Free Markets, Free People

White House Defends Czars

Pressure on the White House to justify its use of “czars” in administering policy has ramped up recently, most obviously after the dismissal/resignation of Van Jones. It’s become intense enough that the Obama administration decided to deliver some push back via its whitehouse.gov blog:

Last week, when the President addressed the Joint Session of Congress in a speech on health reform, he referred to some of the untruths – okay, lies – that have been spread about the plan and sent a clear message to those who seek to undermine his agenda and his presidency with these tactics: “We will call you out.” So consider this one of those calls.

Given the lessons from Joey Wilson’s War, that qualifies as hate speech.

Over the past several weeks, we’ve seen with increasing frequency and volume issues raised around the use of “czars” by this Administration. Although some Members have asked serious questions around the makeup of the White House staff, the bulk of the noise you hear began first with partisan commentators, suggesting that this is somehow a new and sinister development that threatens our democracy. This is, of course, ridiculous. Just to be clear, the job title “czar” doesn’t exist in the Obama Administration. Many of the officials cited by conservative commentators have been confirmed by the Senate. Many hold policy jobs that have existed in previous Administrations. And some hold jobs that involved coordinating the work of agencies on President Obama’s key policy priorities: health insurance reform, energy and green jobs, and building a new foundation for long-lasting economic growth

But of course, it’s really the hypocrisy here that is noteworthy. Just earlier today, Darrell Issa, a Republican from California and one of the leaders in calling for an investigation into the Obama Administration’s use of “czars”, had to admit to Fox News that he had never raised any objections to the Bush Administration’s use of “czars”. Many of these members who now decry the practice have called on Presidents in the past to appoint “czars” to coordinate activities within the government to address immediate challenges. What is clear is that all of this energy going into these attacks could be used to have a constructive conversation about bringing this country together to address our challenges moving forward – and it doesn’t take a “czar” to bring that about! Just some folks willing to act in good faith.

So, if you didn’t complain about czars before, then you can’t do so now? This is the change a lot of (foolish) people voted for? And is the White House really suggesting that there has not been a notable expansion of “czars” under this administration?

Also, keep this statement in mind, because we’ll come back to it: “Just to be clear, the job title “czar” doesn’t exist in the Obama Administration.” If in fact the Obama administration does refer to these people as “czars” wouldn’t that make this statement a blatant, unmitigated — dare I say it — lie?

Moving on, the White House does its best attempt at a “fact check”:

Rhetoric: Critics have claimed the Obama Administration is filled with new and unchecked czars.

Glenn Beck Claimed There Were 32 “Czars” In The Obama Administration. “The Brainroom counts 32 czars in the Obama administration, based on media reports from reputable sources that have identified the official in question as a czar.” [Glenn Beck Website, 8/21/09]

In Sunday’s Washington Post, Sen. Hutchison Claimed There Were An “Unprecedented 32 Czar Posts.” “A few of them have formal titles, but most are simply known as “czars.’ They hold unknown levels of power over broad swaths of policy. Under the Obama administration, we have an unprecedented 32 czar posts (a few of which it has yet to fill), including a ‘car czar,’ a ‘pay czar’ and an ‘information czar.’” [Washington Post, 9/13/09]

Reality: Many of the arbitrarily labeled “czars” on Beck’s list are Senate-confirmed appointees or advisory roles carried over from previous administrations. Others are advisors to the President’s Cabinet Secretaries. Beck himself says on his own website, “Since czar isn’t an official job title, the number is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.”

Missing from this “reality” is any claim that there are fewer than 32 czars, nor any explanation of how many the White House thinks there are. Virtually all of the push back from Obama is simply a tu quoque argument that exasperatingly waves its hands at Fox News and Republicans for not opposing, and some cases encouraging, Bush’s use of czars. Again, is this the change promised during the election? And how is this any justification for expanding the use of czars now?

