Czars...

[Tahoe]

Yes Mxy, your use of things like "history", "logic", "evidence" and "criteria" mean nothing. All pale in comparison to "shit I've seen on TV."

All of which were cited by Dems and Repubs on TV.

But carry on with your defense of the defenseless.

[Tahoe]

And when y'all get time, I'd like to see you defend the white house' counting of jobs created/saved. Hilarious.

[Uncle Mxy]

From what I read, Craig was fired cuz he didn't carry out the "I'm going to close GITMO in one year" pledge. If not, I stand corrected.

He's in trouble, but still has the job.

Anyway, Mxy, I'm going with Dems and Repubs and the interviews I've seen on this. You can write these posts but setting policy, negotiating policy in this country is to be done by peeps that were confimed/aproved whatever you want to call it by the Senate.

I'm writing posts because I think y'all are confused. I don't give a fuck what the pundit or politico class says... it's fundamentally a matter of law.

Lots of people determine policy. 99.9% of them are appointed or hired. The Senate only votes on a very few people who adjucate parts of policy, and a lot of their overall authority to impose policy comes not from any particular Cabinet position, but from the President. Why? 'cause that's what the laws say. Note that Cabinet members aren't in anyone's critical path, which is how departments operate even when it takes the Senate months to confirm someone. A lot of effective government operates in _spite_ of who happens to be on top this week.

Its amazing the lengths peeps will go to defend this guy.

I'm defending the ability of a President to appoint "czars". I don't think I ever opposed Bush's ability to do the same. (I probably opposed most of Bush's specific choices, but that's not the same thing.)

[Tahoe]

He's in trouble, but still has the job.

gotcha


I'm writing posts because I think y'all are confused. I don't give a fuck what the pundit or politico class says... it's fundamentally a matter of law.

Y'all??? I'm one lone voice in this sea of liberalism. I don't consider Snowe or Feingold, Byrd to be far right peeps or pundits and I agree with them. I think it was Feingold, btw.

Lots of people determine policy. 99.9% of them are appointed or hired. The Senate only votes on a very few people who adjucate parts of policy, and a lot of their overall authority to impose policy comes not from any particular Cabinet position, but from the President. Why? 'cause that's what the laws say. Note that Cabinet members aren't in anyone's critical path, which is how departments operate even when it takes the Senate months to confirm someone. A lot of effective government operates in _spite_ of who happens to be on top this week.


I'm defending the ability of a President to appoint "czars". I don't think I ever opposed Bush's ability to do the same. (I probably opposed most of Bush's specific choices, but that's not the same thing.)

We agree. I don't have problems with Czars either, just when they are taking the responsibilities of peeps that have been aproved by the Senate.

[Uncle Mxy]

Most of the Cabinet peeps that have been approved by the Senate have no real responsibilities. It's different when you're talking foreign service folks, judges, the financial "fourth branch", etc., but the President's executive team is as powerful or powerless as the President wants them to be. That's been well established for a couple centuries now. If the Senate really wants things to be different here, then they should work with the House to refine the laws.

[Tahoe]

Look Carol Browner (?) negotiated with the Auto Industry the emissions standards instead of the Senate confirmed head of the EPA. Y'all can keep you head in the sand all you want though.

It wasn't anyone but the Messiah that ran on the pledge of 'transparency' and 'increased accountablility'. So when Senators ask for a couple of his Czars to come before a hearing explaining their roles in the admin and the Admin doesn't do it, it shows his complete arrogance.

[Uncle Mxy]

Look Carol Browner (?) negotiated with the Auto Industry the emissions standards instead of the Senate confirmed head of the EPA. Y'all can keep you head in the sand all you want though.

She coordinated between the EPA, Department of Energy, Transportation, and Interior (involving regulations at loggerheads with each other) so that negotiations between California and the auto makers (which started before Obama was elected) could come to completion. No one Department owned the issues... air is EPA, gas is DOE, autos are DOT, etc. -- exactly the kind of situation that led Obama to appoint a "Climate Czar". Subsequently, the fed modeled federal guidelines after the California ones, but reportedly that had to do with sidestepping the 13 other states trying to poke at the auto makers, not with Browner.

I'm not saying that this notion of "czars" is necessarily a good thing. I'm saying that it's a legal thing. They've been around in various forms since the dawn of our nation.

It wasn't anyone but the Messiah that ran on the pledge of 'transparency' and 'increased accountablility'. So when Senators ask for a couple of his Czars to come before a hearing explaining their roles in the admin and the Admin doesn't do it, it shows his complete arrogance.

After 200 years, you'd think Congress would either do something or not. Hearings? Bah. If they perceive they can fix some structural problem, by all means fix it. Shit or get off the pot.