PDA

View Full Version : Free Czar Not So Free



M&K's Retrievers
09-12-2010, 01:48 PM
Pro Bono Pay Czar not free afterall. Can't help but wonder what else this administration has mislead the country about.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=201961

Gerry Clinchy
09-12-2010, 02:06 PM
About these czars ... the same website presents this list
Richard Holbrooke, Afghanistan czar
Jeffrey Crowley, AIDS czar
Ed Montgomery, auto recovery czar
Alan Bersin, border czar
David J. Hayes, California water czar
Ron Bloom, car czar
Dennis Ross, central region czar
Todd Stern, climate czar
Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence czar
Gil Kerlikowske, drug czar
Paul Volcker, economic czar
Carol Browner, energy and environment czar
Joshua DuBois, faith-based czar
Jeffrey Zients, government performance czar
Cameron Davis, Great Lakes czar
Van Jones, green jobs czar
Daniel Fried, Guantanamo closure czar
Nancy-Ann DeParle, health czar
Vivek Kundra, information czar
Dennis Blair, intelligence czar
George Mitchell, Mideast peace czar
Kenneth R. Feinberg, pay czar
Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar
John Holdren, science czar
Earl Devaney, stimulus accountability czar
J. Scott Gration, Sudan czar
Herb Allison, TARP czar
Aneesh Chopra, technology czar
John Brennan, terrorism czar
Adolfa Carrion Jr., urban affairs czar
Ashton Carter, weapons czar
Gary Samore, WMD policy czar


We have all these govt agencies that we are paying already ... is there some reason we need all these "czars" to do what others are supposed to be doing?

Buzz
09-12-2010, 10:38 PM
On factcheck.org, this is part of the answer to the question - does Obama have an unprecedented number of czars?

Figures that Beck is involved...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/



It’s meaningless to ask a question about what "hiring czars" allows a president to do, because presidents don’t hire czars. "Czar" is a label bestowed by the media – and sometimes the administration – as a shorthand for the often-cumbersome titles of various presidential advisers, assistants, office directors, special envoys and deputy secretaries. (After all, what makes for a better headline – "weapons czar" or "undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics"?)

There’s been a certain fascination with calling Obama’s advisers and appointees "czars." Fox News host Glenn Beck has identified 32 Obama czars on his Web site, whom he has characterized as a collective "iceberg" threatening to capsize the Constitution. Beck and other television hosts aren’t the only ones crying czar, either. Six Republican senators recently sent a letter to the White House saying that the creation of czar posts "circumvents the constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent.’ " Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah issued a press release saying that czars "undermine the constitution." And Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote an opinion column in the Washington Post complaining about the czar menace, including the factually inaccurate claim that only "a few of them have formal titles."

The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the real heyday of the czar came during President George W. Bush’s administration. The appellation was so popular that several news organizations reported on the rise of the czar during the Bush years, including NPR, which ran a piece called "What’s With This Czar Talk?" and Politico, which published an article on the evolution of the term. The latter, written during the 2008 presidential campaign, points out that czars are "really nothing new. They’ve long been employed in one form or another to tackle some of the nation’s highest-profile problems." Politico quotes author and political appointments expert James Bovard saying that the subtext of "czar" has changed from insult to praise: "It’s a real landmark sign in political culture to see this change from an odious term to one of salvation.”

Now it’s turned odious again, with Republican senators calling czars unconstitutional and cable hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity characterizing them as shadowy under-the-table appointees used by Obama to dodge the usual approval processes. 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.)

In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.

M&K's Retrievers
09-13-2010, 12:26 AM
Earth to Buzz. Please read the OP again. The purpose of this thread has nothing to do with how many Czars Obama appointed but rather how many lies he/his administration has told.

david gibson
09-13-2010, 08:10 AM
Earth to Buzz. Please read the OP again. The purpose of this thread has nothing to do with how many Czars Obama appointed but rather how many lies he/his administration has told.

isnt that typical? buzz, yardley, and little yardley take every post they can and find some angle to spin it so they can defend it and turn the tables and blame bush.

i have to admire their creativity at times......not

YardleyLabs
09-13-2010, 09:33 AM
isnt that typical? buzz, yardley, and little yardley take every post they can and find some angle to spin it so they can defend it and turn the tables and blame bush.

i have to admire their creativity at times......not
Go back and read the original post and the story linked to it. You will note in the story that the individual in question is issued a paycheck every two weeks. He endorses it and returns it to the government as a contribution. At the end of the year, he receives a W-2 listing the full value of the paychecks received. He can claim the paychecks returned as a contribution, but does not receive full value on his return, thus paying income taxes on the amounts received. It sounds to me like he is not working for "free", he is paying for the privilege to work. I wonder why the author of the story chose not to report on whether or not the checks were actually returned. Could it be because they were? Of course, you and your own followers seem oblivious to the facts related to headlines anyway, so why bother pointing them out.

david gibson
09-13-2010, 09:46 AM
whether he gives the money back or flushes it down the toilet, he still got paid. unpaid means you get no check at all. why give a check and get it back? typical govt waste, all that payroll costs money to run.

and why would he pay taxes on money he doesnt keep? that makes zero sense. it he isnt getting paid, he makes no income, and shouldnt pay taxes on it. take in 100K, pay out 100K, no income ergo no income tax. can someone explain that?

something aint quite right here.

Buzz
09-13-2010, 10:01 AM
Earth to Buzz. Please read the OP again. The purpose of this thread has nothing to do with how many Czars Obama appointed but rather how many lies he/his administration has told.

Really? This wasn't in the article?


"This is yet another reason why more of these Obama czars should go through the Senate confirmation process, rather than being simply installed into power by Obama," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Fitton said Judicial Watch "shouldn't have to pepper the Obama administration with FOIA requests to know what these czars are doing and how much they're getting paid to do it."

"More information about Obama's czars should be part of the public record and be transparent to the American people," he said.


I was responding to that and to Gerry's list of czars.

This place is a completely useless waste of my time. See ya.

gman0046
09-13-2010, 11:17 AM
Where did you hear that Buzz in a strip club?

Buzz
09-13-2010, 11:24 AM
You're a real man, on the internet.

M&K's Retrievers
09-13-2010, 11:27 AM
Really? This wasn't in the article?




I was responding to that and to Gerry's list of czars.

This place is a completely useless waste of my time. See ya.

So sorry to have wasted your valuable time.:rolleyes: I thought you knew that being on POTUS was pretty much a waste of time and just something to do when you have time to waste.

ducknwork
09-13-2010, 12:31 PM
Where did you hear that Buzz in a strip club?

What purpose does it serve to be such a douche? I don't know what you are trying to accomplish, but what you are actually accomplishing is looking like an idiot.

gman0046
09-13-2010, 01:53 PM
Hey Buzz, real men don't go to strip clubs.

Gerry Clinchy
09-13-2010, 03:23 PM
He can claim the paychecks returned as a contribution, but does not receive full value on his return, thus paying income taxes on the amounts received. It sounds to me like he is not working for "free", he is paying for the privilege to work.

And this man is the watchdog on executive compensation? I'd say if he must take a salary, he should take $1 and cut his tax bill. No brainer?

Yes, I happened across the list of "czars". Don't care who started it (though I think it does go back beyond the Bush administration) ... isn't that 32 too many? If they are already govt employees, who are given a special "assignment", fine. If they are not already govt employees, why isn't there an existing govt employee capable of doing whatever the czar is supposed to do?

M&K's Retrievers
09-13-2010, 03:48 PM
And this man is the watchdog on executive compensation? I'd say if he must take a salary, he should take $1 and cut his tax bill. No brainer?

Yes, I happened across the list of "czars". Don't care who started it (though I think it does go back beyond the Bush administration) ... isn't that 32 too many? If they are already govt employees, who are given a special "assignment", fine. If they are not already govt employees, why isn't there an existing govt employee capable of doing whatever the czar is supposed to do?

Buzz is too busy.:rolleyes: