• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Democrats Kill GOP Effort to Rein in Obama's Czars

When his argument is "trust me, I know Sen. Collins!", I tend to discount it.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Senate Democrats Kill GOP Effort to Rein in Obama's Czars - Political News - FOXNews.com

Senate Democrats, under pressure from a White House arguing separation of powers, rejected a GOP attempt Thursday to provide greater transparency and congressional oversight of 18 czars appointed by the Obama administration without Senate confirmation.

Democrats employed a procedural tactic to kill the GOP proposal that would have withheld federal funds for the creation of any new, unconfirmed czar positions until the administration agreed to allow the individuals to testify before Congress under "reasonable" requests.

The proposal also would have required every czar to produce a detailed "public, written report" biannually of their actions and involvement in the creation of policy, rules, and regulations.

But Democrats used a Senate rule that prohibits legislating on a spending bill -- something that is often done by both political parties despite the rule -- to kill the measure.

Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine who sponsored the amendment to a spending bill that funds the Interior Department, decried the move on the Senate floor, saying she was "deeply disappointed" in her Democratic colleagues.

"My amendment has been carefully tailored to cover officials that the president has unilaterally designated for significant policy matters," said Collins, who is the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

"It would not have covered the president's chief of staff, for example, and it would not cover less senior White House officials, despite some misinformation to the contrary," Collins said, noting that her staff had worked with White House officials Wednesday night without agreement
Click to expand...

Same **** different pile.
 
Orius said:
Same **** different pile.
Click to expand...

Far from it you have no idea what your talking about. The White House has made a very large tactical mistake on this one. What ever support Susan was going to give to this White house was blown.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Far from it you have no idea what your talking about. The White House has made a very large tactical mistake on this one. What ever support Susan was going to give to this White house was blown.
Click to expand...

What support has she given the White House so far?
 
Redress said:
What support has she given the White House so far?
Click to expand...

She voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which Piss Off most of the Consv. Republicans and Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009.

Plus she has been one of the very few Republicans that have said they are in favor of some sort of Health Care Bill and has offered up some riders for the varoious Health Care Bills.
 
Erod said:
You forgot to mention that now our Leader is buddies with the leaders of Venezuela and Cuba, Iran has gone nuclear, and Russia is now our friend for not building missile defenses in Europe.

Oh, and we're now more liberal when it comes to climate change than Europe.
Click to expand...

So you have proof that "our Leader" has been palling around with "leaders of Venezuela and Cuba" or is this the same old partisan crap pile of false accusations that you are adding to ?
 
Scorpion89 said:
She voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which Piss Off most of the Consv. Republicans and Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009.

Plus she has been one of the very few Republicans that have said they are in favor of some sort of Health Care Bill and has offered up some riders for the varoious Health Care Bills.
Click to expand...

So very little. If stopping stupid attacks on presidential advisers means she will get pissy and put politics ahead of doing what is right, I got no use for her anyway.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Senate Democrats Kill GOP Effort to Rein in Obama's Czars - Political News - FOXNews.com

Senate Democrats, under pressure from a White House arguing separation of powers, rejected a GOP attempt Thursday to provide greater transparency and congressional oversight of 18 czars appointed by the Obama administration without Senate confirmation.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't care who Obama appoints (well almost don't care..) But I do care about transparency. I think that everything that is done by our government, with the exception of military movements and technologies, should be open to the public. And I do mean EVERYTHING.
 
Senate Democrats, under pressure from a White House arguing separation of powers
Click to expand...

My my...a WH arguing separation of powers. I remember Obama and Hillary and Biden and Reid arguing W wasn't even our Commander in Chief in Iraq, we apparently had 535 Commanders in Chief, not 1. I remember when Bush fired 8 of his own lawyers and the Senate had a cow.

My my, what a difference an Administration makes.
 
Feingold To Hold Hearings On Obama's 'Czars'
Rachel Slajda | September 29, 2009, 5:09PM


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.

more ...

Feingold To Hold Hearings On Obama's 'Czars' | TPM LiveWire
Click to expand...


Looks like the issue will get looked at, Scorp
 
jackalope said:
Looks like the issue will get looked at, Scorp
Click to expand...

from your linked article:

Feingold is running for re-election next year.

The attack of these czars, at town halls and right-wing events, has been a conservative crowd-pleaser.
Click to expand...

At least we can understand his motivation for wasting time on this.
 
Redress said:
from your linked article:



At least we can understand his motivation for wasting time on this.
Click to expand...


Yea, I did see that quote in there. I just don't think that's his motivation. I am thinking back to his speeches when he was advocating censure of Pres Bush. I don't know, I don't follow Feingold closely enough to say for sure, but my gut says it's not just politics with him. Could be wrong!
 
jackalope said:
Yea, I did see that quote in there. I just don't think that's his motivation. I am thinking back to his speeches when he was advocating censure of Pres Bush. I don't know, I don't follow Feingold closely enough to say for sure, but my gut says it's not just politics with him. Could be wrong!
Click to expand...

I cannot see it as anything but politics. It's not like this little subcommittee is actually going to do anything about czars.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Wow is all I have to say, typical for this White House who has ate evry step go around the US Consititution. The Funny thing is this the White House and the Democrat might have biting off more then they can chew with dishing Sen. Collins she is one of the few Moderate Republicans that might vote with the Deocrates on the Health Issue but I don't see this happen now as amtter of fact I can see Suan going after the Deocrats hard. Knowing Susan the way i do I can tell you this I'm 97% SURE SHE IS PISSED AND WHEN SHE IS PISSED WATCH OUT. aSK ANY ONE FROM MAINE.
Click to expand...

Scorp it's obvious by now that you haven't bothered to even read the constitution since you still think that the house and senate confirm presidentially appointed officers. I suggest you reread Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution again. The constitution makes it very clear that the power to the president to appoint inferior officers lies with the president alone.
 
tumbleweed said:
If they did I don't recall it being at the fevered pitch we are now hearing from Republicans.
Click to expand...

Yet there is no fevered pitch from Republicans and much of the concern is coming from fellow Democrats.

tumbleweed said:
Although I voted for Obama and still support most of his agenda I was never under the impression he would deliver on all his campaign pledges. Granted Obama did spin a certain amount of BS into his campaign, that's to be expected. I've yet to see anyone who campaigned for president deliver as advertised on all their talking points used to sway voters. By that measure I'll agree that there wasn't much change.

Everyone has their own perception on what they expected from Obama but I'm still confident that when the smoke clears from the tough choices he had to make from day one his "change" will show he made the right choices.
Click to expand...

I always wondered how someone as naive and inexperienced as Obama could get elected.

The above is a testimony of how uninformed Liberal Democrats with the economic knowledge of a lemming get elected to political office and mess the US economy up with their misguided "feel-good" partisan policies.

By the way, I am taking bets that by the time the smoke clears from this economic disaster of an Administration; most will be scratching their heads wondering how they could have been so gullible as to elect this economic derelict to high office.
 
Redress said:
DING DING DING! We have a winner. Some on the right have to bitch about every possible imaginable thing. Logic, history, reality, those things do not matter to these people, they just want to throw a fit.
Click to expand...

This post reeks of irony. But don't take my word for it, look at the FACTS:

But none has embraced the concept, presidential scholars say, to the extent that Obama has.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example.

President Obama's czar system concerns some - Los Angeles Times

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin joined the anti-czar chorus Wednesday, asking Obama to detail the roles and responsibilities of all of the czars in his administration and to explain why he believes the use of czars is consistent with the Senate’s constitutional power to offer advice and consent on top-level executive branch officials.

“To the extent that this undercuts that role and people are put in the place of Cabinet people and really are the key authorities and you can’t question them, that’s something worth talking about,” Feingold said. “I think it’s a fair point.”

White House Blog: Of 32 “Czars” On Beck?s List, Only Nine Confirmed By Senate

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in an interview Wednesday that there needs to be better Senate oversight, although she was quick to add that some czar critics have incorrectly labeled a number of Senate-confirmed administration officials as White House czars.

Feinstein said she thinks it’s a “problem” when the White House appoints someone to a czar position that is not clearly defined. “I don’t know what a car czar does, for example,” she said.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) also noted Wednesday that other presidents have made use of czars, but he said that there may be a limit to what they should be allowed to do. “My expectation would be that if you have people with line responsibility, you need to have confirmation,” he said.
 
disneydude said:
Czars are simply advisors.....no power to do anything other than advise.

I was MUCH more concerned with the unprecedented number of "signing statements" that our last President used, which in actuality was a much more dangerous usurption of power.

Funny.....don't remember you expressing any concern about that.....right deflector?
Click to expand...

When did the topic become my concerns over Bush signing statements? :doh
 
F107HyperSabr said:
If the Obama administration was the first president to use czars I would be concerned. Czars have been used since at least Reagan and maybe before. This is nothing more than Republican partisan flapping of the political gums today just as it was the Democrats flapping theirs a fews years ago. !!!
Click to expand...

I'm probably way too late to contribute to this thread, but I found this list of czars from previously presidents on Wikipedia while researching something completely different and thought it would be interesting.

I had never heard of a czar being used in any presidency since JFK; in fact, the first time I heard the term applied to any U.S. presidential administration was during the current one. So, you can imagine my surprise to find that not only did G.W. Bush use czars, he had the most - 46 - compared to President Obama's 35 while Clinton had 10. FDR used 19 czars while all other presidents between FDR and Clinton used between 0 to 6 czars.

In eight years, the only czar I'd heard of under GWB was his Communications Czar, Dan Bartlett, but I never heard the term "czar" applied to him (either than or I just wasn't pay attention). But of President Obama's czars, I've heard of Van Jones (Green Jobs), Richard Holbrooke (AfPak), Ron Bloom (car/manufacturing), Herbert Allison (bank bailout/TARP), Kenneth Feinberg (pay/compensation) and Paul Volcker (economics), all within the first 10 months of his presidency.

Again, maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention way back then, but dang!!!! Either I was way out of touch back then or else the Conservatives have been hitting hard at President Obama's aids/advisors.

Truth Detector said:
....and the unprecedented number being appointed by Obama.
Click to expand...

GWB = 46; BHO = 35

I'd hardly call the president having 11 fewer czars than his predecessor "unprecedented" especially considering that GWB had the most czars in his administration since FDR.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I'm probably way too late to contribute to this thread, but I found this list of czars from previously presidents on Wikipedia while researching something completely different and thought it would be interesting.

I had never heard of a czar being used in any presidency since JFK; in fact, the first time I heard the term applied to any U.S. presidential administration was during the current one. So, you can imagine my surprise to find that not only did G.W. Bush use czars, he had the most - 46 - compared to President Obama's 35 while Clinton had 10. FDR used 19 czars while all other presidents between FDR and Clinton used between 0 to 6 czars.

In eight years, the only czar I'd heard of under GWB was his Communications Czar, Dan Bartlett, but I never heard the term "czar" applied to him (either than or I just wasn't pay attention). But of President Obama's czars, I've heard of Van Jones (Green Jobs), Richard Holbrooke (AfPak), Ron Bloom (car/manufacturing), Herbert Allison (bank bailout/TARP), Kenneth Feinberg (pay/compensation) and Paul Volcker (economics), all within the first 10 months of his presidency.

Again, maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention way back then, but dang!!!! Either I was way out of touch back then or else the Conservatives have been hitting hard at President Obama's aids/advisors.



GWB = 46; BHO = 35

I'd hardly call the president having 11 fewer czars than his predecessor "unprecedented" especially considering that GWB had the most czars in his administration since FDR.
Click to expand...

Another thing is that there is no actual definition of what makes someone a czar. The media uses the term for certain appointed positions, but its subjective.
 
Do you remember a Bush Czar determining the pay of any American employed in private industry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom