Politics
FILE - In this Tuesday, July 17, 2007 file photo Sen. David Vitter, R-La., sits in on a hearing of the Senate Commerce subcommittee on Air Operations, in Washington, D.C.  Vitter, who survived a 2007 prostitution scandal, continues to serve in congress. Rep. Anthony Weiner, the most recent politician embroiled in a sex scandal, has said he isn FILE - In this Tuesday, July 17, 2007 file photo Sen. David Vitter, R-La., sits in on a hearing of the Senate Commerce subcommittee on Air Operations, in Washington, D.C. Vitter, who survived a 2007 prostitution scandal, continues to serve in congress. Rep. Anthony Weiner, the most recent politician embroiled in a sex scandal, has said he isn't resigning despite acknowledging he sent sexually charged photos and messages to women. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)  

Senate shoots down measure to defund czars

The Senate has voted 47-51 against an amendment to eliminate the White House’s ability to appoint and fund policy czars. Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Dean Heller of Nevada and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, introduced the amendment yesterday.

The amendment would have expanded the the definition of czar to the “head of any task force, council, policy office or similar office established by the president that has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate.” (Rep. McCarthy introduces national texting while driving ban)

It also would have required the appointment of any czar to pass Senate approval. The National Security Advisor would have been excluded from this definition.

“We should also ensure that the Senate’s role is not eroded by unconfirmed federal czars in very significant positions which should be subject to advice and consent,” Vitter said on the Senate floor. “It’s aimed squarely at positions created to circumvent the advice and the role of the United States Senate.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, called the amendment a “poison pill” claiming it would hinder the President’s ability to appoint staff.

Vitter defended the amendment, saying it would’ve defunded any czar position in any administration.

  • Gonzo51

    Hey Obama….see that little red glow in the corner of your eye, that is your career dissipation light….it just went into overdrive. NOVEMBER 2012, END OF AN ERROR!

  • Pingback: The Morning Links (6/24) | From the Desk of Lady Liberty

  • relayer10

    Here is the issue. Czars have diminished the power of the Senate. Senators are actually elected by the people. Flawed as they may be- they are representatives of the people. Right now, a Democratic Senate thinks that allowing a Democratic the power to bypass them is good for their party agenda. Republican Senators disagree. That was reversed when a Republican President was in power. Czars are fundamentally wrong in their present capacity. From EITHER perspective. They should not have ANY power of any kind. They are NOT elected, and are used to circumvent the legislative process. All Senators of BOTH parties should defang all Czars. If they don’t, they simply make the next President more able to circumvent them- making them even more irrelevant. See “Libya” to see how much this President cares what the http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/submit.gifelected representatives of the people think.

    You missed an opportunity Democratic Senators.

  • votersofny

    Just another of the hundreds of reasons why we need to get rid of the crooked Democraps in 2012. When we get the majority in both houses and a Republican president, we can undo all the cr@p that Democraps have been doing to us for the past 6 years.

    Hopefully, people will remember what they tried to do to this country for many years to come.

    We seriously need term limits people. That’s the only way we’re going to get rid of the thieves and perverts in congress and take our country back.

    Any candidate that doesn’t want term limits doesn’t care about this country, they only care about filling their pockets. TERM LIMITS NOW!!

  • notalone

    Not gonna get much accomplished without control of the Senate. Having the house certainly helps but needed the senate as well and of course the whitehouse.

  • RobR

    That’s what we get for fu**ing with Reid’s cowboy poetry contest. Oh well after Barack is impeached in the Fall they’ll scatter just like all little cockroaches do when exposed to the light of day.

  • rsbeckwell

    So much for a Republican change to the status quo. Why do we have any CZAR’s at all?

    • BPinTexas

      Republicans don’t control the Senate. You understand that, right? Thank the good Lord the dems have been stipped of the House. This was simply Democraps giving Obama free reign. Basically, they all just violated their oath of office, in my opinion. 2012 is on the way. Tick tock, Mr. Obama. Tick tock.

      • Sandy E

        The libertarians have deluded anyone squishy and uninformed enough to believe that the Republican majority in the House has failed. The newbies were not worth the time voting for them. They all must be primaried because they haven’t met the impossible demands they make every day. The fact these people ignore is that the House has actually passed bill after bill that does in fact meet their demands, but they don’t talk about the fact that the Senate is still controlled by the radical liberal Harry Reid. Reid will not even bring much of what the House has passed up for a vote. The libertarians are actually doing more damage to this country, and in particular to the Republican party, and to the Tea Parties, and would be fine if Obama is elected again if they can’t have their perfect, litmus tested candidates. They very conveniently ignore the facts that what they are demanding are impossible. I’m actually wondering who they really are.

    • GeniousIQ

      # of czars:

      George W. Bush 2001–2009 33
      Barack Obama 2009– 37

      • Crosby

        I am critical of both Bush & Obama on the ‘czar issue’

    • southernandproud

      Repulicans did NOT vote for this.