or in any way hindering an economic recovery.  

I thought the "czar" thing was stupid in any administration........but do they need to do this right now?

Yes. Czars are only a problem when Democratic Presidents have them and when said Democratic Presidents are effective in getting an agenda passed that the Republicans don't want.

Well, Obama has used quite a few of these people to handle a lot of issues, a lot more then Bush or Clinton. I do think it is wise to reign them in as it is a problem regardless of who is President. 

[LBJ Revivalist]

"If not now, when?"


Obama delayed his promise to reign in earmarks because, "it wasn't as important".


For those of you asking, "is this really important"? What is so pressing that they could otherwise be doing? Fixing the economy is like achieving world peace. There is no magic bullet to do it and spending a few hours or even days to pass a much needed reform doesn't seem like a waste to me or in any way hindering an economic recovery.  

I thought the "czar" thing was stupid in any administration........but do they need to do this right now?

Yes. Czars are only a problem when Democratic Presidents have them and when said Democratic Presidents are effective in getting an agenda passed that the Republicans don't want.

Well, Obama has used quite a few of these people to handle a lot of issues, a lot more then Bush or Clinton. I do think it is wise to reign them in as it is a problem regardless of who is President. 

But it only seems to be a pressing issue when an effective Democrat is in office. Funny about your party's timing, huh?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is this really an important issue?

If Glenn Beck says so...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"If not now, when?"


Obama delayed his promise to reign in earmarks because, "it wasn't as important".


For those of you asking, "is this really important"? What is so pressing that they could otherwise be doing? Fixing the economy is like achieving world peace. There is no magic bullet to do it and spending a few hours or even days to pass a much needed reform doesn't seem like a waste to me or in any way hindering an economic recovery.  

I thought the "czar" thing was stupid in any administration........but do they need to do this right now?

Yes. Czars are only a problem when Democratic Presidents have them and when said Democratic Presidents are effective in getting an agenda passed that the Republicans don't want.

Well, Obama has used quite a few of these people to handle a lot of issues, a lot more then Bush or Clinton. I do think it is wise to reign them in as it is a problem regardless of who is President. 

But it only seems to be a pressing issue when an effective Democrat is in office. Funny about your party's timing, huh?

Its just starting the damn committee process and you guys are acting like Boehner has rushed it to floor tomorrow. Is the mere introduction of a bill a threat to our nation's financial health? Will the stock market crash tomorrow because of it?

Its something that should be done, and it would be a crying as shame if it doesn't get done because of this "you guys just made an issue about it under Obama". As I understand it, the law would apply to all future administrations so why does matter who it is passed under. Can we just stop this ridiculous election campaigning in January of the year before the next election.

I ask my question to directly to GM and Franzl, what the hell is so god damn important that a Congressman can't introduce a bill, in a congress in which thousands will be introduced and many will never see the light of day, without it being some giant waste of time?

[Franzl]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

[Sbane]

What exactly is the Republican's problem with the "czar" positions? I agree it's pretty silly, but it has existed in some form for more than 4 decades (and perhaps stretching back to FDR). Why the sudden need to get rid of them? I understand that spending a few more days discussing the economy or the deficit won't solve any problems, but even conducting a lobotomy on Michelle Bachmann would have been a better use of time than this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

Then why did you question whether it was an important issue.

Its going to be something that snakes its way through committee and finally comes to a House vote maybe later this year sometime and gets passed in between renaming a post office after Congressman who cares, and establishing a new memorative coin. Hardly urgent business being delayed here.

[Sbane]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

Then why did you question whether it was an important issue.

Its going to be something that snakes its way through committee and finally comes to a House vote maybe later this year sometime and gets passed in between renaming a post office after Congressman who cares, and establishing a new memorative coin. Hardly urgent business being delayed here.

Ok...but why should it be done in the first place?

[LBJ Revivalist]

What exactly is the Republican's problem with the "czar" positions? I agree it's pretty silly, but it has existed in some form for more than 4 decades (and perhaps stretching back to FDR). Why the sudden need to get rid of them? I understand that spending a few more days discussing the economy or the deficit won't solve any problems, but even conducting a lobotomy on Michelle Bachmann would have been a better use of time than this.

It's to further take any teeth out of Obama's presidency. The GOP sees him as a big threat. I'll put it this way: Beck compares Obama ALL THE TIME to Wilson and FDR, saying we're replaying the 1930s. They're afraid of him, and they know they're going to be be beaten in 2012 and so want to defang his presidency, so to speak.

