Obama's Czars

I have a good friend who regularly makes me think about issues such as this.  And since I haven't posted too much to this blog...ok, anything to this blog...over the summer, and since I had already replied in email form, as I have done before with emails to this friend I post here my reply for those of you who may have also been thinking about this question of "Obama's czars".

Let me know what you think.  I'm sure my readers, if I still have any after such a long break, of the political right will find some way to characterize my reply to my friend as evidence of my true, deeply held liberalism.  It's funny.  In my day job as a software developer it is often my job, particularly when something appears to be wrong with a given piece of software, to attempt to discover the source of the problem by looking for predictable behavior, albeit of an abnormal and undesired kind.  It's so funny how predictably readers representing the political right will never comment (favorably, one would hope, for consistency's sake) on points I make which are right out of traditional conservatism, and yet are ever ready and willing to pull the trigger on calling me a lib.  It's so funny.  But it is indeed predictable.  If you don't believe me, read back through the history of posts and comments some time when you are home with the flu, and, perhaps really needing to get some sleep.  Haha.  Actually, I've always found this blog and its comments quite interesting, otherwise why would I ever have messed with it?  But you'll find it's true.  It's very similar - this penchant the right has, as well as the far left, for overlooking, denying in effect, the existence of independents in the same way as unicorns, as something which can't possibly exist.  They don't want to think you're a little like them.  I guess they don't know how to process that, or it just leaves them feeling yucky.  They want to see you, and legitimize you, and with that themselves, as either one of them or not at all one of them.  It's reminiscent of, during the Jim Crow period in our legislative past, how the law defining what it was to be legally "negro", and thereby legally required to use the negro lunch counter or bathroom or whatever, was the "One-Drop rule", that is if you had one drop of African blood in you, then you were legally negro, and bound by the Jim Crow laws as such.  Here's the relevant entry and link from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule):

"The one-drop rule was a tactic in the U.S. South that codified and strengthened segregation and the disfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites from 1890-1910. After Supreme Court decisions in Plessy v. Ferguson and related matters, White-dominated legislatures felt free to enact Jim Crow laws segregating Blacks in public places and accommodations, and passed other restrictive legislation."

My Republican readers, friends, and work colleagues maintain that if I am one-drop liberal, or really, it's funny, not even that, but rather one-drop different in my policy view from them on something, then I am a lib, and can be discounted as such with that one syllable and a wave of the hand.

While I react to that predictable result with a nonplussed shake of the head, it doesn't form or impact the foundation of my friendships.  That foundation is built on other stuff.  I do wish the far right and the far left would change, though, and stop wearing their place on the political spectrum like a football jersey, where you can only wear one jersey at a time and only ever of your home team.  It seems....well....just....dumb...I guess...and I miss the fascinating and illuminating debates which never take place because of it, both here on this blog, in Washington, in the car, at the lunch table.  But I digress....

Here's my email reply to my friend about Obama's czars:

Yeah, I've heard of these czars.  Here's what I don't know:  are they cabinet-like?

The first question to answer there is what is it to be cabinet-like.

My understanding of it is that the executive branch is the enforcement arm of the government, as distinguished from the legislative arm and the judicial arm, and that its enforcement universe is divided up into different areas, each headed by a cabinet position, and within each area is one or more agencies accountable to its agency director, certainly, but above that to its affiliated cabinet secretary, and where the agencies are charged with writing the detailed regulations needed to enforce the laws as passed by Congress.

I'm not aware of any of that accountability changing under Obama's presidency.  The federal agencies are still responsible for regulations and enforcement of same, and they report up through their particular cabinet secretary, who is accountable to Congress.

But a president is also charged with leading the country - leading in terms of vision, direction, bully-pulpit, etc - on policy domestic and foreign.  To that end, he needs a college of advisers, in effect, each of whom having potentially some associated staff and resources in the same way as a cabinet head true enough, but functioning not in an executive capacity but an advisory capacity.  Their advice, if taken and communicated or even dictated possibly to a given cabinet head for implementation, could certainly become policy and impact all or some of us, but in that sense it's flowing through an elected president and a confirmed cabinet secretary, who, if he or she strongly disagreed with the policy, could quite publicly resign for the Senate and all of us to see, and then, of course, be free to speak publicly in the media as to why he or she resigned.

So, I don't see the issue.  I mean, unless these czars are effectively dictating, even with the president's knowledge and approval, policy in the regulatory and enforcement domain of cabinet-level departments without the particular cabinet secretary ever hearing about it or learning of it, that is, quite secretly, whereby if called upon to testify in a typical oversight hearing conducted by the congress the Secretary would have to claim no knowledge of it, because only in such circumstance would such oversight be impeded, then I don't see the issue.

I've heard some others complain about these czars.  I heard a Republican congressman, during morning business, speak for a minute or so about his objection to these czars on CSPAN the other morning.  So I may be missing something or not be informed enough here.  What is the issue as far as you see it?

Comments

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlVqjn-679BMndOSOvwKYqUeAUgEFvENLo]

Joe,
You are a silly little boy aren't you? Your republican friends, including this one aren't "overlooking" nor "denying in effect the existance of independents," we're just saying that you aren't one of them. Just because you criticize Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid every now and again doesn't mean you've earned a lifetime membership to the club of free-thinking moderates. So, you can try as you might to convince yourself of your true independence; but the truth is, your friends wouldn't lie to you, you're a lib.

As for the czar nonsense, I don't give a shit how many czars he has. He's the one who said, in effect, that we'll be able to determine how he'll lead and what he believes based on the people he surrounds himself with. So the more czars he has, the more likely another Van Johnson will appear and make him look bad in the eyes of not just republicans, but also in the eyes of true independents, of which I believed I've mentioned your not one of.

Nonetheless, it's nice to see that your somewhat less than flaming liberal ass has finally gotten up off the couch to pen something for dolts like me.

[Joe Intili]

:)

See?

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlVqjn-679BMndOSOvwKYqUeAUgEFvENLo]

Joe,

After that smug little :) I think I figured you out. You don't want to be a lib because they are no longer elitist enough for you. You want to believe that independents are somehow above those on the left and on the right. One day you'll realize that independents are just people who have a difficult time making a decision and have little commitment to the political process, at which time, I'm confident you will proudly proclaim your liberal geekdom.

MVL1

[Paul M.]

Joe -

Glad to see your blog starting up again. I don’t always agree with your comments, but I always find them worth reading.

What I find interesting about your latest blog article is that it appears that people who follow politics reasonably closely (you and me) do not know who the czars are, what they do or where the boundaries of their authority are. And this is despite the fact that they are mentioned in the news regularly.

Last week, the news items related to the czars was dominated by the resignation of Van Jones, the “Green Jobs” czar. The Wall Street Journal made the following comments:

”Our guess is that Mr. Jones landed in the White House precisely because his job didn't require Senate confirmation, which would have subjected him to more scrutiny. This is also no doubt a reason that Mr. Obama has consolidated so much of his Administration's governing authority inside the White House under various "czars." Mr. Jones was poised to play a prominent role in disbursing tens of billions of dollars of stimulus money.”

The czars are not merely advisors. Playing a prominent role in disbursing $$billions (and that’s just one of the 32 czars) is a position of significant power since ultimately money is power. We have never had anything like 32 (and I have read that more are coming) “czars”.

The czars seem like something not quite a cabinet position but probably worthy of some level of vetting. If they had vetted Van Jones, they would have found inflammatory past statements on race and politics, support of cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and association with the “truthers” who accuse Bush of knowing the 9/11 attacks were coming and allowing them to happen.

The “czars” are a new arrangement for our government. It has the appearance of bypassing the confirmation process for key people in the administration. Wasn’t transparency one of Obama’s campaign promises?

[Joe Intili]

Would you be ok with them if their title were changed to something which sounded more advisory, less dictatorial, and if you knew that every decision of theirs took place with the approval and knowledge of a confirmed agency head and / or cabinet secretary?

