Editor’s note: Four local bloggers, featured on the Globe’s Web site, www.joplinglobe.com, weigh in this week on the following question:



The federal government

has 13 czars overseeing many parts of American life. Do

you think czars are appropriate/and or necessary?

Czarist America: Unbridled, unconstitutional appointments

For most of us, the word czar conjures up images of Russian rulers with tall, furry hats and curled mustaches. While Russia’s 1917 revolution brought an end to its oppression of the Slavic peoples, here in the West, president-appointed czars are in vogue.

There are currently 15 to 21 czars operating in America. Since the term “czar” is usually media denoted and not official, the number varies depending on who you ask. The mystery and muddiness surrounding the title is only where the head scratching begins.

Postwar America saw the rise of czars as important policy implementers for the president. Nixon was the first to get a little czar crazy and appointed both an energy czar and an inflation czar. And contrary to popular belief, he also appointed the first drug czar, Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe. Most presidents have had two or three czars carrying out their will while in office — but the rapid increase in czar appointments by President Barack Obama has raised more than a few eyebrows.

There are now as many, if not more, czars than Cabinet members working for Obama. Czars, unlike Cabinet members, are not approved by Congress and most czars answer only to the president and his administration. None, that I know of, are accountable to Congress. Herein lies the controversy.

The Constitution is clear when it comes to presidential appointments. Article II says, “… he (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 provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

According to the Chicago Tribune’s political blog, “The Swamp,” some current recognized czars and positions are: executive-pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg; regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein; health-care reform czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle; efficiency czar, Jeffrey Zients; Southwest border czar, Alan Bersin; energy czar, Carol Browner; urban-affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion; economics czar, Paul Volcker/Lawrence Summers; drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske; car czar, Steve Rattner; bank-bailout czar, Herb Allison; Iran czar, Dennis Ross; government-performance czar, unfilled; Mideast czar, George Mitchell; Afghanistan/Pakistan czar, Richard Holbrooke; cyber-security czar, to be named; distressed auto communities czar, Ed Montgomery; climate-change czar, Todd Stern.

Obama’s promised transparency in government seems unlikely given his unbridled expansion of presidential power. Like executive-order Bush before him, he appears to have little regard for the Constitution or the rule of law. Congress needs to reclaim its rightful power of appointment and put an end to “czar rule” in America, once and for all.

Jessica Schreindl served as the 2008-09 opinion-page editor for The Chart, Missouri Southern State University’s newspaper. More of her opinions can be found on her blog “Redheaded Politics.”

Czars unnecessary

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.

The American use of the word czar as a title for public officials charged with overseeing government policies began during the Nixon administration, but was most famously used in reference to William Bennett, who was George H.W. Bush’s first drug czar in 1989. I don’t remember too many Republican complaints about czars in those days, but I do remember their fondness for the drug war, for which Mr. Bennett became the commander-in-chief.

And therein lies the rub. If the czar is your czar, then czars are good. If not, czars are bad. For many conservative Republicans, all Obama czars are bad czars because conservatives preach that Obama is a left-wing radical forcing us all to become socialists against our collective will.

But whether we support or oppose a particular government policy, surely sensible people can agree that employing a person to oversee our national interests or to ensure that government policies are carried out effectively and efficiently is not a bad thing. Indeed, it is necessary for good government.

Just as it is prudent for President Obama to have in place a Gen. David Petraeus to oversee the war effort in the Middle East, surely it is also prudent for him to have in place an Ed Montgomery to focus on issues related to the crisis in the auto industry.

For some Republicans, though, the complaints of targeted government oversight — which is all the term czar entails — has more to do with their fear of and contempt for Obama than with their concern for big government, which they enthusiastically embraced for the last eight years, czars and all.

R. Duane Graham lives in Joplin and writes a blog, “The Erstwhile Conservative” for the Globe.

Cabal of czars not American way

President Obama’s fascination with czars and proliferation of appointing such is passed off by some as just a new way of doing business; a “cut through the bureaucracy let’s get things done approach.”

Others, (this writer included) couldn’t disagree more.

The question at hand asks about 13 current “czars,” yet Wikipedia lists more than 20 and still counting. And, if you don’t trust Wikipedia, Steve Holland of Reuters writes:

“Name a top issue and President Barack Obama has probably got a “czar” responsible for tackling it... There are upward of 20 such top officials, all with lengthy official titles but known in the media as czars, and next week there will be one more, when Obama appoints a czar for cyber-security who will be charged with improving the security of computer networks.”

I find it troubling that the candidate who promised to post bills five days before signing and have the most transparent administration in history (still waiting for him to deliver on those two) is appointing so many aides outside the accountability sphere. These czars undergo no Congressional review and fly in the face of one of our most fundamental principles: separation of powers.

I find it ironic that the candidate of “change” and “openness” forms a presidential apparatus much more akin to Richard Milhous Nixon than his so-often-compared-to Abraham Lincoln.

Merriam-Webster online defines the following:

Czar: 1. emperor; specifically: the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution 2: one having great power or authority.

Independent: 1. not dependent: as a (1): not subject to control by others: self governing.

My angst with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is his desire for the former while I think the latter has worked quite well these past 200 plus years.

A cabal of czars may be the Chicago way, but it’s certainly not the American way.

Geoff Caldwell lives in Joplin. Read more of his opinions on his blog, “Caldwell’s Corner.”