Czars to the right, czars to the left

Much conservative angst has been expressed of late about a proliferation of federal positions designated as “czars.” These officials are given broad responsibility for a specific area with few obstacles to the exercise of their authority, hence the title, “czar.” There does indeed appear to be a raft of autocratic authorities in a presidential administration only seven months old. But, in fairness, it must be acknowledged that the president is doing nothing unprecedented in establishing these positions, which require no Senate confirmation, for the practice began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

According to Wikipedia, FDR offered the country 10 czar positions, filled by 15 people during his 12 years in office. Thereafter, there were only either one or two of them, except for six in Harry Truman’s administration and seven in William Clinton’s. A total of 133 have served.

The biggest increase occurred under the administration of Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, who authorized a full 36 during his eight years. Obama so far has established 32. The latter has at least three years and five months to surpass the former.

What matters have these czars been responsible for? Interestingly, all of Roosevelt’s czars were appointed during the Second World War, dealing with manpower, prices, rubber, censorship and economic stabilization (“the czar of czars”).

Most readers will remember the drug czar first established by Richard Nixon, a position continued by his successors., and an energy czar, which has not. The drug czar has since become subject to Senate confirmation.In fact, other czars have been regularized in that way, while retaining the same broad, largely untrammeled authority. The new automobile czar was appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury alone.

Some of these czars do not survive the administration in which they are brought into being, such as Bush’s for abstinence, bioethics and bird flu. Clinton’s AIDS czar has been continued. Other new czars deal with Iran, the Middle East, technology, urban affairs, weapons proliferation and weatherization.

So criticizing Obama for establishing so many czars is a baseless charge. Fair enough, although like anyone else serving in the government of the United States, they are accountable directly to the president and ultimately to all the citizens.

But it is worth remarking that a new administration that has been so determined to distinguish itself in multiple ways from its predecessor seems to be carrying on with multiple czars. Perhaps there is this distinction, that what it took Bush to do in eight years Obama looks like he will accomplish in eight months.

More generally, the resort to czars is explained by at least two factors. First, as was the case with FDR, wartime demands untrammeled authority if victory is to be obtained, so his czars, which understandably repugnant to republican sensibilities, are sometimes necessary.

But peacetime presents a challenge. Why do need czars then? I submit it is a way of coping with the huge growth in the federal bureaucracy, particularly in New Deal days, when FDR began with an annual budget of $3 billion dollars and a few thousand civilian employees, and grew to tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of civil service workers. (We are leaving out the military personnel here.) Today, of course, it's three trillion dollars and millions of civilian personnel.

Civil service reform was intended to put an end to the abuse of political patronage (known as the “spoils system”) by establishing professional standards and providing protection against capricious employers.

Those familiar with civil service know that it has long since tipped to the other extreme so that it is virtually impossible to fire an incompetent person. The millions who serve see cabinet secretaries and other administrators come and go, but they go on forever.

It is not surprising, and not unforgivable, then, that presidents have appointed czars to get around the bureaucracy in order to accomplish what they intended to when they ran for the office. Still there are concerns. 

Like everything else, we must judge officials and institutions by their results, and we must expect obedience to the U.S. Constitution by czars no less than officials with less restricted authority. Too, we must be mindful of the spirit that informs the choice of these czars, to be sure that they aren’t tempted to ignore the consent of the governed.

After all, we did not fight a revolution, establish a constitution, and fight a civil war and two world wars so that we would be indistinguishable from those despotic regimes of the old world, which also had kaisers, and which like czars, derive from the word Caesar.

Afraid of our own government?

We have a new president attempting to move the country his way--to the left. We hear about divisive town halls and tea parties with many opposing "his way". We observe the liberal press and the Democrat spokespeople express extreme accusations of "terrorism" against any who oppose them. We see a radical White House advisor, Mr. Van Jones, resign noisily, after Fox News' Glenn Beck "outs" him for his radical views and coarse words. The Sunday news programs all question why the Democrats are having difficulty passing their health care bill despite their majorities in both houses of Congress.With his sinking polls, we all wonder what President Obama will say on the subject Wednesday night, when he speaks to us.

