Congress asking for all czars to be approved

[Modelworks]

Finally !
Congress is asking for full transparency on the czars and accountability , that they must go through senate confirmations.

If a czar has not been approved by congress by December 30, 2009 they are to be removed .


Bill is HR 3569

H.R. 3569, To provide a sunset date for all presidentially appointed czars, to require Senate confirmation of those positions, and to provide that appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries and expenses associated with those positions

 

[ElFenix]

why did we ever start using the russian word for king or emperor for some political appointee office weenie?

 

[PJABBER]

I have the press conference going on in one of my monitors and it looks like a great proposal. I think you have the date wrong, though. Isn't it by the end of the year?

 

[nageov3t]

:thumbsup:

but it's Obama's last line of defense against being accused of being a communist. no red would ever put the czars back into power.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
I have the press conference going on in one of my monitors and it looks like a great proposal. I think you have the date wrong, though. Isn't it by the end of the year?

fixed, thanks !

 

[Skitzer]

Is this being proposed or has it passed?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Is this being proposed or has it passed?

Proposed.
But if someone goes against it, they probably will kill their political prospects.

 

[Fern]

I think this is a Republican bill, if so it ain't going anywhere.

Fern

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Fern
I think this is a Republican bill, if do it ain't going anywhere.

Would be interesting. The Democrats largely ran on a platform of transparency, and to vote down this bill...

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Is this being proposed or has it passed?

Proposed.
But if someone goes against it, they probably will kill their political prospects.

No one cares about this aside from the base of your party, so actually it won't mean anything if someone votes against it.

Also, could you guys do us all a favor and stop listing the names of those czars who WERE actually confirmed, might help clear up any confusion among the 65+ demo that FNC depends on.

 

[JSt0rm]

more stupid

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Is this being proposed or has it passed?

Proposed.
But if someone goes against it, they probably will kill their political prospects.

No one cares about this aside from the base of your party, so actually it won't mean anything if someone votes against it.

I care about who supports it and I am neither party. I vote for whoever I like regardless of party. People that oppose the bill will not get my vote in the future. I hope other taxpayers do the same.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Is this being proposed or has it passed?

Proposed.
But if someone goes against it, they probably will kill their political prospects.

No one cares about this aside from the base of your party, so actually it won't mean anything if someone votes against it.

Also, could you guys do us all a favor and stop listing the names of those czars who WERE actually confirmed, might help clear up any confusion among the 65+ demo that FNC depends on.

They'll have wanted this to pass the next time a Republican is in power and names a hoard of fundamentalist Christians all throughout the administration.

This should be a good thing, no matter what which side of the fence your partisan hackary falls on.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
They'll have wanted this to pass the next time a Republican is in power and names a hoard of fundamentalist Christians all throughout the administration.

So you are saying fundamentalist Christians=republicans? I would say they will never be in power again. They should go back to waiting for the rapture and leave policy to people with real educations.

 

[Schmide]

It's a tarp, if you approve them, you can give them power; thus, it's a republican power grab.

Seriously who cares about an advisory position?

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
why did we ever start using the russian word for king or emperor for some political appointee office weenie?

Reagan was the first (Drug Czar). W Bush greatly expanded its use, and for whatever dumb reason Obama has continued that.

But its only bad now of course because Obama is doing it.

Just call it what it is.. Advisor.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Is this being proposed or has it passed?

Proposed.
But if someone goes against it, they probably will kill their political prospects.

No it won't. First of all the number of people that are suddenly being called 'czars' has now been significantly exaggerated. Second of all, I have not heard a single person outside of the Glenn Beck crazies say they give a rat's ass about czars. (I guess until you, as I don't remember you being one of those)

I'm fairly ambivalent on the whole presidential staff appointment thing. Yes it's definitely another way for the executive to avoid congressional oversight and I'm against that, but on the whole it's not really doing that much. Furthermore, almost none of these people actually have the title of 'czar', it's an externally applied title for the vast majority of these posts. If the bill is referencing 'czars', how would it define them? I guess I think we have much larger fish to fry in that respect.

Regardless it definitely won't kill someone's political prospects to vote against this, because I'm sorry... but very few people care. (and those that do weren't voting for Democrats anyway)

 

[Pulsar]

These advisory positions, appointed by the president, have quite a bit of power behind them.

This is a problem.

http://www.allvoices.com/contr...oint-shadow-government

The bill is a good thing, and whomever votes against it will lose my vote for ever. The constitutional writers put in measures to prevent exactly what he's doing - appointing individuals to positions of power with no checks and balances from the other branches of government.

That's why his cabinet has to be confirmed.

However - considering the huge democrat majority in the senate, it won't matter.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Is this being proposed or has it passed?

Proposed.
But if someone goes against it, they probably will kill their political prospects.

No it won't. First of all the number of people that are suddenly being called 'czars' has now been significantly exaggerated.

They mention 18 people of concern.

I'm fairly ambivalent on the whole presidential staff appointment thing. Yes it's definitely another way for the executive to avoid congressional oversight and I'm against that, but on the whole it's not really doing that much.

How do we know ? What are the duties of this position ? What do they do daily as part of their job ?

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Pulsar
These advisory positions, appointed by the president, have quite a bit of power behind them.

Any power other than research must be approved by congress.

I.e. the car czar proposed bankruptcy power.

If you make such a broad statement, please back it up.

 

[Sinsear]

I just saw the press conference. This bill looks like a winner to me. I'm sure the most ethical congress ever will have no problem passing it and the president will sign it to law, with his all of his promises for transparency.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I just saw the press conference. This bill looks like a winner to me. I'm sure the most ethical congress ever will have no problem passing it and the president will sign it to law, with his all of his promises for transparency.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
more stupid

This.

More Con Subterfuge.

Since when does the Legislative Branch dictate management and organizational structure over the Executive Branch.

Oh. That's right. GOP La-La Land.


:laugh:


The Sideshow needs a name ...

The GOP Clowns of Renown ???

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: ElFenix
why did we ever start using the russian word for king or emperor for some political appointee office weenie?

Reagan was the first (Drug Czar). W Bush greatly expanded its use, and for whatever dumb reason Obama has continued that.

But its only bad now of course because Obama is doing it.

Just call it what it is.. Advisor.

he hasn't just continued it, he's expanded it.

that's what makes it so much of a concern that leaders in his own party have called him out on it.

 

[JSt0rm]

I present the GOP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptxyrtuVtHU