Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Are Czars Even Legal?

Definition of a czar: A person having great power; an autocrat. White house insiders appointed exclusively by the President.

Obama has appointed 33 czars! Now the Democrats in Congress want to add another czar to oversee health insurance - thus, duplicating all state insurance commissioners whose job is to protect consumers. What's the point? Why the power grabs?

These czars report directly to the President and do not require Senate confirmation. They have total immunity from Congress. Obama's czars are being granted extensive powers without ever being confirmed or ratified by anyone! These positions have no provisions in the Constitution. They were conceived by this administration unilaterally. They are not subjected to transparency rules and may seriously be a violation of the law and/or the Constitution! Shouldn't someone formally object and challenge the authority and legality of these czars? How about Congress? How about the media? Is there anybody out there who cares?

This is the first US presidency to employ the use of czars. The last time any government used czars (besides Russia in the early 1900s) to help run government bureaus was during the reign of Mussolini in the late 1920s throughout the 1940s.

How much power do these these new Czars have? Well, Steve Rattner the Auto Czar fired Rick Wagner the CEO of General Motors on behalf of President Obama. He also set the terms for Chrysler and General Motors bankruptcy deals, screwing bond holders out of their investments by giving ownership to the auto unions instead.

That's a lot of POWER!! It's also a bad precedent. It's the first time the President ever fired anyone in charge of a company in the private sector. AND, the first time a government agency negotiated a bankruptcy. Was this legal? Is this abuse of Presidential power? No one has challenged it - Yet.

Speaking of the Car Czar, Steve Rattner is leaving as head of the auto task force. His former firm, Quadrangle, is involved in a probe by the New York attorney general. There are allegations of bribery and wrongdoing.

Is this the type of person we want in our government? Wouldn't these details have come to light if there was a vetting process in place?


  1. It takes a lot of help to "rebuild" America.

  2. True, but wouldn't it be better if there were some checks and balances added in the hiring process?

  3. I guess you have missed my point. By "rebuilding" I mean taking over. I should have stated that it takes many people to slowly eat away our liberties, and push us even closer to socialism.

  4. If you check definitions, you will discover that it is not socialism you are describing - but facism. I agree that the government is heading in a strong negative direction away from what the founding fathers had in mind.