The Czars Epidemic

Czars, czars, czars.  It seems as if there is a new czar every time we turn on the T.V. or open a newspaper.  The President hasn’t been in much of a hurry to fill cabinet seats, but he is creating these “special” positions at a break-neck speed.  While the concept of czars is not a new one, the amount of appointments and the rapid pace at which these positions are being created is unprecedented.  Most of us have found this unsettling -to say the least -but, overall, there is little attention paid to this bizarre phenomenon.  In an effort to make some sense of it all, I will attempt to answer a few common concerns.  (1.) Who are the czars?  (2.) What does a czar do?  (3.) Are there any checks on the power of czars? (4.) Why does the president want so many?

After spending a considerable amount of time searching for a good description of American czars, I was a little disheartened.  All of the articles seem to say the same thing. Czar is an informal name for a high-level federal official who oversees or directs operations on a specific topic, or coordinates between different departments about a specific topic.  Not exactly a well-defined job description.  In a country where we are accustomed to seeing a list of enumerated powers, forbidden powers, and specific checks and balances, the office of Czar already seems a bit out of place.  We know that government officials will try to expand their power as much as they are permitted, so it seems that this job is bound to lead to corruption.  While this job was used, in the past mainly as an advisory position or as a means to raise awareness about social issues (drugs, AIDS, etc..), that seems to be changing. This new breed of czars has been given the authority to make binding policies, instead of merely making suggestions on policies.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea of someone who doesn’t need our vote making any kind of binding decisions.  It’s practically an invitation for behavior that is, well, czar-like.    In fact, their authority has already expanded to the point that they are apparently allowed to make up their own job descriptions.  Take, for example, Kenneth Feinberg.  Mr. Feinberg is the new pay czar, with an official title of “Special Master for Compensation”(how do you address someone as “Special Master” without laughing?).  He believes that he has the authority to “claw back” bonuses which were paid out to executives before his position was even created.  When it was brought to his attention that regulations specifically forbid this sort of action, he replied, “The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have the discretion to decide what it is these people should make and that my determination will be final. …Anything is possible under the law.”  Really? Since when? This brings us to our next question.  What limits are placed on the authority of these czars?

Most federal officials fall into one of three branches of government.  As we all know, there are checks and balances placed against each branch, regardless of the individual’s rank.  But, what about the czars?  Most people assume that they are part of the executive branch just like Cabinet members.  This is not entirely true.  Imagine that the federal government is a corporation.  The President would be the president of the company, and the Cabinet members would be the chiefs of different departments (marketing, sales, human resources, etc.).  The department heads answer to the company president, but they all must answer to the members of the board (Congress) and the consumers (us).  A czar, on the other hand, is more like a personal assistant of the company president.  You know the kind. The kind that thinks he’s actually second in command just because he picks up the boss’s dry cleaning and cheers the Big Guy up every time he calls drunk and whining about his divorce at 3 AM.  The kind that isn’t your boss but always tosses out a “watch that hemline” or “straighten that tie” when he whisks past.  Sure, the assistant may be a first-rate jerk, he may give the president bad advice, he may even be the reason that the top product designer quit, but he doesn’t technically work for the company.  The board of directors can’t fire him and the consumers don’t even know he exists.  The only one who can actually step in is the President himself. That is what we are facing with the czars. No oversight committees.  No abuse of power laws.  Just the President’s opinion of his job performance.  If Barack Obama has shown us anything, it is that he is an ambitious man.  He has pushed the bounds of the Constitutional role of President like no other.  And he actually does have to answer to the voters.  I can only imagine what he will ask his unelected assistants to push through.

By now, we’ve realized the first major advantage of appointing czars.  They only answer to the President.  Another plus in the Commander-and-Chief’s column is that the czars don’t have to be confirmed by Congress.  Remember earlier this year when Cabinet nominee after Cabinet nominee was caught up with tax “mistakes” and campaign finance “oversights?”  That’s clearly way too much of a hassle for our busy Prez.  He has nightly T.V. appearances to make and celebrity magazines to pose for.  He can’t be bothered with this sort of close character examination.  It’s much easier to pick a czar, because no one but himself has to approve.  Can you imagine how icky things would get if Congress had to look into Car Czar Steve Rattner’s entanglement in an SEC investigation of his old company, Quadrangle?  Or Energy Czar and green radical Carol Browner, who was charged with contempt of court while she worked for the EPA because she erased all of her computer files in the middle of a federal investigation after an injunction was issued specifically forbidding her from doing so?  Or how about Urban Czar Aldofo Carrión who pocketed thousands of dollars in a pay-for-play type scandal with city developers (he was like the Tony Rezko of New York)?  Thank goodness we didn’t have to waste time looking into any of that stuff.   And if that’s not enough,  there is one thing that makes Czars even more appealing.  There is no specific mention of them in the Constitution.   You see, members of Congress and the President have certain clear restrictions on their authority laid out in the Constitution.  While they are constantly trying to push the line further away from our founders’ intent, they dare not leap over it outright. That’s why they have never tightened the reigns on these “special” positions. Lawmakers who have grown weary of slowly wearing down restraints on their power, needed someone to leap across the line for them.  For example, let’s say a certain administration wanted to procure a list of people who disagreed with a particular policy they were trying to get passed.  The trouble-making citizens may get upset and cry “fascism” if Congress or the President attempted this themselves.  Luckily, Communications Czar Linda Douglass and Director of New Media Macon Phillips have an idea.  They can set up a site where citizens can report “fishy” e-mails and casual conversations they’ve had with friends and neighbors.  This sort of list would be illegal if a real government official were keeping it, but, remember when it comes to Czars, “anything is possible under the law.”   Or what if a certain political party had repeatedly tried to shut down conservative voices by reinstating the fairness doctrine, but were shot down every time?  Instead of accepting the fact that we live in a pro-free speech nation, they could just appoint someone like Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd to run the FCC.  Lloyd plans on seeing to “diversity” on the radio, by any means necessary.  And, no, he doesn’t need the approval of lawmakers or the Constitution because he doesn’t technically work for the government.  You see, czars are the ultimate loophole.  Any powers that are off-limits to federal authorities, can be granted to the czars (though I’m still a little foggy on how you can grant a power that you don’t have to someone else).

So what are we to do with a group of officials who are beholden to no one, but the President?  We have no clear checks against their authority, but we can take away their most powerful characteristic– anonymity.  Power-hungry politicians ( in other words, most of them) want us to be at least a little confused.  They don’t like it when we can point our fingers and say, “You did it.”  So they put a bunch of no-names in powerful positions.  If these men and women want to keep their new found ascendancy, they will do the bidding of the leaders that gave it to them.  So, we must learn their names, and make it clear that we know who is really pulling the strings.  When we hear about an outrageous new policy, and the White House says, “It wasn’t us, it was the director of health, or communications, or green jobs, or whatever,” we can say, “No, it was YOU.”  The only way to control the boss’s assistant is to say “get your man in line, or you’re fired.”   We must treat the czars the same way.  No matter what they say, politicians care about re-election.  2010 is just around the corner.  The liberal influence in Washington must understand that if they can’t keep these men and women under control, they’ll be the ones waiting in that ever growing unemployment line.

For a complete list of 45 current Czars, their duties, and newly announced positions that haven’t been filled yet click here.