[bozodog]

Quote

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) on Wednesday called for President Obama's "czars," or appointed high-level advisers, to testify before Congress about their "authority and responsibilities" in the executive branch.

The president's "czars" have become a point of controversy among his opponents because they do not have to be confirmed by the Senate as cabinet-level officials do.

McHenry wrote to committee chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and ranking member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asking the appointed officials to testify.

"If the czars have high-level, decision-making authority as their titles would indicate, then it is my concern that their appointment without Senate approval represents a circumvention of our Constitutionally-mandated confirmation process," McHenry, who is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in his letter. Link

[TheTerrorist_75]

Maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are in if Democrats had asked the same of previous Republican Presidents' advisers.

[Pete_C]

I think calling them CZARS is a misnomer and exagerates their position. Whether it is the media or opposition party or the President himself calling them Czars; the term is used way to loosely to cover a wide range of positions.

The reality is that the President needs advisers on subjects in which he is not an expert and he needs middlemen to bring to his attention important events and data. He cannot possibly read all the material provided so middle managers are a necessity.
Some of this is done by civil servants; positions established by Congress. But if Congress has failed to act , failed to establish a department to oversee the area of interest and fund the personnel and define the positions and requirements then it falls to the President to hire whomever he thinks will provide him with the needed data and if they fail to tell them to turn in their resignation.
Yes , the Congress has the responsibility to hold hearings and confirm members of the Presidents Cabinet for the positions which it has established. However if Congress has failed to act, failed to provide for a management position which is needed; well the President has no choice but to hire someone and get the job done. That is his job. He is the executive in charge of day to day management of the government.

[JDoors]

Pete_C, on Sep 14 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

... Whether it is the media or opposition party or the President himself calling them Czars; the term is used way to loosely to cover a wide range of positions. ...

Who IS calling them by that name? That's not their official designation, is it -- God forbid? I see it in the press all the time, but I've never seen the term used elsewhere (besides historically).

If there is a difference between past "advisors" and these "Czars," it would be what they are capable of doing on their own. Does the President simply ask them for advice? Do they simply publish policy papers? Or do they actually have powers that USED to be given ONLY to public servants vetted by Congress? Sounds like someone woke up, smelled the coffee, and decided to ask that important question.

[jcl]

JDoors, on Sep 15 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

Who IS calling them by that name? That's not their official designation, is it -- God forbid? I see it in the press all the time, but I've never seen the term used elsewhere (besides historically).

The term seems to be beltway jargon. It's not part of the czars' official titles.

Quote

If there is a difference between past "advisors" and these "Czars," it would be what they are capable of doing on their own. Does the President simply ask them for advice? Do they simply publish policy papers? Or do they actually have powers that USED to be given ONLY to public servants vetted by Congress? Sounds like someone woke up, smelled the coffee, and decided to ask that important question.

Most of the czars are diplomats, administrators, undersecretaries, and other civil servants. We know they can do. The rest seem to be advisers or assistants to the President or other officials. We don't exactly know what they can do but it wouldn't be hard to figure it out from their (real) titles.

[JDoors]

jcl, on Sep 15 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

... We don't exactly know what they can do but it wouldn't be hard to figure it out from their (real) titles.

Reason enough to ask them, "What is is you DO, exactly?"