Republicans introduce bill to eliminate Czars

[Sbane]

What exactly is the Republican's problem with the "czar" positions? I agree it's pretty silly, but it has existed in some form for more than 4 decades (and perhaps stretching back to FDR). Why the sudden need to get rid of them? I understand that spending a few more days discussing the economy or the deficit won't solve any problems, but even conducting a lobotomy on Michelle Bachmann would have been a better use of time than this.

[Sbane]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

Then why did you question whether it was an important issue.

Its going to be something that snakes its way through committee and finally comes to a House vote maybe later this year sometime and gets passed in between renaming a post office after Congressman who cares, and establishing a new memorative coin. Hardly urgent business being delayed here.

Ok...but why should it be done in the first place?

[Sbane]

But getting rid of czars isn't going to take any teeth out of his presidency. They just won't be called fukcing "czars" anymore. They are basically advisers, and they will remain so regardless of whatever fantasy Republicans are trying to fulfill.

[Sbane]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

Then why did you question whether it was an important issue.

Its going to be something that snakes its way through committee and finally comes to a House vote maybe later this year sometime and gets passed in between renaming a post office after Congressman who cares, and establishing a new memorative coin. Hardly urgent business being delayed here.

Ok...but why should it be done in the first place?

Because I think it has gotten out of control. Because I think it breeds redundancy and thus waste of money. And because finally, I don't think there is enough oversight or limitations for these positions.

I would rather they get rid of the title than make it some sort of confirmable position. A President is going to have a wide variety of advisors with their own staffs anyways, there is no need to call them "czars" or whatever.

[Sbane]

I don't care if he introduces it...I have no reason to oppose it.

Then why did you question whether it was an important issue.

Its going to be something that snakes its way through committee and finally comes to a House vote maybe later this year sometime and gets passed in between renaming a post office after Congressman who cares, and establishing a new memorative coin. Hardly urgent business being delayed here.

Ok...but why should it be done in the first place?

Because I think it has gotten out of control. Because I think it breeds redundancy and thus waste of money. And because finally, I don't think there is enough oversight or limitations for these positions.

I would rather they get rid of the title than make it some sort of confirmable position. A President is going to have a wide variety of advisors with their own staffs anyways, there is no need to call them "czars" or whatever.

Who the hell said anything about confirmations?

Nobody, but what kind of "oversight" are the Republicans looking for? Do they have an ability to unilaterally make decisions without the President's approval? I am just trying to figure out what is so special about them instead of just being advisors to the President.

[Sbane]

"If not now, when?"


Obama delayed his promise to reign in earmarks because, "it wasn't as important".


For those of you asking, "is this really important"? What is so pressing that they could otherwise be doing? Fixing the economy is like achieving world peace. There is no magic bullet to do it and spending a few hours or even days to pass a much needed reform doesn't seem like a waste to me or in any way hindering an economic recovery. 

I thought the "czar" thing was stupid in any administration........but do they need to do this right now?

Yes. Czars are only a problem when Democratic Presidents have them and when said Democratic Presidents are effective in getting an agenda passed that the Republicans don't want.

Well, Obama has used quite a few of these people to handle a lot of issues, a lot more then Bush or Clinton. I do think it is wise to reign them in as it is a problem regardless of who is President. 

WRONG

39 used by Obama vs 32 by Bush. Meh.

This bill just strikes me as being a "f you Obama" sort of bill. It doesn't really change things much. Actually, since I hate the drug czar position, go ahead and git-r-done Pubbies.