President Obama’s decision to appoint so many czars is clearly troubling members of Congress, who have taken the unusual step of holding hearings on the issue. The decision of the two Senate committees is remarkable because a President’s management style is rarely questioned by the Senate or House during the first year of his term, especially when they are all members of the same political party. But, Obama’s decision to appoint almost 40 policy czars, and then give them broad powers and budgetary responsibilities, has created a more serious constitutional issue.
The Senate is primarily concerned that President Obama may be end-running the Constitution, along with the growing fear, shared by many citizens, that the power and the extraordinary amount of funding that is controlled by the Czars may be undermining the authorities of the senate-confirmed agency heads on whom the Senate has placed its imprimatur and its trust.
Czars currently influence or directly control over a trillion dollars of government spending, which is more than the spending of the entire federal government during the Reagan Administration. And, yet, few of the Obama czars were ever vetted through the traditional review process where potential conflicts of interest are revealed. Nor are Obama’s czars accountable to the Senate to justify policy or spending decisions.
In addition, three issues concerning czars continue to perplex:
- Do the non-Senate-confirmed Czars undergo the same vetting process as other political appointee, such as background checks by the FBI, White House and Ethics Office review of Standard Form 278–financials and potential conflict of interest statements, to name just a few?
- Has the President clearly outlined the duties and objectives of the Czars in relation to the Senate-Confirmed cabinet members who, currently, appear to share similar job objectives and responsibilities?
- Will the White House permit Czars to testify to Congress, or will the White House exert Executive Privilege, thereby circumventing Congress’ statutory role of Advice and Consent?
So far, the answers to these questions doesn’t look promising. The circumstances surrounding the resignation of Van Jones, the Green Jobs czar, highlighted the disturbing fact that, at least in the case of Jones, the traditional political appointee vetting process was not followed, and that, indeed, he may not have completed all of the requisite paperwork before commencing employment with the government.
The clarification of czar and czarina duties and responsibilities is now an urgent requirement by the Senate because Obama’s many Czars are very powerful. For example, Ken Feinberg, the Pay Czar, has just cut the salaries and bonuses by 90% of some of Wall Street CEOs and senior staff whose companies received bailout funds. One can debate the wisdom and potential long-term negative consequences of the government’s heavy hand, but the inappropriateness of a czar making a such a critical decision seems clear.
As a czar, Feinberg is immune to oversight and accountability. He is, arguably, one of the most powerful men in America since he seems to have the ability to decide how much people should be paid. Are any of us comfortable with a pay czar with the powers and ability to arbitrarily set pay and bonus levels for bankers and senior staff? Would we not be better served if our normal governmental checks and balances were in effect?
There are also potential unintended consequences of Feinberg’s actions. A few days ago, President Obama promised to put more money into small and regional banks to kick start small business lending. Feinberg has set a precedent for governmental interference in pay negotiations. There is a possibility that few of those banks are likely to accept government TARP money, since with it comes the implicit authority of the pay czar to set compensation levels for bank employees. The result is that small businesses may not see any improved lending any time soon.
In a similar manner, Carol Browner, the Energy and Environmental Czar recently assumed broad powers to dictate automotive manufacturing emissions standards. Curiously, the Administrator of the EPA, who is a member of the President’s Cabinet appears to defer to Ms. Browner. And yet, the Senate has not vetted or confirmed Carol Browner, nor are they able to hold the EPA responsible for decisions and actions taken by a policy czar.
The White House has already provided an indication of their intent regarding future congressional testimonies by czars. Recently, Senator Feingold invited the White House to attend, and to testify, at the hearing he hosted on czars and the Constitution. The White House declined to attend.
To be fair, Czars, both senate-confirmed and those otherwise appointed, seem to be a mixed bag under the Obama Administration. Some seem to have exemplary credentials, solid expertise that can certainly provide additional advice to President Obama if he does not feel his Cabinet members provide sufficient counsel. Others are so clearly unsuited for their positions that they are an embarrassment.
Past Presidents have appointed czars to lead special efforts, and all Presidents deserve to have the assistance of the experts that they believe will help them do the best job for the American people. But, President Obama has taken this past practice to dizzy, new extremes, and concerns grow that he has created a de facto shadow government.
The 15 Senate-confirmed Cabinet members are overshadowed and outnumbered by the Czars, whose decisions seem to reign supreme on policy issues. The potential for disruptive White House turf wars and feuding grows, as each czar adds yet another layer of management between the Cabinet Member and the President.
American taxpayers are questioning the broad powers of the czars. The Senate is too. The Senate may be controlled by members of the President’s own political party, but there are limits to just how much power and financial control they will blindly seed to the President. Even if that President is named Obama.