What is the problem with the Czars?

[mpicky]

Isn't this a bit hypocritical considering Bush had more Czar positions than Obama?

What exactly is the problem with the Czars, or is the problem only who is appointing them? If so, why are they not being honest about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_branch_czars

Summary table - Number of czars per administration
(see the sortable table below for details and references)
Pres. name In office czar" jobs Number of appointees
Franklin Roosevelt 1933-1945 12 19
Harry Truman 1945-1953 6 6
Dwight Eisenhower 1953-1961 1 1
John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 1 1
Lyndon B. Johnson 1963-1969 2 2
Richard Nixon 1969-1974 2 4
Gerald Ford 1974-1977 1 1
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 2 3
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 1 1
George H. W. Bush 1989-1993 2 3
Bill Clinton 1993-2001 6 9
George W. Bush 2001-2009 35 45
Barack Obama 2009 32 34

[Sophie♥Hatter]

I honestly don't like when any of them use the czars. I want people that are truly in touch with the working class America.

[OliveJuice]

What is this all about? I looked at the table but I'm confused. When I think of a Czar I think of the Russian Czars.

[Jeni14]

I totally heard the opposite, that Obama had way more Czars than anyone else! Hum...I need to research.

[rad sugar]

"czar" is just a nickname title that the media has assigned to various department directors for gov't programs/agencies.

i'm not sure what you mean about "problem with czars" at all. i guess if ppl have a problem with the national drug control policy, they may not like the drug czar?

i find it ironic that conservatives have appointed so many (in your example, bush had more than obama does so far). republicans have created so many agencies when the whole point of conservatism is to decrease the size of gov't. maybe that's what people don't like?

[mpicky]

Originally Posted by rad sugar "czar" is just a nickname title that the media has assigned to various department directors for gov't programs/agencies. i'm not sure what you mean about "problem with czars" at all. i guess if ppl have a problem with the national drug control policy, they may not like the drug czar? i find it ironic that conservatives have appointed so many (in your example, bush had more than obama does so far). republicans have created so many agencies when the whole point of conservatism is to decrease the size of gov't. maybe that's what people don't like?

The right and the media are having a field day with his czars:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/198/29391/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...litical-aisle/

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/po...n_the_romanovs

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,5035131.story

Why are they acting like it is something new?

[rad sugar]

thanks for the clarification, i've probably been ignoring all of this bc i can't pay any mind to the right's obama bashing at all. so much of it has been baseless, and the recent flip out over his speech to students was the last straw for me.

[Sophie♥Hatter]

I thought this was inref to Obama using a director of marketing "czar"? That was what was on the radio this morning anyway. I was thinking of the term in a different way (more like the "robber barons") Sorry for misunderstanding.

[LoveKiss]

Czars have, in the past, been used as figurehead positions who lacks authority, a real budget, and a staff. He/she is basically an appointee put in a position to pay lipservice to an issue without having any real ability to make changes. Look at Regan's drug czar and Bush's education czar. Yes, these people existed, but the real work was done by the actual agency people in the DEA and Education Department. We don't need talking head Czars; we need action.

[Viva]

It's because Glenn Beck is a D-bag and has nothing better to do with his time than find new ways to call Obama a socialist.