"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States."
That is what Senator Obama said while campaigning. But instead of reversing the Bush power grab, Obama’s increased it. I’d think the media would point out the inconsistency now that Obama has appointed "czars" for the auto industry, health care industry, executive pay, Mideast Peace, green jobs, etc. We’re up to 30 “czars” and still counting. At least the Republicans are pointing it out. Too bad that most waited until they were out of power to discover their fear of executive overreach.
Eric Cantor, one of the more sensible people in the political swamp, writes:
The president has embarked on an end-run around the legislative branch of historic proportions. To be sure, the appointment of a few special officers to play a constructive role in a given administration is nothing new. What is new is the elevation of so many czars, with so much authority on endless policy fronts. Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances.
... the current administration has more czars than Imperial Russia.
The administration has a Mideast peace czar (not to be confused with the Mideast policy czar), a Sudan czar and a Guantanamo closure czar. Then there's the green jobs czar, sometimes in conflict with the energy czar, who talks to the technology czar, who sometimes crosses paths with the urban affairs czar. We mustn't forget the Great Lakes czar or the WMD czar, who no doubt works hand in hand with the terrorism czar...
At least the “pay czar” Ken Feinberg, is a very smart and responsible guy. But that’s not the point. We need less government, not more titles.
- Pre-October 2009