I believe the czar system needs reform. I propose the following. Henceforth, they will be known as fairies instead of czars. For example, the birth control fairy, the drug fairy, the abstinence fairy. barfo
Obama basically took over GM, fired the CEO, and put his own guy in as the CEO. How is that not expanding the power of the executive branch?
i totally agree that it's an inappropriate use of executive power. but again, it's a continuation of bush administration policy, not something that obama invented out of thin air. who was president when TARP funds were diverted into chrysler and GM, again? hint: it happened in december 2008. (and again, despite voting for obama, i'm not saying that "bush started it" gets him off the hook: i'm personally deeply disappointed in him for not rolling back that program... same with indefinite detentions, illegal wiretapping, signing statements, etc.) but, for the record, none of that stuff originated with obama. neither did huge debts and deficits, troubled wars in iraq and afghanistan, a broken economy, etc. so why is it a clear and present danger to the republic when obama does it now, when none of the tea partiers gave a rat's ass when bush started the program last year? it's the staggering inconsistency of these protests that makes these people seem like simple sore losers of an election rather than principled defenders of, well, principle.
I don't ever recall Bush firing the CEO of a private-sector company and then selling off its assets to a European company and the UAW. How is that a continuation of Bush's policy? Also, the TARP funds were approved by Congress; the GM firing was solely an executive branch decision.
The auto companies came to him and asked for money. Obama, or more appropriately Congress, did not jump down GM's throat and threaten them if they didn't take money. Is GM really about the CEO or is it about the company and jobs? If you're going to invest billions of dollars in a company (and I know, I know..you wouldn't have in the first place. You'd let them fail...) would you keep the captain of the Exxon Valdez or would you replace him with someone at least partially competent? And realistically, according to what we know about the bailout money, what could Obama/Congress have done if Wagoner refused to step down? What must Wagoner have thought/felt that compelled him to step down? "Obama and his aides may have honed in on Wagoner for two reasons. First, his company is asking for the most in total federal aid: $26 billion, a figure administration officials fear could grow even larger. Second, the GM chief was tied more directly to the ill-fated decisions that that brought much of the American auto industry to the brink of collapse. Wagoner joined GM in 1977, has had a senior role in GM management since 1992, and became CEO of the company in 2000. He is considered responsible for increasing GM's focus on trucks and SUVs—at the expense of the hybrids and fuel efficient cars that have become more popular in the last couple of years." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html
That's irrelevant. We are talking about executive powers being expanded under Obama, not the wishes of GM.
Fantastic. It appears you agree that Obama expanded the powers of the executive branch. The rest is irrelevant in this discussion.
We've had this discussion before, but Obama didn't fire Wagoner. Wagoner resigned at the request of the government. But, the point is, he didn't have to. He could have said, I'm keeping my job and you can keep your goddamn handout. Obama didn't and doesn't have the power to fire him. He does, however, have the power to withhold government funding. As has every other president. barfo
I don't think the rest is irrelevant, though. And I do agree with your premise that Obama expanded the powers of the executive branch by asking the CEO to step down. I don't recall that happening before, though it very well may have. Beyond that, I don't really see anything new.
Semantics, and it still is unparalleled in terms of executive power. Why you guys can't just admit that Obama has expanded the powers of the executive branch is baffling to me. EDIT- yak just did. Kudos to him for stepping outside of the partisan box.
It's not semantics. The power he used is one that presidents have always had. It was just a different situation, one not faced by prior presidents. Did he do something that prior presidents never did? Absolutely. Did it create new powers for the executive? I'd say no. [talking strictly here about the ouster of Wagoner]. I think the brokering of the bankruptcies might be a better argument for expansion of powers. barfo
Clearly we're not going to find middle ground, and GM was not given the option of going through a normal bankruptcy. Instead, assets were divvied up and handed out to a European company and the GM union. Bond holders were left with a giant dump taken on them. It's unprecedented, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
GM could have declared bankruptcy anytime they wanted. They didn't want to. I think you are confusing GM with Chrysler. We won't have to disagree. I just suggested in my last post that the bankruptcy proceedings did seem like a candidate for 'expansion of powers'. barfo
Are you saying bond holders getting dumped on is unprecedented (which is incorrect) or are you saying that Obama/Congress dealing with GM was unprecedented?
The normal bankruptcy process was bypassed and bastardized. Bond holders would normally get first crack at any assets. This did not happen as they were skipped over by Fiat and the union.
So the premise here is Obama does nothing of the sort of things Bush did. Yet the evidence is "35" - or he is doing the same sort of things.
no, as i said repeatedly, the premise is that obama has disappointed in many ways -- most of them involving his failure to rollback the executive power grabs of the bush years. i would argue that the "czars" issue is an extremely minor one of those; having a "special advisor on green jobs" is, to me, much less of an indicator of creeping tyranny than, say, continuing bush administration claims that the president has the right to data-mine everyone in the country's electronic communications without a warrant. but in either case, what i don't get is why all these people are out in the street waving around signs proclaiming obama to be the new hitler, and justifying those ludicrous claims on the basis of obama administration actions that are indistinguishable from or even far less egregious than those of previous administrations (especially obama's immediate predecessor). i have no problem with civil libertarians protesting abuses of executive power. i've been doing it for a long time and will continue to do so, whether the president is someone i voted for (obama) or not (bush). my problem is with the rank hypocrites and/or mindless ignoramuses who didn't give a shit about any of these things when their guy was in power (in fact, cheered them on lustily) but now suddenly are overcome with inchoate rage masquerading as civil libertarianism because their side lost power. look at this slideshow again: http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225596987/show/ can you honestly tell me that these are good people? that they're standing for any coherent principle? that they even know what the F they're talking about? no. what it boils down to is they hate democrats, they hate minorities, they hate immigrants, they hate liberals, and... more than anything, they hate losing power. they don't believe that the government is legitimate, just because they lost a free and fair election. sore loser city, that's all this is, stoked into a frenzy by the shameless propaganda of fox news. our country is in great shape.
