if government steps up

Russia got rid of them almost a century ago. Why do we need them today? My opinion is we don’t.

One of the great failures of government and politics is the lack of specific, personal accountability when things go wrong. Admiral Hyman Rickover once said: “Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when some things go wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible.”

Somewhere in the bowels of government, someone is or should be responsible for any issues that czars address. Energy policy, the last time I checked, is the responsibility of the Secretary of Energy. Why do (or did) we need an energy czar? Drugs should fall under the purview of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The automobile business was commerce the last time I checked.

Any capable line-management organization in a business must address all matters affecting that business. If a “direct report” to the boss needs help on a tough problem, he should hire an expert to assist. But such an expert should in no way dilute the authority, responsibility and public accountability of that official.

If the job is too big for the official to handle that responsibility, the official should be replaced by someone with the management and technical skills to meet the demands of the job. Redrawing the organization chart to dilute that responsibility accomplishes exactly that which the admiral warned about.

Let’s look at the track record of czars. I am unaware of any meaningful contribution to the “problem” made by czars. The war on drugs (or assistance for the chemically addicted, to be politically correct) is still raging. Now go find a czar to be held accountable for that situation. Will the automobile czar make any meaningful contribution to the current mess? Will he be held accountable when he does not do so?

Formally elected or appointed (and confirmed by elected representatives) officials should bear full responsibility in any matter under their purview. No equivocation or assignment of additional people to the task can relieve them of that responsibility. If a nuclear accident occurred on a submarine, guess who would ultimately be responsible. Yep, it would be the admiral. He knew it and fully accepted that responsibility.

Any president knows that “the buck stops here.” Any good president will make darned sure that his Secretary of Defense feels that way about a staggering war effort. At least we did not get an Iraq czar and ultimately (though too late) the responsible secretary got canned. That is the way it should work for any government issue.

Anson Burlingame lives in Joplin. He writes a blog for the Globe called “I’m not sure, are you?”

Czars sensible approach

used by both parties

Last Tuesday, Fox “News” aired a segment about the creation of The White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers, which is an attempt by the Obama administration to focus on those hit hardest by the crisis in the auto industry, as well as to coordinate federal efforts to help. Ed Montgomery, the so-called “car czar,” will serve as the Council’s executive director.

As usual, the Fox segment was replete with hysterical right-wing fear mongering. Arthur Laffer, the one-note Johnny of economics, said in reference to the Obama administration: “They’re really ruining the country and the economy.” The next guest, a disgruntled car dealer and Republican who lost his golden Chrysler goose, said that the idea of a “car czar” was a “total catastrophe” and an “absolute disaster.” This inflamed gentleman, Jim Anderer, then warned and whined that Obama was “driving us toward socialism,” and that as a country, “we are losing it fast.”

But Mr. Anderer really captured the gloomy and mystifying fear clouding the judgment of many Republicans by informing us that, “President Obama seems to have some fascination with Russia.” The remark betrayed not only a quasi-paranoia, but also a lack of appreciation for metaphor.