Where’s the Trust

By: Jacob Bodnar

If you oppose the idea of a government run health care “option” I’d like you to scroll down just a little bit.

That’s right, just flick that finger across the wheel on the mouse and move on in the article, nothing to see here, I only need to speak with the supporters of ObamaCare for a minute.

Okay, ObamaCare supporters, I have a simple question that requires a serious and well thought out answer. You clearly support a government “option” for health care. Most of you probably support the idea of a single payer health care system as well.

If that’s the case I have one question, what makes you trust the government?

Let me elaborate a little. What makes you believe that Obama and the democrats are telling the truth? Why do you buy into the notion that a government option will not end the private health insurance market? What have they done to deserve your trust in them?

Answer honestly, because from where I‘m sitting, there is virtually no one in Washington that I trust. It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle they are on; no one has kept my trust.

When we elect politicians they inherently have our trust. By filling in the bubble next to their name we are giving them our full backing. We assume what they have said during the campaign will come to fruition. Once they are in Washington, they can either maintain that trust or destroy it.

Most have decided to destroy it.

And it’s not as if keeping the public’s trust is difficult. It’s not like solving a Rubik’s Cube. All politicians have to do is follow through on their promises. If they say they are going to do something; do it. If they say they are not going to do something; don’t do it. It’s very simple.

Trust is the cornerstone of our democracy. We elect leaders because we trust they’ll vote how the constituency sees fit. We trust they will read the entire bill and fully comprehend legislation. And we trust that they will represent the people, not special interest.

There was a time when people could trust their elected leaders. However, it is now the norm to make promises with no intention of keeping them. It is an ailment that has no prejudice of political party. Take oil for example. Every president since Carter has promised a lesser dependence on foreign oil, and it still has not decreased; that spans three democrats and three republicans.

This week the organization Tax Payers for Common Sense released their earmark numbers for 2009, and guess what, our elected leaders requested even more earmarks than last year. This is despite Nancy Pelosi saying in 2006, “There has to be transparency. I’d just as soon do away with all (earmarks), but that probably isn’t realistic.”

I will give the democrats credit for forcing senators to put their names on their pork, but it certainly hasn’t done anything.

But it is not just the democrats who have disregarded the trust of the American people; republicans are equally responsible for the disgusting taste our government gives us. After all, it was GOP broken promises that vaulted the democrats into control in 2006.

Under President George W. Bush, Americans’ level of trust and confidence in the executive branch sunk to 42% according to Gallup. The democratically controlled congress was not much better, sitting at 47%.

That same Gallup poll showed that democrats were most likely to distrust the republican controlled executive branch, while republicans were most likely to trust it. It was the reverse for the democratically controlled legislative branch.

Bearing those poll numbers in mind, it is no surprise that republicans are putting health care town hall protesters on a pedestal. They are using them for political advantage. The republicans must realize, the health care protesters are not voicing their frustration about democrats; they are voicing their frustration about government.

We are entering into a ferocious game of party ping-pong that not even Forrest Gump could win. We elected democrats because republicans did not keep their promises. Now we are thinking of electing republicans because democrats are not keeping their promises. I will bet in four years we will once again be considering democrats because, once again, republicans will have not kept their promises.

So, let’s try something new.

Let’s start voting for people, not parties. Ideology will still play a part, but let’s give more credit to individuals who keep their promises and say what they mean, regardless of party affiliation. If that means a lifelong republican voter pulls the lever for a democrat, so be it. I’ll take a trusted public official over a democrat or republican hack any day.

And that is exactly what they are; hacks. They’re the first to point out the broken promises in the opposing party, and the last to admit their own broken promises. Not surprisingly, these hacks have misread the frustration at recent town halls. The outrage displayed is about more than just health care, it’s about trust.

And until we the people start voting for candidates we trust and stop voting for the lesser of two evils, we will be stuck in this nightmare game of party ping-pong for decades.

Czar Crazy

By: Jacob Bodnar

Throughout history the term czar has been used to describe extraordinarily powerful leaders.

The term was first used in Bulgaria by Simeon I in 913. This came after a coronation that dubbed Simeon I the emperor of Bulgaria. The term czar, or tsar, was used to describe the leader of Bulgaria for 380 years; the term was discontinued only in 1946.

Of course Russia made the term czar famous, calling their leaders by that name from 1547 to 1721. But regardless of where the term was used, it was always used to describe someone with great power. As the term grew older it gained a more powerful connotation, being considered on the same level as a King.

With such a rich history of power and stature, why is the term czar now being assimilated into the dictionary of American politics? Our country was founded on the idea of checks and balances, not of supreme rulers with unfettered scope.

Currently the United States government has 32 czars; at least we think we have 32 czars. Despite President Obama’s insistent promise of “transparency and accountability,” there’s no official government website or document that lists all the czars, I had to spend some time searching Google to compile a good list.

However, I cannot blame Obama for all of the czars. The Drug Czar was created in 1982, the Intelligence Czar began in 2005, and the War Czar was created two years later in 2007. The Regulatory and the Science Czars were both created pre-Reagan, and the Border Czar began in 1995, although it was eliminated in 1998 and resurrected in 2009 by Obama. He also brought back the Energy Czar, which was discontinued in 1977.

But that doesn’t leave Obama in the clear; he still has the dubious distinction of creating more czars than any other president in American history. To date, not counting the resurrected czar positions, he’s created 22 czars. What’s worse? All 22 are appointed; none of them had to be confirmed by the Senate.

It’s irresponsible of Obama to give a person that much power over a particular issue without confirmation by the Senate. The purpose of Senate confirmation is to make sure the appointee is fit for the job and answers to not only the President, but also Congress. By bypassing Senate confirmation, the czars have no obligation to report to the Senate.

Sounds to me like a massive expansion of the executive branch, the same kind of expansion the democrats blamed Bush for; at least he didn’t create 22 new positions and name each one of them after a term used to describe Emperors in ancient Bulgaria and Russia.

So who are all these czars? Chances are you don’t know the name of a single czar. And I must say, I can’t blame you, the government has done a great job of hiding them from the public eye. As I said before, there is no government published list of all the czars, and I couldn’t even find a private website that listed them all. Through intense Googling, I was able to track down 30 czars, but reports say there are 32, so I must be missing something.

The first thing you notice when glancing over the list of czars is how many seem to fall under the same category.

For instance, there is the Stimulus Accountability Czar, which should not be confused with the TARP Czar. There is also the Pay Czar, who oversees the executive pay at banks receiving TARP money. Doesn’t it seem like the TARP Czar could do the Pay Czar’s job? Then of course there’s the Economic Czar, who I guess oversees the entire economy.

However, if you think economic czars are bad just check out foreign policy.

For starters there’s the War Czar, who I guess advises on war. The War Czar is separate from the Terrorism Czar, although I have to imagine those two could be combined into one. Then there is the Intelligence Czar, which is basically a fancy name for the Director of National Intelligence.

Then we get into foreign policy czars, tasked with taking on small issues. There’s the Guantanamo Closure Czar, which undoubtedly has to be the worst czar name of the bunch. But we must not forget the Sudan Czar, which I guess gets to control Sudan, or something like that.

There are three czars for the Middle East. First there is the Mideast Policy Czar, and then the Mideast Peace Czar. Which confuses me because isn’t the U.S. policy in the Middle East basically peace? Also part of the Middle Eastern Czars Club is the Afghanistan Czar, who gets to give the Afghans a whole lotta lovin’.

But the parade of foreign policy czars is not over yet. Bringing up the rear is the Weapons Czar and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar, which to me seems a little redundant. If we are going to get that specific we might as well add on a Ground to Air Missile Czar, a Tank Czar, an IED Czar, a Predator Drone Czar, a Missile Shield Czar, an Autobot Czar, and a Decepticon Czar, the last two, of course, being the most important.

However, the Pleonastic Czars Club has more members. There is a Green Jobs Czar coupled with a Climate Czar and an Energy Czar. And don’t forget the Infotech Czar, the Science Czar, and the Technology Czar.

As it currently stands, there are more czars than there are Cabinet Members. However, the big difference remains that cabinet members are confirmed by the Senate while czars are simply appointed by either the President or cabinet members without any oversight.

And so far no one has really pushed for oversight. The media hasn’t been pressuring czars or even talking to them, which is primarily why the public doesn’t know there are so many. As citizens we need to stand up and demand accountability and transparency from these czars who have been granted high powers.

Otherwise the term czar will become a permanent fixture in the dictionary of American politics.

A list of all the current czars of American politics
Car Czar – Ron Bloom/Ed Montgomery (I found both listed as the Car Czar)
Border Czar – Alan Bersin
Pay Czar – Kenneth Feinberg
Energy Czar – Carol Browner
Urban Czar – Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
Infotech Czar – Vivek Kundra
Faith-Based Czar – Joshua DuBois
Health Reform Czar – Nancy-Ann DeParle
TARP Czar – Herb Allison
Stimulus Accountability Czar – Earl Devaney
Non-Proliferation Czar – Gary Samore
WMD Czar – Gary Samore
Terrorism Czar – John Brennan
Regulatory Czar – Cass Sunstein
Drug Czar – Gil Kerlikowske
Guantanamo Closure Czar – Daniel Fried
Mideast Peace Czar – George Mitchell
Mideast Policy Czar – Dennis Ross
Sudan Czar – J. Scott Gration
Green Jobs Czar – Van Jones
Great Lakes Czar – Cameron Davis
Weapons Czar – Ashton carter
Government Performance Czar – Nancy Killefer
Technology Czar – Aneesh Chopra
AIDS Czar – Jeffrey Crowley
Afghanistan Czar – Richard Holbrooke
Science Czar – John Holdren
War Czar – Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute
Intelligence Czar – Dennis Blair
Climate Czar – Todd Stern
Economic Czar – Paul Volcker