The best defense offered is a listing of the czars who went through Senate confirmation:

Of the 32 “czars” on Beck’s list, nine were confirmed by the Senate:

Deputy Interior Secretary David J. Hayes (“California Water Czar”)
Director of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske (“Drug Czar”)
OMB Deputy Director Jeff Zients (“Government Performance Czar”)
Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair (“Intelligence Czar”)
OMB Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein (“Regulatory Czar”)
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and OSTP Director John Holdren (“Science Czar”)
Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Herb Allison (“TARP Czar”)
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter (“Weapons Czar”)
OSTP Associate Director Aneesh Chopra (“Technology Czar”)

Strangely, each one of the names listed above is hotlinked by the White House blog, and all but one them are self-referential links to the post above (i.e. the links link to themselves).

In any case, it’s not made explicit, but it seems that the White House is claiming that these individuals are being classified as czars when in fact they hold legitimately created policy posts. Dave Weigel made the same argument last week:

Here’s the problem: Some of the people whom conservatives and mainstream media voices alike have labeled “czars” have been confirmed by the Senate. Some of them, and others, hold jobs that were created by previous presidents.

Take a look at Politico’s list of 31 “czars,” which shrinks to 30 without Van Jones. Republican strategists like Ed Rollins have used that “31″ number to allege that there’s a problem here. But perhaps the most controversial people labeled “czars” by Beck and by reporters have gone through Senate confirmations. Cass Sunstein, whom Politico labels the “regulatory czar,” is waiting for the end of a Republican filibuster so he can lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office created in 1980. John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was confirmed by the Senate, unanimously, six months ago. But none of that seems to matter to their critics. Michelle Malkin, whom, again, Politico credited for making this an issue, relentlessly refers to Holdren as the “Science Czar” as if it was his actual title.

Weigel goes on to point out several czar positions that were created by previous administrations (the tu quoque argument again), five of which have been confirmed (according to the White House post). He alos lists several new positions created by Obama:

New jobs held by eminent people or people previously confirmed by the Senate:

“Afghanistan Czar” – Actually the United States Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the man holding that job, Richard Holbrooke went through a Senate confirmation hearing in 1999 when he became Bill Clinton’s U.N. ambassador.

“Economic Czar” – Actually the President’s Economic Recovery Board, chaired by Paul Volcker, the deeply uncontroversial former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

“Energy and Environment Czar” – This is Carol Browner, the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1993 to run the Environmental Protection Agency under Bill Clinton.

“Guantanamo Closure Czar” – Actually the Special Envoy to Guantanamo, Daniel Fried, who was the final Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Bush administration.

Apparently Weigel thinks it’s just fine for unconfirmed appointees to hold these positions if they were confirmed for another post during some prior administration, or they are just very important people. He chalks all the controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s use of czars up to whining by Republicans and the conservative critics who, once again, are being terribly hypocritical.

Left unanswered, by either the White House or Weigel, is how many of those confirmed appointees are filling positions created by Congress. I haven’t checked, but if I had to hazard a guess I’d say somewhere close to all of them were. It would be unusual (and probably unconstitutional) for Congress to give away the power to confirm officials placed in the offices it created. Accordingly, those congressmen lambasted for opposing the use of czars now, while encouraging the creation of them earlier, should be able to take refuge in the fact that the positions they advocated earlier would have likely required confirmation. Again, I haven’t checked, but since the argument is over the large number of unconfirmed appointees to czar positions, then accusations of hypocrisy don’t make much sense if those being called out only supported czars who would be subject to the confirmation process.

Also left unanswered are the following questions and concerns from a prominent Senator made in a letter to Pres. Obama:

As you know, there has been much discussion about your decisions to create and assign apparently significant policy-making responsibilities to White House and other executive positions; many of the persons filling these positions have come to be referred to in the media and even within your administration as policy “czars.” I heard firsthand about this issue on several occasions from my constituents in recent town hall meetings in Wisconsin.

So is this Senator actually calling the administration a bunch of liars for stating: “Just to be clear, the job title “czar” doesn’t exist in the Obama Administration”?

The Constitution gives the Senate the duty to oversee the appointment of Executive officers through the Appointments Clause in Article II, section 2. The Appointments Clause states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise proved for, and which shall be established by law.” This clause is an important part of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, empowering the Senate to weigh in on the appropriateness of significant appointments and assisting in its oversight of the Executive Branch.

As a member of the Senate with the duty to oversee executive appointments and as the Chairman of the Senate Constitution Subcommittee, I respectfully urge you to disclose as much information as you can about these policy advisors and “czars.” Specifically, I ask that you identify these individuals’ roles and responsibilities, and provide the judgment(s) of your legal advisors as to whether and how these positions are consistent with the Appointments Clause. I hope that this information will help address some of the concerns that have been raised about new positions in the White House and elsewhere in the Executive Branch, and will inform any hearing that the Subcommittee holds on this topic.

After all the hyperventilating from the White House and its defenders about a partisan witch hunt regarding the czars, you’re probably wondering which Republican hypocrite wrote this letter?

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator

So, the concerns aren’t just partisan in nature then?

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) sent a letter to the president requesting the White House release information regarding the “roles and responsibilities” of the “czars.” The Senate Judiciary Committee member also requested that the president’s legal advisers prepare a “judgment” on the “czars'” constitutionality.

Feingold’s letter represents one of the first examples of Democratic scrutiny of the president’s “czars,” who are not required to be confirmed by the Senate.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who has been absent from the Senate since experiencing health issues, also expressed skepticism of Obama’s use of policy “czars” in February.

Well, now that we know this is a bi-partisan concern, surely the White House will take it more seriously:

At today’s White House briefing, Robert Gibbs was asked about a letter raising constitutional concerns about the czar system not from a Republican, but from Obama’s former caucus-mate, Sen. Russ Feingold. The press secretary said he hadn’t seen the letter, but proceeded to echo many of the DNC’s points in a heated response.

“I’m struck by a little of the politics in this,” Gibbs said. He noted that “somebody referred to in the Bush administration as the abstinence czar was on the D.C. madam’s list,” and asked hypothetically: “Did that violate the Constitution or simply offend our sensibilities?”

Nope. Not even a little bit.

The fact remains that the Obama administration is avoiding the confirmation process and installing people into positions of power without any regard to the Constitution or the citizens of the United States. Van Jones was no accident. He is symptomatic of this administration’s determination to remake America in it’s own, nanny-state, progressive, social-justice image. Whether we want to or not.

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

19 Responses to White House Defends Czars

  • So the President has high level advisors organizing particular policies, and the right wing somehow thinks this is bad? Other Presidents have done this, but somehow now it’s suddenly worth complaining about and hyping the word “Czar.” Seriously, you guys are looking really silly with this kind of “attack.” It’s humor, it is to be mocked, not taken seriously. What particular leadership position should not exist, and why? Beck screaming about 32 “czars” reminds me of McCarthy holding up papers and claiming they contained the name of Communists. Of all the attacks on Obama, this is far and away the most inane and ridiculous. It’s as if the right wing simply wants to attack, attack, attack because, well, I guess Jon Stewart had it right: impotent rage.

    • I don’t think it is as mild as you would like us to think. If the “Czar” has power over the cabinet head who was confirmed, then it is clear the Senate has been bypassed. Moreover, Van Jones is an example of someone who could not have been confirmed, but was hired anyway.

      Rick

    • Other Presidents have done this

      Until Bush 43, each president had a few (usually one or two with Clinton having the most with 7).

      Both Bush 43 and Obama are greater than 30.
      The difference? Bush had about 50% confirmed by the Senate and his cover 8 years. Obama has fewer than 25% confirmed with all 32 czars appearing in his first year (Bush had 13 in his first year).

      Once again, Erb tries to make his arguments by creating a strawman like “everyone else has done the same thing.”

      Just like Erb lied about participating in an anti-war event with Cindy Sheehan being the keynote speaker, Erb is lying about the scope of past presidents’ use of the czar position.

    • And what was it from the left the past 8 years?

      Hmmmm.

      Sauce for the goose.

      In the meantime, Alinski says hello.

    • somehow now it’s suddenly worth complaining about

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/09/16/GR2009091600074.html?sid=ST2009091501436

      Erb neglects to notice that out of all the Obama czars, Obama has created 17 new ones with only one needing Senate confirmation.

