Senator John McCain recently published a tweet: "Obama has more czars than the Romanovs - who ruled Russia for 3 centuries. Romanovs 18, cyberczar makes 20." [Other conservatives, post-election and noting Obama's social democratic rhetoric, have raised questions about some of Obama's social democratic policies and czars, in particular energy/climate czar Carol Browner, whose name allegedly was listed but subsequently expunged from certain socialist websites. There have been not-so-subtle references to the USSA ("United Socialist State of America"); Free Republic still lists an April 3 Yahoo news feed: "Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks, saying the US president "can listen" -- even if little progress was made on substance."]
The list of czars include preexisting/authorized positions (including Iraq/Afghan war, energy, terrorism, faith-based, drug and copyright), as well as newer ones, e.g., TARP, Af-Pak, Iran, non-proliferation, economic, health, stimulus accountability, information technology, cyber-security, border, Great Lakes, government performance, Middle East, urban, regulatory, and Guantanamo Bay detainee center closure.
Obama's reliance on czars goes qualitatively beyond his predecessors, tracing back to Nixon's energy czar, William E. Simon. Venerable West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert Byrd sees it as a power grab by the executive branch; he worries that the unconfirmed officers may assert authority or privileges that violate the constitutional balance of powers. [Given a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, I have little doubt that Obama could get authorization for the offices and his appointees confirmed, short of a yellow dog.]
Steve Holland gives a good summary of the benefits and drawbacks to the use of czars. As Dartmouth Professor Linda Fowler points out, presidents often appoint czars as a symbolic way of showing voters that they care about an issue. (If there's one thing Obama knows, it's symbolism.) Moreover, it's a way of coping with the sprawl and complexity of the federal government. Other experts note that it can raise the profile of an issue getting lost in the shuffle (e.g., cyber-security issues as our national information systems are constantly being threatened by hackers) and provide responsibility and accountability for it. Limitations include adding another layer of government bureaucracy and dealing with relevant turf battles.
My own take, as a conservative, is that the czar approach is an intellectual capitulation to Big Government. What we have is a super-conglomerate, far removed from the basic foundations of legitimate limited government: national defense and public health and safety; public infrastructure (including transportation resources and education); and the guardian of individual liberties, including the right to do business and to have agreements enforced. What we should be doing is streamlining government, eliminating inconsistent policies and redundancies, unnecessary manpower and regulation impeding economic liberties, in order to focus on the core functional competencies of government. Obama is not looking to make government run more efficiently and effectively; that is clear from his disingenuous lip service to deficit reduction, resulting in a $17B cut in a $2T deficit, more than half of which comes at the expense of military research and development. He is looking to qualitatively expand the government footprint and regulatory authority.
The principal purpose of this post is to discuss Obama's latest czar, the pay czar. This one focuses on one of Obama's core obsessions--class warfare. He is, mistakingly in my view, seeing the high-income class prospering at the expense of the lower/middle-income classes. There is no doubt that some executive compensation packages are not commensurate with performance, but I see that being more of a stakeholder than a public policy issue. In fact, if the goal is tax receipts, it makes more sense to concentrate highest-bracket income versus "spread the wealth around" at lower brackets.
Along with other conservatives, I have had grave reservations over the unprecedented government intervention in the economy under Bush and Obama, starting with the financial tsunami last September. Those companies which have gotten into bed with the Obama Administration should not be surprised at the unconscionable meddling of the government in matters beyond its level of competency. Cramdowns of executive compensation are ideological in nature, not based on basic economics. Artificially restricting compensation does little more than give the best and brightest a reason to leave the company and make it more difficult for the company to attract well-qualified applicants under the most challenging of circumstances. This is counterproductive, making it less likely that the company will emerge quickly and that the taxpayer will be made whole.
