One in Three "Obama Czars" Has Congressional Approval

by Emily Gertz

categories: Media, Politics, Popcult, Security Theatre

Published September 13, 2009 @ 10:43AM PT

In the wake of Van Jones' departure from his White House green jobs role, some critics of the Obama administration are conflating their objections to Jones with other avowed worries -- such at the supposedly excessive number of appointees in the Obama administration who are not subject to Congressional oversight.

But a little digging into the facts reveals that there's much less to this "czar crisis" than these reports would have us believe.

There are three dozen or so advisors and appointees being singled out by commentators on Fox News (as documented here by Media Matters), as well as CNN's Lou Dobbs and punditocracy figures like conservative blogger Ilya Somin, as evidence of Obama administration intent to grab extra-Constitutional powers for the executive branch, and evade Congressional oversight.

[[Data point: Dobbs has proven himself susceptible to being spun by misinformation on global warming in the recent past.]]

Lately on the SGW comment boards these "czars" are inflaming a lot of debate. Let's unpack the two essential falsehoods in this supposed controversy -- one overt and one more subtle.

First, the fears:

Change.org member Kevin M. started an action calling for overthrow of "Obama's czars," and posted in the comments:

I don't care what color of skin you have or what party you are from but when [you break] the United States Constitution you should be punished. i don't think he is going take over the world as you people may think that i think ... I'm talk[ing] about the Czar's because they didn't go through congress....

Next: the subtle lie debunked, after the jump.

Change.org member Barbara M. shed light on why "czar" has become a dirty word lately to some TV newsers:

These people are no "czars", as you like to put it; they are heads of departments, some of which were set up in earlier administrations. The term "czar" was also used in earlier administrations.

To me the word "czar" has negative connotations, as the term means a 'tyrant' or 'autocrat', and it is not fair for these heads to be called by that term, not even by our president, and certainly not used by our government, since it is not generally equated with a democracy. I think what has happened, though, is that the word has somehow gotten connected with the top official of each department.

What you are attempting to do, however, is demonize all these departments, and what they stand for, as well as the heads. Attaching pre-judgements is what extremists tend to do.

In essence, the term "czar," (the title of the monarchs of pre-revolutionary Russia, some of whom were indeed despots) is being employed beyond the point of a handy metaphor, to inflame fear and uncertainty about the supposed totalitarian ambitions of President Obama. [[Which is it, people -- socialst or monarchist?? Make up your minds.]]

But "czar" has been used as both reporting and inside-the-beltway shorthand for years. (See for example, "Nixon's Decisive New Energy Czar," Time Magazine, Dec. 10, 1973.) A one-syllable word saves a lot of column inches, or precious seconds on the floor of the House or Senate, over saying "Department of the Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability." And given that the last czar was deposed in 1917, it's a decently decontextualized linguistic stand-in for "person who runs things." Until recently, that is.

The overt lie being promoted is that all of these administration figures are not subject to Congressional oversight. In fact, of the 30 or so men and women being singled out by Fox Newsers and other personalities, fully one third are in positions that were either confirmed by Congress, or created by Congress via statute:

R. Gil Kerlikowske "was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He was sworn in on May 7, 2009, as the Nation's sixth "Drug Czar." (cite)

Dennis Blair: "The Senate confirmed by unanimous consent retired Adm. Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence" on Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2009. (cite)

Cass Sunstein, an administration official targeted by Fox Newser Glenn Beck for ouster: "The U.S. Senate voted yesterday [Sept. 10, 2009] to confirm Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein '78 as administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget." (cite and cite)

John Holdren: "The Senate on Thursday [March 19, 2009] confirmed an expert on global climate change as ...the president's science adviser as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He has advocated sharp government action on climate change policy and is a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest science organization." (cite)

Herbert Allison "was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 19, 2009 to serve as the Department of the Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability." (cite)

Ashton Carter, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics: "Carter's nomination was approved on a voice vote by the Senate late Thursday [April 23, 2009], said a spokeswoman for the Senate Armed Services Committee, which held his confirmation hearing." (cite)

Aneesh Chopra: "May 22, 2009: The Senate has confirmed Aneesh Chopra as federal chief technology officer and an associate director for the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, today's Congressional Record notes...Chopra was confirmed May 21 by unanimous consent." (cite)

David J. Hayes: "The Senate confirmed David J. Hayes as a top Interior Department deputy last night [Weds., May 20, 2009] as two Republican senators ended a standoff with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that had held up Hayes's nomination. Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)... were unhappy that Salazar had canceled oil and gas leases in Utah. Salazar said yesterday that Hayes would review those leases once in office." (cite)

Hayes was subsequently named by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as both the department and the administration's lead on coordinating federal response to California's water supply problems. (cite)

Vivek Kundra's position as Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government and Information Technology, was established in the E-Government Act of 2002, passed by the 107th Congress on Nov. 15, 2002 (cite) and signed by President George Bush on Dec. 17, 2002. (cite and cite)

Earl Devaney's role as chairperson of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board was created undewr the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (cite), which was passed by Congress and signed by the president in Feb. 2009. (cite)

In sum, Congress has much more say over more of the roles being singled out for fear-mongering than the reporting has let on.

Also, many of these positions have antecedents in earlier administrations. So it's worth asking how consistent some people's objections to these leadership roles have been during past presidencies.

Does this mean that the Obama administration is above critique? Of course not -- every White House needs to be watchdogged. But that scrutiny is useless unless it's honest, and the reporting accurate.

In the case of the "czar controversy," if these TV newsers were doctors treating ill patients -- and not just talking heads on cable channels -- their record for reportorial accuracy would be equivalent to a one in three death rate.

----
Image: Detail from This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow