I'm all for checks and balances, but executive privilege? I'm not sure that is the answer. As I understand it, these czars don't get funding directly from Congress. They get it through the agencies. As such, Congress still has the right to demand accountability. Is there a significant difference here between a czar and a deputy secretary?

I think Byrd does have a point as well. I'm reminded of the mechanisms Cheney used to get advisers sympathetic to him in staff positions, namely the deputy secretary positions. It was precisely BECAUSE these positions are difficult to hold accountable, and require no congressional approval for seating, that Cheney exploited them for his own political puppeteering.

Agreed with Byrd and CB. Force the accountability and transparency now, which could become useful when someone we really don't like gets into the White House in the future.

The issue also recently came up where a Republican got haughty about the Obama administration's use of e-mails to allegedly evade sunshine laws. While this concern trolling is certainly outrageous in the context of the Bush regime's sociopathic obsession with secrecy, I think that it is another reminder that we Democrats need to make certain that we hold our friends to the same standards we would our political rivals. We need laws to force all administrations to do the work of the public out in the open rather than behind closed doors. It is up to the congress to ensure we achieve this openness.

Am I missing something here? These czars merely serve to galvanize executive authority that Obama already has. What makes them different from any other staffer in the West Wing?

Steve, you're putting it too mildly.

It's a clear subversion of Constitutional checks and balances.

I don't totally like our current Constitution, but it's the one that's operative right now.

This isn't a GOP vs. Dem issue, either. Frankly, I think it's arguable that the WH Chief of Staff needs Senate confirmation. I personally don't think he or she does, but I do think it's arguable.

Scott -- Czars are designed to set policy.

It's also a bad idea, bureaucracy-wise. Cooks and broth, etc. At its worst, it can lead to government by ad hoc situation. It also undermines authority of Cabinet secretaries.

Take Treasury. Especially since I know Summers is a Geithner mentor, if I'm an investment banker, why should I talk with little Timmy G?

tough talk is cheap once the bully leaves the playground.

byrd and others in the senate/house would be better served if they stopped reminding everyone what complete and utter failures they were at oversight during the last eight years.

SocraticGadfly - what prevents Congress from calling Summers to testify, and what would an executive privelege promise do to prevent the talk with the investment banker?

Executive Privilege can certainly be abused, but I don't see the argument that it should be based on whether someone is confirmed by the Senate.

forest for the trees, people.

Is Obama cooking up some nefarious plot to expand power? Or, is he broadening his administrations ability of gather data and cope with the complexities of running the most powerful nation on earth? I agree oversight is needed, but I'm even more pleased that government is being taken seriously.

GOP model- Let a vast legion of underlings and incompetent party hacks supply all the data and info for Cheney and Rove to chew on. e-mail tracking free.

Obama model-(hopefully) Place competent department leaders, who will themselves place competent staff, and so on and so on. Real, raw data then can be brought back up the chain of organization. The more e-mail tracking, the better.

administration'[S] ability [TO] gather data

-fixed

So, you're basically saying it's OK ("All that's Fine") if THIS Congress "... works together with the Prez on an ambitious policy agenda" but that the PREVIOUS Congress and Chief Exec should not have had that right?
Bush + GOP + Agenda + Solidarity = Bad; BO + Dems + Agenda + Solidarity = Good point, thanks for pointing that out; now go back to sleep, Bob.
If Bush would have set up "czars" you guys would have had a field day bashing him more than ever.

Yes it all comes back to them now that Bush/Cheney are gone. Now they are concerned with accountability...and rightly so...but 8yrs late it seems.

It led to almost comical levels of secrecy and abuse, with no accountability at all.

The Republicans did lose their majorities, so it wasn't "no accountability at all".

Congress can refuse to fund the positions if it decides that abuses are really occurring. This is another way in which Obama is trying (as many presidents have tried) to enlarge the power of the presidency.

It is especially important that now, early in the Obama Admin, that Byrd do this and set the tone. At first I was indignant at Byrd, but now I understand his perspective, and agree with him. We need constitutional organization for the WH. I hope that Obama pays attention to this.

Byrd has a point. If there were only 6 Cabinet positions, I would even say he is right. But our current ginormous Cabinet is completely unmanageable by a single President. Without a White House staff control structure, the Cabinet agencies would be in effect independent agencies. And that has its own Constitutional problems.

The Constitutional sins balance out. Good management wins the tie. This might be the only good idea that has come out of the Bush administration.

Gotta love how suddenly Congress has awoken from its 8 year snooze alarm with regard to Executive Powers...too little too late guys- you gave Bush too many passes.NOW you start taking notice???
Yeah good for themto take notice but suddenly they have a spine when a President who runs on transparency in Government and accountability gets elected. The Captain Obvious award goes to Byrd.