What is becoming apparant is a certain fear of this government by the American people. Fear because there are no jobs. Fear because of the deficits. Fear because our government now owns General Motors, and AIG. Fear because of what health care as proposed, will cost us. Fear of a quagmire in Afganistan. Fear because of unfunded pensions and bank failures and out of control spending, corruption and falling real estate values. If the American people indeed fear their own government, then it is reasonable to expect a good house cleaning in Washington. Let it be so.

Digging the dirt on DPS

Besides nannying, mowing the occasional lawn and the seemingly full-time job that basketball and soccer demand, neither of us had really had a “real” job until this summer when we worked for a prominent Denver businessman and private investor. While the majority of college students were basking in the freedom that comes with summer vacations, we were inside an office doing research on the Denver Public School system. Although at first, the topic seemed dull and as arid as the Colorado weather, after digging in, we both started to become emotionally enticed by the subject. Did you know that almost half of DPS students do NOT graduate?

This figure came as shocking to us; we both attended private, religiously affiliated schools and graduating was the only viable option for us. While both of us had been exposed to the occasional troublemaker-type drop-out or the befuddled kid who didn’t take enough P.E. credits, neither of us had any idea that the chance of a kid graduating from is really a coin-toss. We were even more discouraged when we found that Denver has one of the best big-city public school systems in the United States. What has gone wrong in the public school system?

The passionately compassionate businessman we worked for believes that outdated and politically corrupt teachers unions are the culprits; they prevent individual schools from having effective control over their staff, abdicate the power of the principal to make informed decisions for their school, and protect the jobs of impassionate, ineffective, and just plain bad teachers. We both have been blessed to have many inspiring, zealous and talented teachers, who are probably one of the biggest contributors (next to our parents and the fear of being grounded) to our academic achievements. Teachers can motivate and encourage their students towards success- both in and out of the classroom.

So why the shortage in good teachers, we ask? The teachers’ unions are run by and for the benefit of the teachers that are late in their careers. Accordingly, they are motivated to pay the new teachers as little as possible, allowing the older teachers to get paid more and vest in larger retirement benefits at the end of their careers. It is also almost impossible to fire a teacher after they receive tenure, which happens after three years on the job. As a result, less than 1% of teachers in DPS receive unsatisfactory ratings each year, and only a handful of DPS teachers have been terminated over the last several years. See data here.

However, the blame cannot be thrown entirely in the teachers unions’ or even the bad teachers’ corner; parents and family life play a big role in a student’s success. John and Rama Pfannenstein never missed a single parent-teacher conference in either daughter’s entire academic career. When in high school, they recalled that one teacher even commented that they didn’t need to be there; “its usually the parents who should come that don’t show up.” Maybe they only liked to hear all the good things about their bright and charming daughter (says Kari Ann tongue in cheek), but we think the real reason they attended 14 years worth of conferences is because they genuinely care and take interest in their children’s academic pursuits.

Opening the car door or walking in the kitchen every day after school and being pummeled by questions like, “how was school today?” or, “did you learn anything interesting?” is really just an excited attention and the recognition of the importance of an education; even though they were usually answered with a curt, “fine” or, “no, not really.”

Roommates Rally is the byline of Kari Ann Pfannenstein of Denver and Corinne Smith of Virginia, sophomores at Washington & Lee.

Your health is your own business

Our ongoing debate about government's role in health care is proving worthwhile because it forces people to focus on the real tradeoffs in asystem mandated -- if not directly operated -- by government, rather than one selected by individuals or their employers. Today, our system is a dysfunctional hybrid.