      • Erb bets you won’t research his comments and just take them as the gospel truth (Darwinian truth in erb speak). This is true of most liberals but it may not be their fault, at least not the younger ones since they only get the liberal version of history in text books which are written using the same tactic.

  • Wow – a lot of work to say what everyone – even Wuss Feingold – is saying: The Clown™ has staffed his maladministration with a group of radical looneytunes who could not pass Senate confirmation even if the Demmies held an 80-20 hold on the US Senate.

    Van Jones aside, some of the people around The Clown™ frighten the heck out of me. Then again, The Clown™ frightens the heck out of me. Unfortunately, I knew that he was a naïve, inexperienced radical lunatic who had no business being in the Oval Office as a visitor, much less as President. That he has surrounded himself with fellow looneys is not that surprising.

  • … Darrell Issa, a Republican from California and one of the leaders in calling for an investigation into the Obama Administration’s use of “czars”, had to admit to Fox News that he had never raised any objections to the Bush Administration’s use of “czars”.

    This is rather like telling somebody outraged over an act of police brutality that they’ve got no right to complain if they weren’t campaigning to disband the police before the incident.

    This is also sweet:

    What is clear is that all of this energy going into these attacks could be used to have a constructive conversation about bringing this country together to address our challenges moving forward – and it doesn’t take a “czar” to bring that about! Just some folks willing to act in good faith.

    Once again, the administration demonstrates its disgraceful reaction to criticism: attack the motives and indeed the character of the critic. People who think TAO is hiring too many czars don’t want to move the country forward AND are not acting in good faith.

    They’re probably racist, too.

  • Note that Erb shook his Joe McCarthy voodoo doll at Glenn Beck.

    Note that Glenn Beck has already rid the Obama White House of one commiczar, Van Jones, and has a real case moving on Cass Sunstein (who is out of his bloody mind, by the way).

    Beck has also played a pivotal roll in getting Acorn defunded and booted from its roll with the Census Bureau.

    Nice work, Glenn. You know you’re succeeding when the semi-official liars start shaking their voodoo dolls at you.

  • You know the so-called professor from Maine has got his knickers in a bunch when he lashes out a all of us neanderthals on the right. You know the attacks are taking their toll when folks like him state: “Of all the attacks on Obama, this is far and away the most inane and ridiculous.”

    If it were trully ineffective, he would have kept his mouth shut – something along the lines of never correct your enemy when he is making a mistake. And believe me when I tell you the so-called professor from Maine is the enemy of every lover of liberty that reads this blog. He has declared it as much on more than one occasion when he has sworn to defeat people like us in any way he can. Why – ’cause he knows better, he tells us so with every entry!

    (PS – Hey Erb, did you really lie about attending an anti-war rally with Cindy Sheehan?)

    • Erb’s own words:

      I’ve never been involved in one with Cindy Sheehan

      The truth:
      http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/3722169.html

      • He was Nancy Pelosi that day “We’re doing what? With who? Who did what? eh? Has anyone seen my bozo nose and makeup?”

      • You would think he would get tired of constantly being exposed as both a liar and an imbecile. But he seems to lack the self-awareness to realize that it’s happening.

      • You’ve gotta love the hilarity of the other founding member’s nickname:

        “Perspectives of Maine National Guard Serving in Iraq,” with Major Michael Backus, an Annapolis graduate, Iraq war veteran and member of the Maine National Guard; “Service Academy Graduates against the War,” with founding member Dud Hendrick;

        I can imagine …

      • You gentleman apparently did not receive the memorandum indicating that one “Cindy Sheehan” had become an “unacceptable person” to be associated with and should be shunned, denied, and air-brushed from photographs.

        That news article cited by JWG is “silly” and just “old bits” about some “silly” day long “teach-in” from the Spring of 2007. You people are living in some alternate reality if you accept something like that as proof that something really happened.

        Refer to Activist Code L59-C21RXO4137.

      • Ah, you see it wasn’t an “anti-war rally” it was a “all-day teach-in on war” that only happened to be anti-war…