It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Misplaced Fears About The "Czars"

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 
Ayers and Jeff Jones have no formal titles in the administration. But, their "Apollo Group" DID write the stimulus package! Their ACORN leadership was to get billions in funding from the stimulus. Jones even described it BEFORE Obama was elected.

Every other person named IS (or was, in the case of Van Jones) an official in the administration.

Your statement that "most are not czars," is flat-out false. Even worse, ALL have had significant influence on official policy.

Deny ignorance.

jw




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Sestias
 
Ayers and Jeff Jones have no formal titles in the administration. But, their "Apollo Group" DID write the stimulus package! Their ACORN leadership was to get billions in funding from the stimulus. Jones even described it BEFORE Obama was elected.

Every other person named IS (or was, in the case of Van Jones) an official in the administration.


My understanding is:

The first stimulus package, under George Bush, was basically written by the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and the Congressional Budget Office, among other contributors. The package was passed by Congress.

The second stimulus package, under Barack Obama, was basically written by the Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and the Congressional Budget Office, among others. The package was passed by Congress.

To my knowledge Bill Ayres and/or the "Apollo Group" had no hand in writing either one.



Your statement that "most are not czars," is flat-out false. Even worse, ALL have had significant influence on official policy.


Sigh. You're not the first one to misunderstand me on this thread. I DIDN'T say "most are not czars." I said most of Obama's "czars" do not need Senate confirmation because they have no OFFICIAL authority or power.

Of course they can advocate for their positions, and of course they advise the president. But there is nothing sinister about presidential advisors. All presidents have had them.

I recommend people re-read the source in my OP.

Deny ignorance.



[edit on 21-9-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What kind of power? They have no power. They're just advisers. They don't make policy decisions. They have the president's ear, that's it.


Except, they are more than that. They are a reflection of Obama, himself.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama told audiences, 'Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.'

So, the President has given us his own evaluation of the "czars."
They are his proxies!

jw



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Sorry to say this to you , but nothing in congress is written or proposed without the hand of interest lobbyist lawyers dipping in it.

Sadly that is the state of affairs in our government and has been for a very long time.

That is why most bill passed in congress had nothing to do with helping the nation, the tax payer or the future of our children.

Is all to benefit somebody with big pockets.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
My understanding is:

The second stimulus package was basically written by the Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and the Congressional Budget Office, among others. The package was passed by Congress.

To my knowledge Bill Ayres and/or the "Apollo Group" had no hand in writing either one.


Your "knowledge" is lacking.


The details of the proposed stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill, were made public today.

The programs made public today, along with the dimension of the spending called for by Congress and the new president, track the proposals advanced by the Apollo Alliance in The New Apollo Program and the Apollo Economic Recovery Act.

This plan embraces the sweeping set of actions that the Apollo Alliance recommended in The New Apollo Program, ” said Apollo Alliance Chairman Phil Angelides.

apolloalliance.org...

Does someone else post for you, or do you just say things without regard for the truth?


Sigh. I DIDN'T say "most are not czars."


You didn't? Then who posted this reply?


posted on 20-9-2009 @ 18:33 reply to post by jdub297
Most of the people you mention aren't even Obama's czars ... .


So, which is it?

"Sigh ... "

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

For one thing, Congress would have to make these laws. We do remember how government works, don't we?


Oh, really?

When did Congress create new mileage and emissions standards for auto manufacturers? They didn't! Obama did through regulation from an administrative agency - - an executive function.


Stop the BS. Or at least research before you parrot propaganda from the far right.

Obama did not "create" new emissions standards without congressional oversight.

To the contrary....He simply asked the EPS to actually enforce the laws that Congress passed in 2007...laws that the Bush administration refused to enforce....who was sidestepping congress again??

www.nytimes.com...



In January, Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. He also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to complement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020. The Bush administration wrote no regulations to enforce the 2007 law.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias

Originally posted by jibeho
Here is the breakdown of czars. Take note of how many were created by Obama vs. those that existed prior. Of those preexisting, the majority were Senate confirmed. Of the 17 czar positions created by Obama only ONE was confirmed by Senate.

www.washingtonpost.com...


Your synopsis is a little misleading. Only one of Obama's Czars NEEDED to be confirmed by the Senate. The others don't need to be, because they do not have a sufficient level of authority.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Sestias]



Only ONE needed to be confirmed? According to who?? I'd love to see the source for that info. The only NEW czar that was confirmed was the bleeping Technology Czar.

There are other NEW positions that carry far more clout than the Tech. Czar. and yet none of the them were confirmed. I guess Chopra was the easiest to vet with the least amount of dirt under his finger nails.

Time to wake up and realize what has happened right under our noses. I know you have good intentions. Unfortunately, Obama does not and has taken advantage of those who believed in him. He is surrounded by crooks, radicals and Wall Street/Chicago Cronies. These are his "advisors". They motivate him and give him his marching orders.

Meanwhile, 8 months into his job and Obama has neglected these positions:


At the Treasury Department, which is overseeing one of the largest financial-rescue plans in history, just 12 of the 33 high-level posts requiring Senate confirmation have been filled.

At the Department of Health and Human Services, responsible for responding to a potentially deadly swine flu outbreak this fall, only eight people have been confirmed among the top 20 posts.


www.washingtontimes.com...

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jibeho]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
Stop the BS. Or at least research before you parrot propaganda from the far right.
Obama did not "create" new emissions standards without congressional oversight.
To the contrary....He simply asked the EPS to actually enforce the laws that Congress passed in 2007...


In January, Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. He also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to complement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020. The Bush administration wrote no regulations to enforce the 2007 law.


How sad. You have no idea what Obama ordered, do you?

His NEW order requires mileage AND emissions standards effective in part as early as 2012, and completely by 2016.

Nothing in the referenced legislation authorizes or even suggests this. In fact, the "California Application" is in direct contravention to the legislation!
The "California Application" is still being contested as a violation of the "Commerce Clause."

So sad.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

Only ONE needed to be confirmed? According to who?? I'd love to see the source for that info. The only NEW czar that was confirmed was the bleeping Technology Czar.



According to this source, posted by jdub:

www.washingtonpost.com...

The red to the left of the name means no confirmation needed.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Actually, I agree with you. Too much legislation is written by corporate interests. I hope it's less true under the Obama administration, but we will have to see.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


The article you posted simply says some of the legislation in the stimulus package was CONSISTENT with recommendations of the Apollo Alliance. The stimulus package was written with input from hundreds of sources.

It doesn't "prove" they wrote it. It only proves they agree with much of it.

apolloalliance.org...



[edit on 21-9-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias

Originally posted by jibeho

Only ONE needed to be confirmed? According to who?? I'd love to see the source for that info. The only NEW czar that was confirmed was the bleeping Technology Czar.



According to this source, posted by jdub:

www.washingtonpost.com...


The red to the left of the name means no confirmation needed.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Sestias]


Actually, I posted that source in my response to you. Senate confirmation required according to the Washington Post?? They are all newly created positions. Who determines the confirmation requirement?? Oh yes..Obama... Once again Chopra was easy to confirm hence the "requirement". The Tech. Czar has so much more importance over the remaining 16 positions.


Nice try.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Sorry. I attributed the source you posted to the wrong member.

To reiterate the requirements, I go back to the OP:


However much the czars may drive the policymaking process at the White House, they cannot -- despite their grandiose (and frankly ridiculous) appellation -- determine what that policy will be. The Constitution's "appointments clause" requires that very senior federal officials be appointed with the Senate's consent, though lesser appointments can be made by the president, agency heads or the courts, as Congress provides. Well-established Supreme Court precedent holds that an "officer" subject to these requirements is one who exercises "significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States."

This is the critical difference between the White House czars and federal officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. In the absence of legislation (such as that creating the Office of Drug Control Policy, whose director is the "drug czar"), the only power exercised by White House czars comes from their proximity to the president and the access this provides. Yes, as many will note, that truly is power. But it is not significant authority under U.S. law -- which only the Constitution or Congress can confer.

Thus, White House "Energy and Environment Czar" Carol Browner can analyze, develop, advise, hold meetings and pound the table all she likes on energy and environment issues, but she can determine nothing. Her signature on any order, decision or regulation establishing or altering Americans' legal obligations would be meaningless, unenforceable by a court.

Contrast this with Browner's authority as Senate-confirmed administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton administration, when her signature on regulations gave them the force and effect of law, fully enforceable in the courts, not infrequently by substantial fines and even jail time.


I suppose it's possible for Obama him to give his "cars" more power than the Constitution allows without Senate confirmation. But he would no doubt be caught out at it if he did and that would create a lot of opposition. I repeat one paragraph:


Thus, White House "Energy and Environment Czar" Carol Browner can analyze, develop, advise, hold meetings and pound the table all she likes on energy and environment issues, but she can determine nothing. Her signature on any order, decision or regulation establishing or altering Americans' legal obligations would be meaningless, unenforceable by a court.


So if Browner signed any order, decision or regulation establishing or altering Americans' legal obligations it would be meaningless, unenforceable by a court. She effectively doesn't have that power and again, Obama would be called out on it if he gave it to her.

I suspect that many people's opposition to Obama's "czars" comes from the fact that they just don't like them influencing Obama in any way, even if they are "only" advisors (and we have all pretty much agreed that advisors have a lot of unofficial weight). I think it's ideological. Some people are scared senseless of anything left of center.

We have basically had presidents who were right of center ever since Reagan (Clinton was a very conservative Democrat). Last election the American people decided they wanted a change. I say give the left a chance at it now.

Despite the cries of some alarmists, the country won't become another Soviet Union in the process. Some people yelled "socialism!" when Social Security was passed in the 1930's, and look at us now. Most people would not give up their benefits for anything.






[edit on 22-9-2009 by Sestias]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join