To the extent that we cannot choose the health care coverage we want today, those restrictions are almost always the result of previous government interventions -- tax incentives that make it easier for employers to buy insurance than for employees to purchase their own or laws requiring us to purchase coverage we may not need or cannot afford.

President Obama says all insurance policies will be required to cover preventive care and early screening for various maladies, as if he can force insurance companies -- or doctors -- to give us something for nothing.

Well, he can't do that anymore than he can require restaurants to serve a free lunch every Thursday. Even under Barack Obama, Americans cannot be compelled to do business at a loss; they always have the right to lock the doors and close up shop.

That's why there's no free lunch -- or free health care. Politicians aren't "giving" us these services; they are forcing us to buy them -- and to pay more than the actual cost.

It never ceases to amaze when politicians who demagogue against "greedy" insurance companies will, in their next breath, require us to buy things through an insurance company that we could purchase less expensively if we simply paid out of pocket.

If both you and your doctor know that you need a colonoscopy, how can it possibly be cheaper for you to send your payment to an insurance company, while the doctor files a claim with that insurance company, and the insurance company processes the claim and issues payment -- rather than for you to simply pay the doctor?

Yet ObamaCare would establish a mandatory list of insurable procedures as well as maximum deductibles. For those with money-saving high-deductible plans and health savings accounts -- like the one I've had for 12 years -- the President's promise that we can keep the plan we have just doesn't wash.

Americans who are understandably frustrated by health care costs are recognizing that the more control you give to government, the more control you give to government.

Today, if you, your doctor and your insurer agree on a procedure, you make an appointment and "get 'er done." And if you can't agree, you are free to pursue other procedures that you can pay for yourself. (After all, what good is an extra $50,000 in your retirement account if you're dead?)

But if no one practices those alternative procedures because omnipotent health care bureaucrats won't pay for them, you are out of luck.

The larger point is this: Why is it government's business how much you pay, what doctor you see, or what treatment you receive, so long as you are paying the bill?

Health care, like any commodity or service, will always be limited by economic reality. Government health care programs are responsible for more cost-shifting than all of the "uninsured." Yet despite paying below-market prices, Medicare will be insolvent in just seven years and has amassed allby itself a deficit of $37.8 trillion.

If the government is empowered to supervise everyone's health care, then only two outcomes are possible: either everyone's health care is rationed to control costs or no one's health care is rationed and the cost of government health care finally breaks the camel's back, ushering in a worthless dollar, runaway inflation and skyrocketing interest rates.

In either case, our impoverished children and grandchildren will forever curse our self-centered, shortsighted generation.

There can be no health care utopia any more than everyone can enjoy all they want to eat or live in the home of their dreams. Sooner or later, someone must choose between what we want and what we can afford.

Who do you want to make those tough choices -- yourself or someone in government?

Mark Hillman served as senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

Parental boycott grows

As the entire civilized world now knows, President Barack Obama will be addressing the nation’s school children this Tuesday. As soon as this was announced, and the accompanying Department of Education lesson plan released, a storm of controversy arose and suddenly schools were being besieged by angry parents. Bombarded principals, administrators and superintendents all across the country were almost overnight in a mad scramble for cover. I received the following email yesterday from the superintendent of the private school that my children attend. It did save me from having to make the decision as to whether or not take the proactive step of pulling my children out of school on Tuesday. I’m not sure I would have because I trust the Christian educators to whom I have entrusted my children’s education to not be fawning, drooling idiots when discussing the mere mortal who is currently occupying the oval office.

Dear Parent(s)/Guardian(s): I received the below request from the U.S. Department of Education yesterday.

A MESSAGE FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

President Barack Obama to Make Historic Speech to America's Students C-SPAN and White House Web Site to Broadcast Speech Live Speech Scheduled One Hour Earlier to Noon Eastern Time

On September 8, 2009, history will be made. Will you be a part of it? At 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time (ET), President Barack Obama will deliver a national address to the students of America. During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. The U.S. Department of Education encourages students of all ages, teachers, and administrators to participate in this historic moment by watching the president deliver the address, which will be broadcast live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at 12:00 p.m., ET.

