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

Scorpion89 · Sep 25, 2009

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

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.

tumbleweed · Sep 25, 2009

Good for the Democrats. If the Republicans were truly concerned about these advisers they didn't voice their opposition when their party was in power.

I wasn't concerned when the Republicans used special advisers to the president, just as I'm not concerned now. I feel they enhance the presidents decision making process.

Zyphlin · Sep 25, 2009

tumbleweed said:
Good for the Democrats. If the Republicans were truly concerned about these advisers they didn't voice their opposition when their party was in power.

I wasn't concerned when the Republicans used special advisers to the president, just as I'm not concerned now. I feel they enhance the presidents decision making process.

Actually, many democrats DID voice concerns when Bush was in office, even if you didn't.

I have a hard time getting worked up about this stuff. I don't trust either side that they're working in the best interest of the people, because the same people bitching about it now were supporting it just a few years ago, and vise versa. Its all "politics as usual".

If there's one thing that is obvious though.

There's no "Change"...not in the lofty way Obama bull****ted to everyone during the campaign.

Truth Detector · Sep 25, 2009

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

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.

This adminstration and Congress is so transparent, you can see right through them! :rofl

Truth Detector · Sep 25, 2009

Zyphlin said:
There's no "Change"...not in the lofty way Obama bull****ted to everyone during the campaign.

I disagree with this statement; there has been a TON of change since Obama and the Democrats took over.

We are now in a $1.6 trillion deficit with more coming.

We have an additional $2 trillion in debt to pay back.

Unemployment has reached rates that have not been seen since the Carter years and will perhaps exceed them.

Soon, with the force of a filibuster proof majority, we may see the first Government grab of 1/4 of our economy which will bury the American taxpayer in another $2 trillion of debt/deficits.

AND, last but never least, we are now seeing a debate to justify the pullout and lack of support for the war Democrats claimed was the RIGHT/Just war.

There has been a LOT of change; it just isn't the change many gullible Americans who swallowed the swill of the mainstream media desperate to get this "post turtle" elected thought they would get.

I can't wait for the transparent and honest debates about who is going to pay for all this spending; but we will have to wait until after the 2010 midterms because this new more honest, fiscally responsible and transparent Administration/Legislature wants to postpone that debate for purely partisan political purposes.

:doh

F107HyperSabr · Sep 25, 2009

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. !!!

Erod · Sep 25, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I disagree with this statement; there has been a TON of change since Obama and the Democrats took over.

We are now in a $1.6 trillion deficit with more coming.

We have an additional $2 trillion in debt to pay back.

Unemployment has reached rates that have not been seen since the Carter years and will perhaps exceed them.

Soon, with the force of a filibuster proof majority, we may see the first Government grab of 1/4 of our economy which will bury the American taxpayer in another $2 trillion of debt/deficits.

AND, last but never least, we are now seeing a debate to justify the pullout and lack of support for the war Democrats claimed was the RIGHT/Just war.

There has been a LOT of change; it just isn't the change many gullible Americans who swallowed the swill of the mainstream media desperate to get this "post turtle" elected thought they would get.

I can't wait for the transparent and honest debates about who is going to pay for all this spending; but we will have to wait until after the 2010 midterms because this new more honest, fiscally responsible and transparent Administration/Legislature wants to postpone that debate for purely partisan political purposes.

:doh

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.

FlanaganReport · Sep 25, 2009

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. !!!

I do not think that most people would have a problem with the concept of a "czar" (outside of some certainly) given that they go back for years in both parties. I think the controversy surrounding the Obama "czars" comes mostly from the radical views some of these people hold and the question of do we want people, who are openly communist, or who believe trees should standing in court, or that forced abortions could be a good thing, to be in the White House advising the President.

Take away those controversies and I think the outrage over "czars" would be minimal.

FlanaganReport · Sep 25, 2009

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.

What do you mean when you say "Iran has gone nuclear?"

Truth Detector · Sep 25, 2009

FlanaganReport said:
I do not think that most people would have a problem with the concept of a "czar" (outside of some certainly) given that they go back for years in both parties. I think the controversy surrounding the Obama "czars" comes mostly from the radical views some of these people hold and the question of do we want people, who are openly communist, or who believe trees should standing in court, or that forced abortions could be a good thing, to be in the White House advising the President.

Take away those controversies and I think the outrage over "czars" would be minimal.

....and the unprecedented number being appointed by Obama.

Scorpion89 · Sep 25, 2009

Hmmm I think some of your are missing a very big point on who put this rider onto the bill, it would be one thing if it was someone like Rep. Wilson who is a very Conserv. republic but no this was one of the very Moderate Republicans Susan Collins who also happens to be one of those republicans that the White House was hoping to help with the Health Care Bill. Unstead they have gone and made an enemy of her which iosn't a good thing for the Democrat or this White Hoiuse to do. I can tell you this the way Susan Collins goes so does Sen. Snow and allot of the other Moderate Repulicans. Not smart of this White House.

Redress · Sep 25, 2009

Czar's have never bothered me, and still don't. I find the selective outrage of some on the subject to be amusing.

Black Dog · Sep 25, 2009

I don't understand what difference it will make either way? It will not stop anyone from being put in the position, and the money will still be spent.

Republicans need to stop waisting time with every little thing the president does right or wrong. Pick your battles wisely.

Scorpion89 · Sep 25, 2009

Here the thing was rep Collins rider would have only stop any new Czars from being appointed and would require all Czars to appear before her and the Sen. Committie every quater to give an update on what they are doing and how they are spending our Tax Dollars. Also they would have to come in and be question just like all other Presidental Advisor.

I think some of you don't understand what is going on. This is Rep. Collins you know one of the 12 who are called on when things need to be work out. Now the White House and Democratic Leadership have basically said FU Susan not smart at all.

tumbleweed · Sep 25, 2009

Zyphlin said:
Actually, many democrats DID voice concerns when Bush was in office, even if you didn't.

If they did I don't recall it being at the fevered pitch we are now hearing from Republicans.

I have a hard time getting worked up about this stuff. I don't trust either side that they're working in the best interest of the people, because the same people bitching about it now were supporting it just a few years ago, and vise versa. Its all "politics as usual".

I'm not worked up about it other than the hypocrisy of just demonizing one side of the aisle where the appointments are concerned.

There's no "Change"...not in the lofty way Obama bull****ted to everyone during the campaign.

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.

formerroadie · Sep 25, 2009

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. !!!

Actually, since Nixon.

jackalope · Sep 25, 2009

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

That is not a true statement, Truth. Not only is the number of Obama 'czar' appts not unprecedented, but Bush had more 'czar' appts.

Q: Does Obama have an unprecedented number of "czars"?

A: "Czar" is media lingo, not an official title. But our research shows that George Bush’s administration had more "czars" than the Obama administration.

In fact, of the 32 czars Beck lists:

* Nine were confirmed by the Senate, including the director of national intelligence ("intelligence czar"), the chief performance officer ("government performance czar") and the deputy interior secretary ("California water czar").
* Eight more were not appointed by the president – the special advisor to the EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan ("Great Lakes czar") is EPA-appointed, for instance, and the assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs ("border czar") is appointed by the secretary of homeland security.
* Fifteen of the "czarships" Beck lists, including seven that are in neither of the above categories, were created by previous administrations. (In some cases, as with the "economic czar," the actual title – in this case, chairman of the president’s economic recovery advisory board – is new, but there has been an official overseeing the area in past administrations. In others, as with the special envoy to Sudan, the position is old but the "czar" appellation is new.)
* n all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.

(snip ... )

As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress.

Czar Search | FactCheck.org

jackalope · Sep 25, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
Here the thing was rep Collins rider would have only stop any new Czars from being appointed and would require all Czars to appear before her and the Sen. Committie every quater to give an update on what they are doing and how they are spending our Tax Dollars. Also they would have to come in and be question just like all other Presidental Advisor.

I think some of you don't understand what is going on. This is Rep. Collins you know one of the 12 who are called on when things need to be work out. Now the White House and Democratic Leadership have basically said FU Susan not smart at all.

Maybe they will go back to the drawing board and work up something with different wording, perhaps more narrow, that will address transparency and/or oversight issues.

Scorpion89 · Sep 25, 2009

jackalope said:
That is not a true statement, Truth. Not only is the number of Obama 'czar' appts not unprecedented, but Bush had more 'czar' appts.

Who care how many who had the point of this OP was that the White House killed the Bill that Susan put the rider on. Which is a big mistake since she is one of the gang of 12.

Come on Jack your from Maine you know how both Susan and Olympia are the White House blew this one big time.

jackalope · Sep 25, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
Who care how many who had the point of this OP was that the White House killed the Bill that Susan put the rider on. Which is a big mistake since she is one of the gang of 12.

Come on Jack your from Maine you know how both Susan and Olympia are the White House blew this one big time.

I was just addressing the factual error. I just made another post about the amendment.

I think something will be done to address the oversight issue. I think Susan's got an ally in Wisconsin Sen Feingold. He's been making news talking about it too.

I wonder if the wording or scope of the proposed amendment was too broad, perhaps?

Scorpion89 · Sep 25, 2009

jackalope said:
I was just addressing the factual error. I just made another post about the amendment.

I think something will be done to address the oversight issue. I think Susan's got an ally in Wisconsin Sen Feingold. He's been making news talking about it too.

I wonder if the wording or scope of the proposed amendment was too broad, perhaps?

Not really I read it and it was rather to the point, I think the White House doesn't want to answer to Congress on this subject. While in the past the Czars have gone with out much to do because they have been rather safe choice but you have to admit some of the folks that Mr. Obama has put in place should have never been given any Govn. Job and most of them would never have passed a Sub-Committee review and full vote in Congress.

jackalope · Sep 25, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
Not really I read it and it was rather to the point, I think the White House doesn't want to answer to Congress on this subject. While in the past the Czars have gone with out much to do because they have been rather safe choice but you have to admit some of the folks that Mr. Obama has put in place should have never been given any Govn. Job and most of them would never have passed a Sub-Committee review and full vote in Congress.

I don't know. On the one hand, the executive branch has the right to appt Special Assistants (isn't that what most of these 'czars' are?) and other staffing, but on the other hand if they are truly holding cabinet-level-type positions, then the Senate does have the right to some oversight.

The lack of oversight during the last administration stuck in my craw, but I think the coverage about all these 'czars' is over the top, and not necessarily addressing the point of relevant oversight.

I think they should do something, but I don't necessarily know if Susan's amendment was right. I guess I should read more about it.

tumbleweed · Sep 25, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
Here the thing was rep Collins rider would have only stop any new Czars from being appointed and would require all Czars to appear before her and the Sen. Committie every quater to give an update on what they are doing and how they are spending our Tax Dollars. Also they would have to come in and be question just like all other Presidental Advisor.

This sounds more like an opportunity for a witch hunt to me.

I think some of you don't understand what is going on. This is Rep. Collins you know one of the 12 who are called on when things need to be work out. Now the White House and Democratic Leadership have basically said FU Susan not smart at all.

I don't recall her being this concerned about Bush appointments. Despite claims that she is a RINO, it's proposals like this that makes it quite obvious why she is indeed a Republican who can be as partisan as any other politician when it happens to be convenient.

REO SpeedDealer · Sep 25, 2009

FlanaganReport said:
I think the controversy surrounding the Obama "czars" comes mostly from the radical views some of these people hold and the question of do we want people, who are openly communist, or who believe trees should standing in court, or that forced abortions could be a good thing, to be in the White House advising the President.

You might have a point....if any of this were true. Given that none of it is; welcome to the Hall of Fail.:mrgreen:

REO SpeedDealer · Sep 25, 2009

jackalope said:
I don't know. On the one hand, the executive branch has the right to appt Special Assistants (isn't that what most of these 'czars' are?) and other staffing, but on the other hand if they are truly holding cabinet-level-type positions, then the Senate does have the right to some oversight.

The lack of oversight during the last administration stuck in my craw, but I think the coverage about all these 'czars' is over the top, and not necessarily addressing the point of relevant oversight.

I think they should do something, but I don't necessarily know if Susan's amendment was right. I guess I should read more about it.

This is entirely about Susan Collins trying to gain some traction with the wingnut base. Nothing more...nothing less.

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

Scorpion89

tumbleweed

Active member

Zyphlin

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

F107HyperSabr

Erod

FlanaganReport

Member

FlanaganReport

Member

Truth Detector

Scorpion89

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

Scorpion89

tumbleweed

Active member

formerroadie

jackalope

jackalope

Scorpion89

jackalope

Scorpion89

jackalope

tumbleweed

Active member

REO SpeedDealer

Member

REO SpeedDealer

Member