Bowing to the nutjobs again -Feingold To Hold Hearings On Obama's 'Czars'

[Are_grits_groceries]

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), chairman of a Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, will hold a hearing next week on President Obama's use of "czars."

Feingold has joined several Republicans and conservative talking heads in criticizing Obama over how many czars he's appointed. The term, although in no official title, applies to positions in the executive branch that don't need the approval of Congress. But several of the "czars" mentioned by Glenn Beck and the like actually have been approved by lawmakers.
<snip>
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/feingold-to-hold-hearings-on-obamas-czars.php?ref=fpb

I'm surprised at Feingold. Why are the Dems buying into the RW nonsense? Are they going to appease or join them every time they foam at the mouth?

[cali]

1. the uproar over this is absurd. sorry to see Feingold holding hearings about it.

[DaveinJapan]

2. You have got to be kidding me.

This is fucking retarded. Seriously.

Why the fuck are Democrats bowing down in the face of right wing lunacy?

WHY?

[Horse with no Name]

3. But didn't Bush have czars?

* Cyber Security Czar
* Regulatory Czar
* AIDS Czar
* Bird Flu Czar
* Intelligence Czar
* Health IT Czar
* Katrina Czar
* Manufacturing Czar
* Drug Czar
* Domestic Policy Czar
* War Czar
* Copywright Czar
* Abstinence Czar
* Mine Safety Czar
* Latin American Czar
* WTO Health Czar
* Corruption Czar
* Privacy Czar
* Health Czar

[madrchsod]

4. i`ll reserve my judgement until the hearings

russ may have decided to hold hearings to shut the republicans up about this issue. another reason maybe he is concerned about appointing positions with out the senate approval. bush did it because he could get away with it and we should hold obama to a higher standard.

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. I would agree except that the headline

is the message the RW and the media will run with. They won't pay attention to what the hearings accomplish.

Feingold may have a very good reason for these hearings. I just think he played right into the RW message.

[ErinBerin84]

7. I'm pretty sure it's the latter

and even if on principle it makes sense, it's just going to be an annoying freak show. It will legitimize the nutjobs instead of bring them to light. Oh well.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Senator Feingold Appears Not To Be President Obama's BFF...

I noted this last year during the campaign that Senator Feingold's support of President Obama was soft if not non-existant. Not sure what the rift is but he's stepped on on several occasions and tweeked the Administration. I'll reserve any comment on the topic until I see what's being investigated and what the scope is.

[karynnj]

13. He seems to me to have been true to himself - and he is doing just what we praised when Bush was in

[KharmaTrain]

15. This Is An Observation...

Yes, he has been true on the issue of Gitmo and extending the executive abuses of the previous regime and I support him in keeping that matter alive.

However, I need to read up a little further here on why he would support a wingnut talking point that is designed to create fodder in the right wing universe. If he had concerns, one would think he would have other avenues to go through.

[karynnj]

18. Given positions he has taken in the past, this one is not out of line

I think the RW are hypocrites as they had no problem with this when they did it, but this is an oversight issue. The Congress has oversight responsibilities over the various cabinets and it is not clear that they have any ability to get the czars to appear before their committees - nor do many require Congressional approval.

It might be reasonable to look at the portfolios of each and to get agreement on which ones, if any, have sufficient importance and independence that approval might be justified - going forward. In addition, I think Obama should make a broad brush commitment that all of the czars will make themselves available to appear before the relevant committees and to keep them informed.

If there is a reason that Cabinet people are required to do this - then it might make sense for the czars to do so as well. Otherwise, there is the risk - especially overtime - that all the real decision making could be moved out of the cabinet and done by administration Czars and their supordinates. (This is not the current situation - but when looking at potential abuse - that to me is the worst case scenario.)

[KharmaTrain]

20. Congress Already Has That Oversight...

It's called a subpoena. Daily there are administration aparachniks who are summoned to testify. Many of the "czars" are advisors who do not directly enact laws or regulations but have to move them through the chain...either to a cabinet head or right to the top. I see the problem as being transparency rather than a separation or abuse of power matter.

Yes, there are needs to examine some of these advisors...especially if there's a conflict of interest that influences their advise. However, I'm dubious about lining up with right wingers who ignored their own "czars" but now have found their voice attached to the strings of hate radio and faux noise. If Senator Feingold has problems about exeuctive advisors and their jurisdiction then I see hearings as valid and important, but if its being used to embarass the administration, then it will be counterproductive. I'm not sure which it is.

[Pirate Smile]

8. Typical Feingold.

[masuki bance]

9. Sen. Byrd was the first to complain about the "czars" this year.

Published: February 25, 2009

..."The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd wrote in a letter to Obama. "At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials."

Byrd specifically cited the creation of a new White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, which is headed by Carol Browner. He also noted new offices for health reform and urban affairs policy and the appointment of White House staff to coordinate on technology and management performance policies.

He also listed numerous examples from the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush of officials who directed policy as White House assistants.

"Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process," Byrd wrote.

Byrd, who carries a copy of the Constitution with him and often cites it in floor speeches, said the czars are not accountable to Congress or to Cabinet officials and rarely testify before congressional committees. He said they often "shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege" and too often "have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."...

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/02/25/25greenwire-byrd-questions-obamas-use-of-policy-czars-9865.html

[TornadoTN]

16. I don't object to this at all - In fact, I applaud it

I don't really care that Bush or any other President used positions like these. The fact of the matter is that the Executive Branch used these positions to shield information and their duties from oversight from the rest of the government and the people. It should concern any American when a President uses these offices in this manner - be they Democratic or Republican.

The right wing is using it as a political softball for now, but they'll be making excuses for it when a Republican administration is in power. But these offices should be brought to the light and transparency restored across the entire government.

[ThomWV]

10. I have no objection to any Senator or Representative who challenges the Executive

Its called balance of powers and it is healthy for the country. Advise and consent are important safegards and challenging the President is part of any Senator's job.

[Are_grits_groceries]

11. I don't object on the grounds that

nobody should look into "czars." I object because this helps legitimize a RW meme that is ridiculous. The timing couldn't be worse no matter what the objective.

In addition, nobody peeped when Bush appointed a brazillion czars, so why is there an investigation now. Where was Feingold then? It makes it appear that Obama's appointments are suspect whereas Bush's were fine.

[stray cat]

12. Feingold doesn't bow to anyone - whatever he is up to

[spanone]

14. fuck me, bu$h* had dozens.....what a load of horseshit

[HelenWheels]

17. He doesn't like that the President does and end run around the senate

And by President he means any President. The number of this type of adviser has grown over the years and Feingold dislikes that the President can use these positions to circumvent the elected officials with his handpicked adviser who aren't approved by the Senate.

He explained it at his annual county meeting

[WeDidIt]

19. I'm disappointed in Feingold. n/t