He Sure Loves A Klieg Light

Maybe the worst thing about Russ Feingold's czar hearing yesterday is that it got got Joe Lieberman a-thinking:

Hey, so guess who is mulling new legislation to solve the alleged problem of Obama’s “czars”? Joe Lieberman!

He may even hold hearings on the czars, as the chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Since this will confer legitimacy on an attack that has mostly emanated from Glenn Beck and the hothouse right, it could prompt an “I told you so” chorus from those who argued that Lieberman should be stripped of his committee slots.

Leslie Phillips, a spokesperson for Lieberman’s committee, confirms by email that Lieberman’s legislation is “in the early conceptual stage.” She also said a hearing is in the works, with its schedule up the air until the committee can nail down witnesses.

Feingold's hearing yesterday should have actually ended this debate in Congress, not begun it. The panel, assembled on a bipartisan basis by Feingold and Tom Coburn, pretty unanimously argued that the Obama Administration was within Constitutional boundaries to have Presidential advisors in the White House. But Lieberman loves those Fox klieg lights (you know, the network who gives you "what we believe to be the facts"), and so does his partner in crime on the Committee, Susan Collins:

John Harrison, a University of Virginia law professor, compared the czars to the position of White House chief of staff, saying both hold great influence and can speak for the president, but their legal powers are limited.

Their "practical authority . . . is not legal authority, and as long as the distinction is rigorously maintained there will be no legal problem," Harrison said in his written testimony.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who had also written Obama questioning the czars, said in a statement the issue was not dead. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where she is the ranking member, will hold a similar hearing next week.

"The appointments of so many czars have muddied the waters, causing confusion and risking miscommunication going forward," Collins said.

Lieberman's call for legislation is the first time that has come up, taking this to an additional level. And it's not surprising coming from Holy Joe. You may recall that he got Glenn Beck into Yale. Yes, that's right:

"One local politician who appreciated Beck's regular digs at the governor was the man who had defeated Weicker in a bitterly contested 1988 senate race: Democrat Joe Lieberman. Beck and the senator were friendly throughout the '90s, until they fell out over Lieberman's refusal to back the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998. But before they parted ways, Lieberman would play a role in Beck's search for a worldview and identity by helping Beck enroll part-time at Yale in the fall of 1996. The ADHD-diagnosed Beck didn't last long at Yale. He took one class, "Early Christology," and dropped out."

Lieberman has appeared on Beck's show in the past. And once he submits this legislation, I'm sure he will again. He loves that klieg light.

It's definitely looking like keeping Lieberman as the chair of the committee in the Senate that can investigate the executive branch was a sound decision by Democrats.

Pre-empting The Pay Rules

Speaking of czars, the White House's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, wants to cut salaries for firms receiving lots of TARP money:

The Obama administration's pay czar is planning to clamp down on compensation at firms receiving large sums of government aid by cutting annual cash salaries for many of the top employees under his authority, according to people familiar with the matter.

Instead of awarding large cash salaries, Kenneth Feinberg is planning to shift a chunk of an employee's annual salary into stock that cannot be accessed for several years, these people said.

This would be a major shift to really cut into take-home pay at places like Bank Of America and Citigroup. Finally they will feel some measure of pain for their roles in crushing the economy... 'scuse me?

Several firms that received large taxpayer bailouts have adjusted executive compensation to trim cash payouts before the Obama administration's pay czar issues new rules. Some fear those rules will go too far, preventing them from attracting the talent they need to remain competitive.

Company officials and lobbyists say Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., GMAC Financial Services Inc. and others are reworking their pay plans to ensure compensation reflects executive performance. They are giving executives more of their compensation in stock and stock options, and spreading pay over a longer period. And they are adopting plans to recapture some pay when bets go bad.

Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department's special master for executive compensation, is expected by next week to announce compensation guidelines for the top 75 earners at the seven firms that received the most taxpayer money. His rules are expected to include some of the same measures companies already have adopted.

I guess acting in advance of the pay rules is tantamount to implementing them, and these new rules are setting the standard for the industry, with even Goldman and JP Morgan employees getting paid more in stock than cash, so it's a win all around, no?

Well... except one-third of Wall Street expects a bigger bonus this year. And it's not clear how bonuses, especially in terms of stock options, would factor into the pay scheme. Believe me, if there's a loophole, the banksters will find a way to exploit it.

Feingold's Czar Hearing

I'm a big Russ Feingold fan - that should come as no surprise to any longtime reader. And at a certain level, I do understand his hearing today about executive branch czars. While George W. Bush had more czars than Barack Obama, it is true that the numbers of them have expanded over the years, and we should wonder if the executive branch is using these policy coordinator positions to avoid legislative oversight. Feingold correctly explains that "czars" has become a catch-all term, and some who have fallen under that title in the media are filling positions created by statute, or hold positions inside a federal agency and report to an cabinet officlal. All of the so-called "czars" in these categories have either been confirmed by the Senate or routinely testify before Congress. He's primarily interested in the portfolios housed inside the White House instead of those more readily available to the process of checks and balances.

“I am most interested in the third category of positions, and I think we are talking about fewer than 10 people, in part because we know the least about these positions. These officials are housed within the White House itself. Three weeks ago, I wrote to the President and requested more information about these positions, such as the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform and the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. The response to that letter finally came yesterday, and I will put the response in the record and plan to question our witnesses about it.

“The White House decided not to accept my invitation to send a witness to this hearing to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today. That’s unfortunate. It’s also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the Executive Branch.

“The White House seems to want to fight the attacks against it for having too many ‘czars’ on a political level rather than a substantive level. I don’t think that’s the right approach. If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions?

Michael Scherer calls this a plea for a more civil discourse. But there are several points to make:

• The forces on the right who have elevated the "czar" issue aren't interested in a civil debate. They just want to collect scalps, and kick up some nefarious scent of "scandal" inside the White House. They could care less about the Constitutional issues, as evidenced by the fact that fewer than 10 of the 32 czars on that infamous Fox News "list" could possibly, under any reading, have any Constitutional issue to speak of, and probably not then. Feingold is giving these concerns far too much weight.

• The White House has appeared to give "good answers to the questions that have been raised" with a thorough listing of all the so-called "czars" and the functions they serve and how none of them raise Constitutional issues, or are outside the bounds of oversight, given the possibility for testimony and FOIA requests for documents.

• "Czars" are a media term, not a term regularly used by any White House other than to assure some attentiveness to the particular issue once raised by the media. Feingold should have the Presidents of the news agencies answer questions on his panel about why they call any advisor with a narrow policy focus a "czar."

• At the same time, to the extent that the White House has retrenched and set up offices without the same kind of advise and consent from the Senate, it's because the Senate confirmation process has gotten completely out of control. Republicans routinely put holds on qualified nominees for no discernible reason attached to that individual, but to pick other fights on unrelated subjects. It's no surprise that a President who needs to get things done would try to leapfrog, at least in some small way, that fruitless battle over confirmation which has become nothing but a sideshow. Feingold would do well to ask his fellow Senators if freezing out a nominee for the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, for example, over concerns about her views on abortion, which have absolutely nothing to do with the position, represents a good use of advise and consent. It's debilitating to the country to have the Senate become a giant bottleneck.

This is an election year upcoming for Feingold, and I assume he's being coy here and playing to same cluster of independents in Wisconsin by having this hearing. In reality, it's hard to see how these positions raise any Constitutional flags. And it's hard to see how this hearing really helped matters.

Late-In-The-Game Czar Pushback

I'm happy to see some Administration pushback on the bogus czar issue. Anita Dunn penned this blog post debunking some of the Beck-inspired myths about "czars," which is basically a title for an adviser to the White House. This is a media creation, encouraged by past Presidencies who want to be seen as proactive, to label someone with oversight over a particular issue a "czar" to prove attentiveness. The czars have almost always been ineffectual, the most famous example being the head of the ONDCP, or "drug czar". I'd prefer the media didn't use the term for hires who are coordinating various policies, in the same manner as has been done for many, many years.

Still, it's good to see this kind of spirit:

But of course, it’s really the hypocrisy here that is noteworthy. Just earlier today, Darrell Issa, a Republican from California and one of the leaders in calling for an investigation into the Obama Administration’s use of "czars", had to admit to Fox News that he had never raised any objections to the Bush Administration’s use of "czars". Many of these members who now decry the practice have called on Presidents in the past to appoint "czars" to coordinate activities within the government to address immediate challenges. What is clear is that all of this energy going into these attacks could be used to have a constructive conversation about bringing this country together to address our challenges moving forward – and it doesn’t take a "czar" to bring that about! Just some folks willing to act in good faith [...]

Many of the same critics who are decrying these roles have applauded or even pushed for them in the past. Sen. Robert Bennett has criticized czars as "undermining the Constitution," but reportedly prodded President Clinton to appoint a Y2K Czar. In a 1999 CNN appearance, Sen. Bennett said "I think John Koskinen has been superb. I wrote the president six months before John was appointed, recommending that he appoint a Y2K czar." At a 1999 National Press Club luncheon, Bennett told reporters the Koskinen was "there to help, prod, give information, and make analyses and reports" and said he spoke with the czar to ensure "we maintain the kind of bipartisan and across-the-government sort of communication that this never becomes a political issue."

Senator Lamar Alexander has also criticized President Obama’s "czars," calling them "an affront to the Constitution." But during remarks delivered on the Senate floor in 2003, Sen. Alexander said "I would welcome" President Bush’s "manufacturing job czar." That same day in the Senate, he also expressed support for President Bush’s AIDS czar Randall Tobias.

Robert Gibbs followed up on this in the White House briefing room today, even noting that the aforementioned Randall Tobias showed up on the D.C. madam's list, to little comment from the Republican side of the aisle.

All this is fine, but the Beck/Fox News crowd has been riling up their folks about czars for months now. One czar, Van Jones, was already picked off and forced to resign. Uber-wingnut Jack Kingston has a bill with 99 co-sponsors to cut off funding for advisers unconfirmed by the Senate. "Czar" is part of the teabagger lexicon (go about 6:22 in):



The time to go on the offense against this was about four months ago. There is no such thing as "not giving the claims oxygen" by responding. This is a fight, and the opponents don't play fair. The Administration is finally coming around to getting in the arena, but it's way late in the game.

The Beck Boomlet Fizzles.. UPDATED: Or Not?

Yesterday, the Senate quietly invoked cloture on Cass Sunstein to be the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I'm not really a fan of Sunstein, but Glenn Beck was about to unleash the dogs of war to attack Sunstein for whatever rattles around in his head. Sunstein, according to Beck is one of those unaccountable "czars" that are destroying America from within. Cloture accomplished several things:

• By being confirmed by the Senate, Sunstein actually became... accountable to a Senate vote. And he got 7 Republicans to vote for him.
• Happening just days after Beck's witch hunt of Van Jones, obviously this shows that people are undeterred about further attacks from him.
• Sunstein did get 35 votes against him for a fairly uncontroversial position, which means he'd face a lot of opposition for controversial position like Supreme Court Justice. And I wouldn't like him, a moderate to conservative, as a Supreme Court Justice. So we probably won't see that now.

Win-win-win!

FWIW, Beck's jihad against Van Jones appears to have been motivated by oil industry lobbyists opposed to his work on green jobs. Of course, with Jones being rehired by the Center for American Progress, it's likely he'll have a MORE vocal role in pushing for green jobs now, so I don't see how this helped them.

...Yosi Sergant, a midlevel NEA staffer, has been asked to leave his post based on some such nonsense from Beck. So I may have been premature.

...Sergant still has a job at the NEA, he was asked only to step down as Communications Director.