Exactly... There's a point where people forget that they're being ironic, and calling these technocrats "czars" is a great example. Another is the description of the Kennedy and Bush families as "dynasties".

Really? This is the silliest fear-mongering you've posted on this site yet. You're a writer, Amy, you should be embarrased to be spreading fear of a word like "czar," which has been used by administrations of both parties going back some 30+ years.

Great googely moogely.

Sorry, my bad. Use of the term "czar" goes all the way back to FDR. Dubyah appointed about 35 of them, about 3 fewer than Obama. Though it's worth noting these are imprecise numbers because the term is pretty much a colloquial nickname for a position, not an official title.

In other words, this is a sillier non-issue than the "Certificate of Live Birth" nonsense.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars?wasRedirected=true

This is neither "silly" nor a "non-issue". The appointment of all these "czars" is a reflection of how all recent presidents, and particularly the current one, get around the inconvenience of constitutionally-required Senate approval for those that head policy-making in the executive branch.

Those with cabinet-level positions require Senate approval and, through that, a public vetting process. In other words, the very transparency that Obama promised but hasn't delivered. So he, like his predecessors, names a few political cronies who are owed positions, for more ceremonial cabinet roles, while circumventing the entire concept of balance of power in appointing a separate group of apparatchiks to help him make the policy, without any oversight.

If the courts had been doing their jobs, this whole system of unconfirmed, unaccountable policy makers within the executive branch would have been thrown out a long time ago.

> You're a writer, Amy, you should be
> embarrased to be spreading fear of
> a word like "czar,"

Writers might be expected to be sensitive to escalating abuses of language, as this most surely is. And this undoubtedly is an escalation.

Of the political error, I mean, not the language. Look, I just woke up, and I get pissed off when people use Zappa jokes out of context.

Franko's wrong.

So I finally read the thing. Favorite line, re Dubya:

> I believe he was a man who cared deeply
> for his nation, while his successor cares
> more about fundamentally changing this
> nation than protecting it.

Besides, Franko- Some of us were plenty harsh on Bush for his errors of this sort as well (e.g. "Homeland Security"). Conservatives are often tin-eared at marketing, but Obama's love of the concept of the Czar feels authentic.

(nor of the related "signing statements" by the president)

Those "signing statements" are another area where President Bush's behavior appears less bad in hindsight: President Obama maintains the reservations that signing statements are used to describe, but his administration no longer tells anybody what they are. At least a signing statement tells us up front what a President thinks about the constitutionality of certain provisions of a law.

The Executive branch has clearly evolved into something that was never intended by the founding fathers, the Legislative and Judicial branch have been asleep at the wheel concerning said encroachment.

"...do not have to be voted in - or out - by the American people and are accountable to no one but the president."

Van Jones might disagree. He got the ax after the blogs latched onto a few of his crazy remarks.

A Congress with any sense would refuse to fund these extralegal positions.

cpa: Very few of the "czars" are cabinet-level positions, if you look at the list.

Those that are, like the defunct "energy czar" for head of DoE... are subject to Congressional approval.

The idea that the President should need the Senate to approve an "advisor to the EPA administrator" on Great Lakes policy, "because someone called him a czar" is itself extraconstitutional.

Congress isn't "letting the President grab too much power" here - they're very well aware that most of the "czars" are not powerful - and those that are, they can rein in any time they feel like it by passing a law requiring that the "czar" be approved. (See Article II, Section II.)

Siggy, have you met Raddy? You twoo guy should grab a beer sometime.