Special advisers or loose cannons?

Published 10:31 pm Saturday, September 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — On paper, they are special advisers, chairmen of White House boards, special envoys and Cabinet agency deputies, asked by the president to guide high-priority initiatives. But critics call them “czars” whose powers are not subject to congressional oversight, and their increasing numbers have become a flashpoint for conservative anger at President Obama.

Lists drawn up by conservative groups detail as many as 40 “czars” linked to Obama, although some of the positions existed long before he took office and some did, in fact, win Senate approval. There’s “faith-based czar” Joshua DuBois, who heads the White House’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, a post created by then-President George W. Bush in 2001; “Afghanistan czar” Richard Holbrooke, appointed by Obama as special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan; “intelligence czar” Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, a post created in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; Mideast peace czar George Mitchell; and “border czar” Alan Bersin, an assistant secretary of homeland security recently charged with improving security along the southern border.

Some of the “czars” are guiding the president on central policy issues. Carol Browner serves as Obama’s assistant for energy and climate change; Paul Volcker chairs the president’s Economic Recovery Board; Ed Montgomery coordinates federal efforts to spark economic development in areas hard hit by the sharp decline in auto industry jobs; and Nancy-Ann DeParle heads the White House Office of Health Reform.

Lack of vetting

Critics of the proliferation of “czars” contend that the White House uses the appointments to circumvent the normal vetting process required for Senate confirmation and to avoid congressional oversight of their activities. They mobilized recently with the resignation of Van Jones, an adviser to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who was known as the “green jobs czar.”

Because of his status, Jones had avoided the kind of vetting to which Cabinet officials are subjected, leaving the White House exposed to controversy when Jones’ past affiliations and comments were unearthed by a conservative commentator.

Earlier controversy centered on “car czar” Steven Rattner, who abruptly resigned in July. After leading the administration’s efforts to restructure Chrysler and General Motors, Rattner departed amid reports that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was investigating the Quadrangle Group, an investment firm co-founded by Rattner.

‘Czars’ defended

The White House defends the practice of using special advisers to coordinate responses to problems involving several government agencies.

“Lots of these are designed to bring many different efforts together and coordinate them in a way that is more structured and more efficient than the governmental work chart might ordinarily allow,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Asked about accountability, Gibbs said that ultimately “the president is the person accountable that the policy is right.”

Historically, presidents have long used special officials to deal with difficult problems.

When the Mississippi River burst its levees in 1927, leaving more than 27,000 square miles flooded across seven states, President Calvin Coolidge invested extraordinary power in then-Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover to oversee relief efforts. Hoover’s success in mobilizing private humanitarian aid bolstered his national visibility.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed a host of special advisers to coordinate policy to combat the Great Depression. Richard Nixon named a drug czar and energy czar, to combat the burgeoning problem with illegal drugs and the oil crisis of the 1970s.

And President George W. Bush named “czars” to coordinate policy efforts on a wide range of issues including bird flu, AIDS, cyber security and the Gulf Coast reconstruction following Hurricane Katrina. By one count, Bush had 36 “czar” positions filled by 46 people during eight years as president.

Historian I.M. Destler, a professor at the University of Maryland, said there are legitimate questions about the number of presidential advisers who do not face Senate confirmation.

Still, he maintained, presidential “czars” can be valuable and increase government efficiency.

“Government is organized by traditional functions, and problems don’t always fit into those categories,” Destlar said. “You need people who are specifically substance-oriented, who are tasked to deal with particular problems. Sometimes it can be very useful to task somebody with responding to a certain problem.”

‘Czars belong in Russia’

Fueled by right-wing commentators such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, the issue has grown into a staple of anti-Obama activism. Earlier this month, at the “anti-big government” march in Washington, some demonstrators carried signs saying “CZARS BELONG IN RUSSIA.”

At a recent rally in West Virginia, Hannity, a Fox News commentator, turned to Jones’ resignation.

“Do you want another czar?” he asked the crowd.

“No!” they shouted in unison.

“I don’t think so,” Hannity replied. “By the way, we got rid of one, and my job starting tomorrow night is to get rid of every other one. I promise you that!”

The crowd cheered.

Although the issue is mostly fanned by Republicans, members of Congress from both parties have questioned “czar” appointments. After Jones’ departure, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., called for Obama’s “czars” to testify before Congress about their “authority and responsibilities.”

“His ability to slip into a position of power without due congressional diligence only further underscores the necessity for a confirmation process,” McHenry said of Jones.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the House Republican Caucus, called on Obama to suspend any further “czar” appointments until Congress exams the roles and constitutionality of people currently serving in those specialty roles.

Pence’s call came after Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., introduced legislation in July that would effectively end the president’s power to appoint special advisers.

Kingston, who has compiled a list of 34 Obama “czars,” said transparency is the issue. “These guys don’t get vetted,” he said in an interview. “They have staff and offices and immense responsibility. All that needs to come before Congress.”

On the Democratic side, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., wrote to Obama in February asserting “the rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

He added, “As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to Cabinet officials and to virtually anyone but the president.”