Here we go again. By my count, President Obama has appointed nearly three dozen czars to deal with myriad policy issues, from technology to restructuring the auto industry. Now, Congress is keen to add to the stable of existing czars yet another Slavic potentate, the insurance czar, who would be given sweeping new powers to oversee the medical insurance industry.
Czars are a terrible idea.
The old adage used to be that not everyone could be a chief. But in the Obama administration, everyone can be a czar. Each week, it seems, the president announces yet another one. Historically, there was only ever one omnipotent czar at a time. Obama's czars, in contrast, have neither autonomy nor clear authority and seem only to erode the statutory responsibilities of Senate-confirmed Cabinet members.
Do we need czars?
The idea of yet another czar brings three questions immediately to mind.
• How will the president ensure that the various czars' responsibilities do not duplicate the efforts and responsibilities of Senate-confirmed Cabinet members?
• How can accountability be ensured when so many responsibilities are divided among so many masters?
• Where's the funding for this new position and its accompanying infrastructure?
For Cabinet members, the arrival of yet another czar competing for the president's attention reduces their influence. Perhaps even more important, the rapid proliferation of direct reports to the president is impossible to manage effectively.
Accountability in the federal government is challenging enough, but with czars and czarinas popping up all over the place, it is increasingly difficult to know who is in charge, and you can bet the turf wars are ferocious. Too many strong-willed people with duplicative responsibilities and no clear direct line of responsibility are a recipe for confusion. READ MORE...
No comments:
Post a Comment