[Sbane]

But getting rid of czars isn't going to take any teeth out of his presidency. They just won't be called fukcing "czars" anymore. They are basically advisers, and they will remain so regardless of whatever fantasy Republicans are trying to fulfill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

Then why did you question whether it was an important issue.

Its going to be something that snakes its way through committee and finally comes to a House vote maybe later this year sometime and gets passed in between renaming a post office after Congressman who cares, and establishing a new memorative coin. Hardly urgent business being delayed here.

Ok...but why should it be done in the first place?

Because I think it has gotten out of control. Because I think it breeds redundancy and thus waste of money. And because finally, I don't think there is enough oversight or limitations for these positions.

[Sbane]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

Then why did you question whether it was an important issue.

Its going to be something that snakes its way through committee and finally comes to a House vote maybe later this year sometime and gets passed in between renaming a post office after Congressman who cares, and establishing a new memorative coin. Hardly urgent business being delayed here.

Ok...but why should it be done in the first place?

Because I think it has gotten out of control. Because I think it breeds redundancy and thus waste of money. And because finally, I don't think there is enough oversight or limitations for these positions.

I would rather they get rid of the title than make it some sort of confirmable position. A President is going to have a wide variety of advisors with their own staffs anyways, there is no need to call them "czars" or whatever.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

Then why did you question whether it was an important issue.

Its going to be something that snakes its way through committee and finally comes to a House vote maybe later this year sometime and gets passed in between renaming a post office after Congressman who cares, and establishing a new memorative coin. Hardly urgent business being delayed here.

Ok...but why should it be done in the first place?

Because I think it has gotten out of control. Because I think it breeds redundancy and thus waste of money. And because finally, I don't think there is enough oversight or limitations for these positions.

I would rather they get rid of the title than make it some sort of confirmable position. A President is going to have a wide variety of advisors with their own staffs anyways, there is no need to call them "czars" or whatever.

Who the hell said anything about confirmations?

[Smash255]

"If not now, when?"


Obama delayed his promise to reign in earmarks because, "it wasn't as important".


For those of you asking, "is this really important"? What is so pressing that they could otherwise be doing? Fixing the economy is like achieving world peace. There is no magic bullet to do it and spending a few hours or even days to pass a much needed reform doesn't seem like a waste to me or in any way hindering an economic recovery.  

I thought the "czar" thing was stupid in any administration........but do they need to do this right now?

Yes. Czars are only a problem when Democratic Presidents have them and when said Democratic Presidents are effective in getting an agenda passed that the Republicans don't want.

Well, Obama has used quite a few of these people to handle a lot of issues, a lot more then Bush or Clinton. I do think it is wise to reign them in as it is a problem regardless of who is President. 

WRONG

[Sbane]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

Then why did you question whether it was an important issue.

Its going to be something that snakes its way through committee and finally comes to a House vote maybe later this year sometime and gets passed in between renaming a post office after Congressman who cares, and establishing a new memorative coin. Hardly urgent business being delayed here.

Ok...but why should it be done in the first place?

Because I think it has gotten out of control. Because I think it breeds redundancy and thus waste of money. And because finally, I don't think there is enough oversight or limitations for these positions.

I would rather they get rid of the title than make it some sort of confirmable position. A President is going to have a wide variety of advisors with their own staffs anyways, there is no need to call them "czars" or whatever.

Who the hell said anything about confirmations?

Nobody, but what kind of "oversight" are the Republicans looking for? Do they have an ability to unilaterally make decisions without the President's approval? I am just trying to figure out what is so special about them instead of just being advisors to the President.

[Sbane]

"If not now, when?"


Obama delayed his promise to reign in earmarks because, "it wasn't as important".


For those of you asking, "is this really important"? What is so pressing that they could otherwise be doing? Fixing the economy is like achieving world peace. There is no magic bullet to do it and spending a few hours or even days to pass a much needed reform doesn't seem like a waste to me or in any way hindering an economic recovery. 

I thought the "czar" thing was stupid in any administration........but do they need to do this right now?

Yes. Czars are only a problem when Democratic Presidents have them and when said Democratic Presidents are effective in getting an agenda passed that the Republicans don't want.

Well, Obama has used quite a few of these people to handle a lot of issues, a lot more then Bush or Clinton. I do think it is wise to reign them in as it is a problem regardless of who is President. 

WRONG

39 used by Obama vs 32 by Bush. Meh.

This bill just strikes me as being a "f you Obama" sort of bill. It doesn't really change things much. Actually, since I hate the drug czar position, go ahead and git-r-done Pubbies.