[Joe Intili]

There was a segment on CSPAN's Washington Journal this morning. Its guest was Neil King of the Wall Street Journal. He characterized the czars as advisers. He said they don't represent large bureaucracies, but are either one person or one person and a couple assistants. He said that while presidential advisers don't have to testify before Congress, particularly if the President claims executive privilege, that several czars have already been called and have testified before Congress, and that he is not aware of a case where a particular czar having been called to testify has refused. He also said that Obama's increased usage of czars is about 20% more than President Bush. One editorial observation of mine, particularly if I'm scouting for partisanship, a key trait being what I think of as "inconsistent objection", is that I don't recall any outrage about this when George Bush was President. Neil King said various of the czars predate Bush. He said Bush added several, and again that Obama has now about 20% more. Did you (or would you have, if you were not aware at the time) object to the number and increase in czars during the Bush administration? And if not, is the reason a question of numbers or use? And if numbers, what number sort of cuts it for you in terms of being too many? And if use, are you aware of a manner that Obama is using his czars that is an important and concerning departure from how Bush used his? These answers I think would advance the debate.

I would recognize and be concerned about reduced oversight if I knew that czars were executing key executive enforcement of the kind charged to our executive branch, were such executions occurring without the knowledge and consent of a senatorially confirmed and congressionally accountable member of that branch. Do you agree with that, and if so, do you know if that is in fact occurring, and if it is, do you know if that is a departure from under the Bush administration? But if you don't know that that is occurring, then does your objection center mostly around the number, and was the Bush number an ok number but the Obama number too many?

Neil King did mention that the czars are paid out of the White House budget, i.e. that amount of money appropriated by Congress for the Office of the President to hire staff and conduct its business. He did not mention, nor am I aware of this president asking Congress for some sizable increase in this appropriation, perhaps specifically so that he could hire many more czars, each with large bureaucracies, in order to create and fund a "shadow government" of sorts, as has often been ascribed to Obama's increase in the number of czar positions. If the White House had requested a large increase in appropriation, it would have been called upon to explain, you can be sure, if not by the Democratic committee chairperson, then by its ranking Republican member. So, there's been no press on this, and I'm assuming it did not occur. Therefore the President is paying his czars out of the zero-sum appropriation given the Office of the President, making seem all the more credible Neil King's dominant characterization of these people as presidential advisers.

So, I'm back where I started. I don't see the issue, still.

[Paul M.]

I must admit that I did not know that Bush (or any other President) had czars. My statement “The czars are a new arrangement for our government” appears not to be true.

However, it seems curious to me that the Bush (and any other administration) czars all had such a low profile - I do not recall reading about even one of them, and from the sound of it, neither do you. The current czars are in the news every day.

Did the Bush czars “play a prominent role in disbursing $$billions”? While having the same title, are the roles that the czars play under both administrations comparable? I looked up the list of Bush czars that we never heard of, and it sounds like a list of mostly advisors (Bird Flu Czar, Copyright Czar, Abstinence Czar (that’s a weird one), Mine Safety Czar). I think the current czars may have more real influence and power. They manage the government takeover of Auto companies, etc.

I have read articles that have comments like:

- "The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., wrote in a letter to Obama.

- Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, says she doesn't see a constitutional issue but she expressed concern that the president may be breaking his promise of transparency. "By creating these czars that are insulated from accountability, whose work is not transparent, he's moving in exactly the opposite direction," she said.

Something seems different about this group of czars, or at least the things that they are doing. I guess we should just observe how it plays out.

[Joe Intili]

The following letter was brought to my attention, expressing concern of Obama's use of policy czars. The letter is from U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, and perhaps best known for his collaboration with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, on campaign finance reform:

September 15, 2009

The President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

From the beginning of your administration, you have made an admirable commitment to transparency and open government. You showed the strength of your commitment by sending a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies within a week of your inauguration, stating: “My administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.”

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.

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.” (Emphasis added.) 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.

Thank you for considering my views on this important matter. I very much appreciate your commitment to transparency and open government and look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator