Skydiver article on BHO's 'czars'

[RonD1120 62]

John Cassady is a former Tampa Bay Area skydiver and a retired LTC from the USASF.

http://www.thecherokeescout.com/articles/2009/06/30/opinions/doc4a4a5d3d2cb93301490663.txt


Lenin proud of ‘czars’

Both Shirley Uphouse and W.R. “Mac” MacDiarmid were correct in their thoughtful concerns about President Barack Obama’s appointments of more than 20 highly paid insiders known as “czars.”

Questionable qualifications aside, these people are expensive and unnecessary to the proper functioning of our government. Their positions are, for the most part, powerful and unchecked. They create an unneeded layer of bureaucracy impeding both transparency and accountability.

Accountable only to Obama, the czars have significant free reign to impact major operations and spending of tax dollars.

Why didn’t the surgeon general address the public during the swine flu situation? Obama hadn’t appointed one. He was probably busy building an inner circle of crones resembling those found in old Chicago politics to deal with that cabinet appointment. His experiences in the Chicago cesspool of American politics, along with his ACORN connections, are his qualifications, the Constitution be damned.

In his short time as president, America has seen unprecedented government intrusion into business and industry. His “investment” means deficit spending unlike any imagined by even the least qualified economist.

Obama has weakened national security, foreign policy and defense while failing a sufficient or appropriate response to the “3 a.m. calls” of Gitmo, North Korea and Iran. America’s credibility and strength are being eroded under his watch. The president’s highway points to socialism. His direction for hope and change would make Vladimir Lenin proud.


John R. Cassady


Murphy

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[mnealtx 0]

Heh

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Heh

Good one!

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Questionable qualifications aside, these people are expensive and unnecessary to the proper functioning of our government. Their positions are, for the most part, powerful and unchecked. They create an unneeded layer of bureaucracy impeding both transparency and accountability.

So are they power, or inefficient bureaucracy? Can't be both, unless we're playing a game of buzzword bingo.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Questionable qualifications aside, these people are expensive and unnecessary to the proper functioning of our government. Their positions are, for the most part, powerful and unchecked. They create an unneeded layer of bureaucracy impeding both transparency and accountability.

So are they power, or inefficient bureaucracy? Can't be both, unless we're playing a game of buzzword bingo.

Hardly...power and bureaucracy can most certainly co-exist.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

"unneeded layer of bureaucracy"

OK - use this is a sentence where it doesn't mean inefficient, therefore, less powerful.

[nerdgirl 0]

Concur with the core lack of support for "czars."

"Czars" have limited accountability and can have limited transparency.
"Czars" create another layer of bureaucracy.
Historically, "czars" have not been especially effective, regardless of administration.

But they keep being used? Why?

The argument that I've encountered is typically that they enable a single coordination point to deal with a policy issue that spans multiple departments/agencies. And they're supposed to "have the ear of the President."

The biggest single problem with the “Czar” concept pragmatically is they have no real power, a point with which I disagree with the author of the Letter to the Editor. They don’t control budgets. They don't belong to a department, and the Executive Branch functions in departments and agencies. They oversee. (And almost noone likes oversight, whether 'friendly' or highly intrusive.) Seem like incredibly frustrating positions to me.

They “coordinate” across departments. And, in no way am I down-playing the critical importance of coordination, e.g., across the intelligence community, local law enforcement with FBI, NIH with DoD on development of medical countermeasures against biological agents, EPA with DHS and DoD on standards for decontamination in event of biological or chemical event.

If one doesn’t control a budget, it is very hard to make things happen especially if it’s not your department. Sometimes that’s not a bad thing tho’.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying