Ali Baba had his forty thieves. Ali Obama has at least 31 czars (reported today to be as high as 34) — and counting. Whether Ali OBama’s czars also qualify as “thieves” or not, I shall leave to you to determine.
Reuters has a story entitled, “Obama fashions a government of many czars,” that begins, “Name a top issue and President Barack Obama has probably got a “czar” responsible for tackling it.” Personally, I kind of like the “czar-free” government our founding fathers fashioned for us better.
Apparently I’m not alone in my preference. Even Democrat Robert Byrd is one the record arguing that “President Obama’s ‘czar strategy’ is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense have been trying to keep track of all the Obama czars. It’s difficult given the lack of accountability and openness that has emerged from the administration that said they’d make accountability and openness their hallmarks. These czars have no accountability to anyone but Obama. Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if George Bush had done such a thing, but mum has been the word as Barack Obama has ran an end-run around the Constitution (which has appallingly little regard for czars) and around Congressional oversight.
Too many czars (The Daily Citizen)
Pub Date: Jul 08, 2009
It has taken President Barack Obama less than eight months to do what imperial Russia could not do in 400 years.
Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that Obama has appointed 31 “czars.” That’s more than ruled Russia during its entire imperial history.
Obama has appointed a California water czar, a Mideast peace czar and a Mideast policy czar, a pay czar (to determine how much the private sector should pay, not the government), a health care czar, an energy czar and a green jobs czar, a Sudan czar, a climate change czar and numerous others, with the promise of more to come. And, if you can’t keep track of all the czars, don’t worry. Obama has also appointed an information czar.
The president should feel right at home when he visits Russia this week.
Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.
Taxpayers for Common Sense says all these appointments don’t guarantee that the federal bureaucracy will work any better. If anything, the group notes, the appointments simply add another layer to that bureaucracy, something that rarely makes the government more responsive to taxpayers.
More worrisome is the clear trend towards the government, especially the federal government, getting involved in an increasing amount of our daily lives. Equally troubling is the idea that the solution to any problem that faces us is a stronger hand on the reins.
The czars did Russian no favors. We have no reason to expect they will do the United States any good.
Robert Byrd used the words “unprecedented power grab” to describe Obama’s “centralizing authority.” I’m getting really fed up with Obama’s “unprecedented power.” When I googled the phrase “unprecedented power” and “Obama” I got 3,370,000 hits. Which is about 3, 370,000 hits too many. And really scary hits, too, such this one from Money Morning:
The plan clearly grants the central bank unprecedented new powers to conduct comprehensive examinations of almost any U.S. financial company, as well as any of that company’s foreign affiliates. It would also give the central bank oversight of any commercial company that owns a banking charter known as an industrial loan company, according to The Journal.
There’s also various synonyms for “unprecedented,” such as “sweeping”:
Washington (AP) – Health care overhaul legislation from President Barack Obama’s congressional allies would create a federal insurance czar with sweeping new powers to oversee medical plans nationwide, an idea already drawing fierce criticism.
Liz Peek in a Wall Street Weekly piece entitled “Obama’s Czars Play Russian Roulette With Business” describes the much-more-harmful-than-helpful role of massive federal control over more and more of our economy and our way of life:
To date, this administration has seemed more interested in penalizing and correcting businesses than in inspiring growth and profitability. Oversight measures are abounding, big and small. Next week the Treasury is set to release its plan for financial regulatory reform, which was meant to simplify the tangled web of overseers now in place – a system that grew up piecemeal as the banking and trading sector grew in size and sophistication. The word is that instead of reducing the number of agencies, Treasury Secretary Geithner will propose two new ones. Why? Because the congressional committees that are charged with monitoring these organizations refuse to give up power. I have to laugh.
When you stop and think about it, Obama is seizing total control of everything while simultaneously arguing his administration really isn’t responsible for anything. That’s what makes me laugh.
Rahm Emanuel, Ali Obama’s chief of staff, said something only a couple of weeks after the election – before Obama assumed his “unprecedented power” – that serves to show that none of this has been a coincidence.
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”
This seizure of sweeping, unprecedented power in the name of “crisis” in order to gain political advantage should truly frighten you if you understand history.
Jonah Goldberg wrote,
Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency (Liberal Fascism, p. 43).
You can go back to a February 13, 2009 Wall Street Journal article to see that Barack Obama is firmly in precisely such a fascist crisis-hyping tradition.
President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.
Michael J. Boskin wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
The Associated Press says:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates.
Budget office figures released Monday would add $89 billion to the 2009 red ink – increasing it to more than four times last year’s all-time high as the government hands out billions more than expected for people who have lost jobs and takes in less tax revenue from people and companies making less money.
The editorial board of the liberal Washington Post writes:
To put it bluntly, the fiscal policy of the United States is unsustainable. Debt is growing faster than gross domestic product. Under the CBO’s most realistic scenario, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2019 — roughly double what it was in 2008. By 2026, spiraling interest payments would push the debt above its all-time peak (set just after World War II) of 113 percent of GDP. It would reach 200 percent of GDP in 2038.
And all of this reminds me of the Cloward-Piven strategy:
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.
I genuinely believe that Barack Obama – a follower of Saul Alinsky as well as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate when he belonged to it to go along with a long and deep relationship with leftist radicals – is pursuing a “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy. If the economy somehow picks up under all of this massive spending and even more massive debt, then Democrats win big and Republicans lose. If – much more likely – the economy crashes under its own massive weight due to hyperinflation as interest payments on the debt soar, then a starving, terrified people will scream for help from their government. And Democrats will win the pure-socialist totalitarian state they have always envisioned. Either way, Obama liberals believe they will win big.
Ali Obama and his 31 (or is it 34? Incredibly, the media seems to have stopped reporting the growing number!) czars are no friends of America or the Constitution that framed its laws. And whether Obama and his gang of czars intend to or not, their “redefinition of the role of government in our economy and society” will very likely overwhelm our entire way of life and send it crashing down.
Tags: Bush, CBO, Cloward-Piven, Constitution, crisis, czars, debt, deficit, fascism, fearmongering, how many czars does obama have?, liberal, Obama, power grab, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Byrd, saul alinsky, socialism, strategy, unconstitutional, unprecedented, unsustainable