[School name] highly respects the position of the President of the United States and believes whatever he says always has impact and historical significance. With that said, we do not feel it is our place to show this address to the children at [this school]. We strongly believe this should be a decision for each family! Thank you for your continued support .

[Name withheld]

The concern for most in the public school system is less about the speech itself than the worshipful “historic moment” tomfoolery that passed as a lesson guide from the Department of Education. The best way to reach the parents is through the youth and Mr. “Mandatory Volunteerism” knows it as much as anyone. I’ve been urging everyone I know to boycott the speech and keep their children at home if their school is going along with it. Now my local school district (the public one) will now not be showing it live either. It will be taped and each teacher will have to get both parental and administrative permission to broadcast any of it and it will have to be rolled into some sort of other curriculum or lesson plan as well. Obama has managed to become a serious polarizing figure quicker than any elected president in my lifetime and his administration has become a mere bloopers reel of idiocy and badly scripted public relations stunts. Too bad, The One had shown such promise…

This school address is the gruel that liberal teachers turn into propaganda and cheerleading or misty-eyed moments of awe. Don’t tell me that this will not become a “hurrah for Barack Hussein Obama” pep rally in thousands of classrooms across the nation. I’m glad that people are raising a ruckus and I can’t tell you how many people are beating the heck out of each other over this. I can’t hardly find a conservative parent at the moment who is letting their child participate. It has become a four day weekend for thousands of children. I encourage everyone to turn it into a conservative, family day free from President Obama and his damaging agenda. It was the Left who created the idiotic, sickening hero worship that now so permeates anything and everything that Obama says or does and we'll see that repeated by vast numbers of reporters and teachers on Tuesday. How sad and embarassing for everyone involved.

A six year old is too young to distinguish propaganda from information.

So how do liberals see Obama when he gives an address like this? Denver Post columnist Tina Griego gushed this way about him.

You may look at Obama on television and see a politician with whom you agree or disagree, but he is something else too. He is the son of an immigrant, abandoned by his father, raised by his mother. He is a black man who studied hard, who excelled in college and who, only 10 months ago, made history when he was elected leader of this country. The president hopes to inspire all children in this country to go to class, to do their homework, to believe that if they do the work, education will open doors to worlds they cannot even imagine. But he chose to deliver that message from a school that brims with promise for a reason. He chose a school full of brown and black children from struggling families because they are the children he once was, and he is the success they could one day become. If they work hard. If they believe in themselves. If people believe in them. If that’s indoctrination, then I only have one thing left to say: Preach it, Mr. President. Preach it. When you are done dry-heaving please continue reading.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be a bit less star struck by the latest success story of the corrupt Chicago political machine. If you can judge a man by his friends, President Obama fails miserably. He has surrounded himself all his life with mentors, friends and spiritual advisors which run the gauntlet of race-baiters and radicals, terrorists and Marxists. He is the most Left wing radical to ever occupy the white house who seeks to impose environmentalist extremism, mandatory-volunteerism and government-rationed health care on all those he seeks to bless with his oratory on Tuesday.

Conservatives are not fooled by the reassurances of partisans that President Obama exercises no agenda as he lurches from one bumbling political event to the next. I have strongly urged conservatives to wage an unceasing conservative guerilla war against the Obamanization of the country and I couldn’t be prouder of each and every person who is angrily denouncing the showing of the President’s speech on Tuesday to a captive audience and the idiotic Department of Education gobbly-gook lesson plan that accompanied it.

David Huntwork is a conservative activist and freelance columnist in Northern Colorado where he lives with his wife and three young daughters. He strongly believes in the importance of Faith, Family, and Freedom as the formula of success for a good life and a healthy nation. You may view his bio and past columns at: http://DavidHuntwork.tripod.com.