Will there be a Congressional review of Obama administration czars?
Michelle Malkin asks the question. This seems to be one of those discussions where almost all Republicans and a quite a few Democrats can agree on. The Executive branch power extension is ticking off some in the Legislative branch. Will Obama hold the line, close some czar offices, or try to grab more power?
Remember all the czars? Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit notes legislation by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) introduced on Jan. 5 (H.R. 59) would “define advisors often characterized as Czars and to provide that appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries and expenses associated with such advisors”. The full text of the legislation is not yet available, and I’m not sure it will go anywhere, but I really do think it would be a good idea for the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches to clearly define the “power” positions in the Executive Branch.
President Obama seems to have come up with an official department of well – everything – during the first year of his administration. The power grab was real, and the former Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) complained about it. Previous administrations including Bush 43 expanded the reach of the Executive Branch as well, but not to the extent of Obama. (Bush had about 32 compared to Obama’s 39 and Clinton’s eight.)
A Malkin post from 2009 has some background, and her book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, highlights the shenanigans of some of the Obama czars.
It’s time for the rest of the Democrat minority to “reach across the aisle” and rein in out-of-control bureaucrats’ power with a “new spirit of cooperation.”
We’ll see Michelle, we’ll see…
The only time there will be screaming about the czars is if a Republican president is elected and repeats Øbama's actions.
What are you implying Dims? A double standard?
Not to get too far off topic but a perfect example is this.
Last night, Glenn Beck also wondered why the media was not asking Obama to explain like they did to GWB when gas went over $3.00 per gallon.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.
$3 gas was a good opportunity to snipe at Bush, but liberals love higher gas prices because that means more tax revenue!
Headline is perfect. I say get rid of every Czar and their staffs pronto. Quoting Michelle Malkin, double points, I have not disagreed with anything she says or writes, yet. But, to make fun of my favorite show, Dancing with the Stars, that is too cruel. I know I kid around a lot, but that is my guilty pleasure. Could you try a satiric poster about Russia, that would work better for the Czars. Sorry, I can't think of anything, but maybe Tim could.
There is certainly truth in that JollyRoger but it was that same liberal media that was demanding answers and solutions for the price rise from GWB.
The only reason that liberals like higher gasoline prices is that it makes people look at other , more green modes of transportation, ie passengerr rail. Higher prices on fuel would decrease tax revenues since we are still taxing per gallon.
If prices rise, people drive less, use less fuel and pay fewer taxes.
If prices rise, people drive less, use less fuel, pay fewer taxes AND fewer $'s are transferred overseas.