Here a Czar, there a Czar, everywhere a Czar Czar

[WheelsRCool]

The green jobs czar is an avowed communist apparently. The FCC diversity czar seems to like Venezuela, and the science and technology czar apparently advocated forced abortions and sterilization as population control mechanisms in a textbook in the 1970s, and in 1986 claimed that up to 1 billion people would die from global warming by 2020.

The green jobs czar, Van Jones, who has a history of black radicalism and communism and so forth, I wonder what would happen if you had a white Republican President, say President Bush, appoint a czar who was white, with a history of white radicalism, I bet there'd be an uproar.

This Van Jones wasn't radical say way back in the 1960s and then gave it all up, he's been radical since the 1990s.

How the heck does a so-called post-partisan, post-racial President go and even appoint such a person!? He has to know the true backgrounds of each of these czars he is appointing.

 

[drankin]

I'm not much of an Obama fan but I think the biggest problem with "czars" is the the connotation it carries. Otherwise, I think it is wise to have Executive oversite delegated in this fashion. Nothing unconstitutional that I see. The Executive branch isn't overreaching, it's just executing as it should. We have the checks and balances in place. The czars are representatives of the Executive branch (unless I've missed something).

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not much of an Obama fan but I think the biggest problem with "czars" is the the connotation it carries. Otherwise, I think it is wise to have Executive oversite delegated in this fashion. Nothing unconstitutional that I see. The Executive branch isn't overreaching, it's just executing as it should. We have the checks and balances in place. The czars are representatives of the Executive branch (unless I've missed something).

Personally, I'd like to know what each of their duties, responsibilities, budgets, and authorizations are, as well as compensation and benefits. Obama promised transparency, the information is probably out there for us to find - don't forget this is the Government, everything is complicated.

 

[WheelsRCool]

The green jobs czar is an avowed communist apparently. The FCC diversity czar seems to like Venezuela, and the science and technology czar apparently advocated forced abortions and sterilization as population control mechanisms in a textbook in the 1970s, and in 1986 claimed that up to 1 billion people would die from global warming by 2020.

The green jobs czar, Van Jones, who has a history of black radicalism and communism and so forth, I wonder what would happen if you had a white Republican President, say President Bush, appoint a czar who was white, with a history of white radicalism, I bet there'd be an uproar.

This Van Jones wasn't radical say way back in the 1960s and then gave it all up, he's been radical since the 1990s.

How the heck does a so-called post-partisan, post-racial President go and even appoint such a person!? He has to know the true backgrounds of each of these czars he is appointing.

A certain member mentioned I should provide links for the above post of mine, which he is right, so here are some sources/links for this post of mine.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2110435/van_jones_obamas_communist_green_jobs.html?cat=9

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/glenn-beck-closing-in-on-van-jones/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/



EDIT: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055

 

[WhoWee]

A certain member mentioned I should provide links for the above post of mine, which he is right, so here are some sources/links for this post of mine.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2110435/van_jones_obamas_communist_green_jobs.html?cat=9

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/glenn-beck-closing-in-on-van-jones/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/

Mark Lloyd's comments are a little disturbing. They are his own words and it's fair to judge what he said.

Your other links will be dismissed until the mainstream press covers the story - don't hold your breath.

 

[WhoWee]

This piece by Politico is interesting.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html

 

[WhoWee]

Glen Beck is often dismissed as a nut job, or worse. Accordingly, he's weighed in very heavily on the subject of Czars. I'm not posting his extensive information about the individual Czars.

However, I find his interview with David Horowitz extremely interesting. There's an old saying, "it takes one to know one". Horowitz is clearly qualified to make an assessment. Please watch the full video before expressing an opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video...l=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html

 

[WhoWee]

We now have one less Czar - Van Jones resigned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090906/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_adviser_resigns

"Obama 'green jobs' adviser quits amid controversy
AP

File - Van Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally AP – File - Van Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly 'green jobs,' …
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer Will Lester, Associated Press Writer – 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's adviser Van Jones has resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday.

Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs" with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

The resignation comes as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.

Jones issued an apology on Thursday for his past statements. When asked the next day whether Obama still had confidence in him, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said only that Jones "continues to work in the administration."

The matter surfaced after news reports of a derogatory comment Jones made in the past about Republicans, and separately, of Jones' name appearing on a petition connected to the events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That 2004 petition had asked for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had allowed the attacks to occur.

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

Jones said he has been "inundated with calls from across the political spectrum urging me to stay and fight."

But he said he cannot in good conscience ask his colleagues to spend time and energy defending or explaining his past.

Jones flatly said in an earlier statement that he did not agree with the petition's stand on the 9/11 attacks and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

As for his other comments he made before joining Obama's team, Jones said, "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."

Despite his apologies, Republicans demanded Jones quit.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate." Missouri Sen. Christopher Bonds said Congress should investigate Jones's fitness the job.

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck repeatedly denounced Jones after a group the adviser co-founded, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist.

James Rucker, the organization's executive director, has said Jones had nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started.

Jones, well-known in the environmental movement, was a civil-rights activist in California before shifting his attention to environmental and energy issues. He is known for laying out a broad vision of a green economy.

Nancy Sutley chair of the council, said in a statement released early Sunday that she accepts Jones resignation and thanked him for his service.

"Over the last six months, he had been a strong voice for creating jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources," she said. "We appreciate his hard work and wish him the best moving forward."

Associated Press writer Philip Elliott contributed to this report. "

 

[Jasongreat]

Assuming that they exercise only executive power delegated by the President, the constitution requires that they answer only to the President, not the other two branches of federal government, regarding such power. All executive power is vested in the President.

Even Cabinet positions, while they must be approved by the legislative branch, only exercise power as delegated by the President.

But, I also hate the word "Czar", since it historically means king, emperor, or ruler. What would be so terrible with having a Drug "Captain"? Or Drug "Lieutenant"?

Your saying that reporting to the president is the same as vested in the president? So you read the constitution as saying that all executive power is vested in the president and whoever he wishes no matter who they are, what they believe, or how they act? The only way I can see your proposition working is if the wording was vested in the presidency not president(a singularity not a plurality). I have no problem with him having everyone else do his work for him, but their salaries should come out of his salary not mine, same with congressional staffers, mrs. obama's 20 or so assistants and so on and so on.

 

[Al68]

Your saying that reporting to the president is the same as vested in the president?

No, I'm saying that anyone who exercises executive power must answer to the President, since that power is delegated to them, not vested in them, like it is in the President.

So you read the constitution as saying that all executive power is vested in the president and whoever he wishes no matter who they are, what they believe, or how they act? The only way I can see your proposition working is if the wording was vested in the presidency not president(a singularity not a plurality).

It's not my proposition, it's what the constitution says. And the wording is "vested in the President", not whoever he wishes. It's delegated (not vested) to whoever he wishes. The President is responsible for all executive government action.

I have no problem with him having everyone else do his work for him, but their salaries should come out of his salary not mine, same with congressional staffers, mrs. obama's 20 or so assistants and so on and so on.

Well, that would sure limit the power of government, if it couldn't be delegated. How many new regulations would we get each year if the President had to write them himself? You just might have a good point there.

 

[WhoWee]

I posted this earlier. Assuming the powers of the Executive Branch have not been expanded.

Obama is the President. Anyone he appoints, that wasn't approved by Congress, is Obama's responsibility. They are his voice. Their actions are HIS actions. Their policies are HIS policies. The Czar's are merely an extension of Obama - like clones - to get more done.

Therefore, it is only fair to rate Obama's performance (along with his Czar's and their sound-bites) as a whole package.

 

[Jasongreat]

Assuming that they exercise only executive power delegated by the President, the constitution requires that they answer only to the President, not the other two branches of federal government, regarding such power. All executive power is vested in the President.

Even Cabinet positions, while they must be approved by the legislative branch, only exercise power as delegated by the President.

But, I also hate the word "Czar", since it historically means king, emperor, or ruler. What would be so terrible with having a Drug "Captain"? Or Drug "Lieutenant"?

I posted this earlier. Assuming the powers of the Executive Branch have not been expanded.

Obama is the President. Anyone he appoints, that wasn't approved by Congress, is Obama's responsibility. They are his voice. Their actions are HIS actions. Their policies are HIS policies. The Czar's are merely an extension of Obama - like clones - to get more done.

Therefore, it is only fair to rate Obama's performance (along with his Czar's and their sound-bites) as a whole package.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that instead of obama suffering for what his czars do, it gives him an out, "dont worry I don't believe that(even though by appointing him you are validating his beliefs) and I have asked for his resignation", or even better gets a resignation without asking for it(if we really believe that is what happened) so he doesn't even have to put down the policy or beliefs that led to the resignation(van jones). Well one good point is we have found that his czars arent immune to being removed by public outcry, we didnt even have to waste time(money) with congressional hearings. The only way obama will be held completely accountable for his actions is if he is the one taking the actions, without the smoking gun he will always have deniability to hide behind.

 

[Al68]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that instead of obama suffering for what his czars do, it gives him an out, "dont worry I don't believe that(even though by appointing him you are validating his beliefs) and I have asked for his resignation", or even better gets a resignation without asking for it(if we really believe that is what happened) so he doesn't even have to put down the policy or beliefs that led to the resignation(van jones). Well one good point is we have found that his czars arent immune to being removed by public outcry, we didnt even have to waste time(money) with congressional hearings. The only way obama will be held completely accountable for his actions is if he is the one taking the actions, without the smoking gun he will always have deniability to hide behind.

I never suggested any line of reasoning like that. Just the opposite. The President is responsible for all executive power, delegated to others or not. Are you suggesting that the President must personally pull each trigger to defend us if we are attacked, instead of delegating power?

Did you misread my posts?

 

[Jasongreat]

No, I'm saying that anyone who exercises executive power must answer to the President, since that power is delegated to them, not vested in them, like it is in the President.It's not my proposition, it's what the constitution says. And the wording is "vested in the President", not whoever he wishes. It's delegated (not vested) to whoever he wishes. The President is responsible for all executive government action.Well, that would sure limit the power of government, if it couldn't be delegated. How many new regulations would we get each year if the President had to write them himself? You just might have a good point there.

No one but the president himself can weild executive power. since all executive power is VESTED in the PRESIDENT(not the president and his delegates). His cabinet advises, he acts, and is therefore accountable, even his personal advisors can only advise. The problem with the czars is they do weild executive power and therefore creates a cushion in which obama can claim ignorance and therefore won't be accountable for the executive powers he was vested with. Last I new we elected a person to do the job not elected a person to give his duties to someone else. If that's the case why not just elect the person he delegates his power to, oh yah they are unelectable because they are extremists, that's why they use the back door instead of the front.
And to your last comment, exactly, I'm not as worried about slowing down government as I am worried about it speeding up, sometimes expediency isn't all its cracked up to be.

 

[Jasongreat]

Their official title is not "XXXX Czar." For example, the Science Czar's official title is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Also, Czars has been around since FDR, so deal with it.

So if misinformation has been around for a while that makes it ok? I guess having the Earth at the center of the universe had been around for a while should we then discount copernicus, or galileo. I guess your mother never told you, I don't care what your friends are doing. Precedent aint all its cracked up to be.

 

[Jasongreat]

I never suggested any line of reasoning like that. Just the opposite. The President is responsible for all executive power, delegated to others or not. Are you suggesting that the President must personally pull each trigger to defend us if we are attacked, instead of delegating power?

Did you misread my posts?

I might have, and if so I apologize. But the constitution specifically says that as president he will be commander and chief of the military. Where does it say he can delegate the powers given to him? Would you allow him to delegate commander in chief to one general? Of course obama would be responsible for the generals action, at least at the next election, what could happen in four years? How long did Hilter take to march across europe? How long would it take to institute martial law in the u.s.? I realize these are extreme examples, but one needs to see where decisions could lead, not just if they believe in the decisions made at this time. We do live in a precendential society so if you overstep the constitution once, you give all other ideas(even ones you disagree with) a way to overstep the next time. Our constitution was written as a limit on government, what good is it if we allow them to go beyond these well defined limits? For example the same precedent that says you can tell me not to smoke, is the same precedent that will allow me to tell you you can't be gay(and no I don't believe in either of the examples).

 

[Al68]

No one but the president himself can weild executive power. since all executive power is VESTED in the PRESIDENT(not the president and his delegates).

That's simply not what the word vested means. No one has suggested that executive power is vested in his delegates. Vested means it's all his responsibility, not that he can't have help. There is no prohibition in the constitution on the President delegating vested power. The executive actions are delegated, not the "vestment". The President remains vested and is still responsible for it.

National defense is executive power. Must the President wield it all alone? I hope he has a big gun.

 

[Al68]

I might have, and if so I apologize. But the constitution specifically says that as president he will be commander and chief of the military. Where does it say he can delegate the powers given to him? Would you allow him to delegate commander in chief to one general?

The constitutional title "Commander in Chief" belongs to the President. Every President has delegated all military power to military officers. That's their only purpose. The power is still vested in the President even when delegated.

As far as I know, no sitting President has ever exercised military power personally.

I think we agree in principle. Note that delegated power can be undelegated or revoked at any time by the President because he only delegated it, he didn't give it away.

 

[Jasongreat]

That's simply not what the word vested means. No one has suggested that executive power is vested in his delegates. Vested means it's all his responsibility, not that he can't have help. There is no prohibition in the constitution on the President delegating vested power. The executive actions are delegated, not the "vestment". The President remains vested and is still responsible for it.

National defense is executive power. Must the President wield it all alone? I hope he has a big gun.

According to the 1913 websters(closest definition to 1789 I could find)
vested: (law) Not in a state of contingency or suspension;FIXED; as vested rights, vested interest.
The consitution defines what the federaL government may do, if its not listed in the constitution specifically, it is left to the states or OR TO THE PEOPLE themselves, it's not whatever isn't defined can be claimed by whoever wants to. However, in the brilliant foresight(and humility) of our founders, they left an avenue to change those powers through constitutional ammendment, but that is to hard, so now politicians and judges are content with just changing the meaning of words.
As to your last statement see my above post about this(commander in chief of the military is one of these defined duties).

 

[Al68]

According to the 1913 websters(closest definition to 1789 I could find)
vested: (law) Not in a state of contingency or suspension;FIXED; as vested rights, vested interest.
The consitution defines what the federaL government may do, if its not listed in the constitution specifically, it is left to the states or OR TO THE PEOPLE themselves, it's not whatever isn't defined can be claimed by whoever wants to. However, in the brilliant foresight(and humility) of our founders, they left an avenue to change those powers through constitutional ammendment, but that is to hard, so now politicians and judges are content with just changing the meaning of words.
As to your last statement see my above post about this(commander in chief of the military is one of these defined duties).

I agree with everything said here. I never suggested otherwise.

 

[Jasongreat]

I agree with everything said here. I never suggested otherwise.

Well then, what were we arguing about? LOL. I must of mis-understood, sorry.

 

[Wax]

Bush had 31 Czars. What's the big deal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#By_administration

 

[Jasongreat]

So the czars all started with FDR, what a surprise. You can sure find the believers in the all powerful national government easily. The majority of presidents chose not to follow that precedent to the same degree as the original grabber of un-constitutional authority, and it also makes it hard to argue that Bush was a conservative(thank god I've never tried to argue that point).

FDR had internment camps. Whats the big deal? (Its racist)
Hoover abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. Whats the big deal? (It started the great depression)
FDR spent large amounts of debt, in a recession(after Hoovers programs caused the recession). Whats the big deal? (It prolonged the gd)
First Bush and now Obama are following the same pattern. Whats the big deal? (Only time will tell, but so far I would have to say it doesn't look too good)

Isnt that the purpose of history? Learning from your mistakes. It is not to insure the same things happening again, because it has happened in the past. What would the point of that be? Do we have to accept czars solely because other generations believed them to be neccesary? Or even other recent administrations, one party or the other.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So the czars all started with FDR... :snip:

Ok... so what's the big deal? Has anyone figured out yet what these "Czars" do that is so horrible, wrong, and apparently borderline illegal? I really don't get it.

 

[Jasongreat]

Its not so much what the czars do, it is more the fact that the general government was never given the power to create a czar. It is that certain executives have decided that it would be more efficient to spread around the power(and responsibilities) of the executive, a power they were never given the right to do. If I have to blindly follow the laws government creates, why don't they have to blindly follow the laws that supposedly govern them? They actually take an oath as to what their responsibilities include, my responsibility is just assumed because I was born into this society.
So what do the czars do that is so great, right, and most of all is successful? We have a drug czar, but drugs are easily found anywhere in the country. We have an education czar, and yet have a terrible education system. We have a health czar, and are still some of the most unhealthy citizens of the world. I can't see one czar that has succeeded at their title, can you name one? So they are not brought into succeed, just to take some weight(responsibility) off the executive? If they are worth keeping, let's add that to the constitution, remember it can be ammended at any time, the governmental officers don't need to grab power all they have to do is ask, but we may say no, it is just much more efficient to grab the power, but is it legal? If they can create any power they want, what is the purpose of the consitution? If any governmental officer wants help with their official duties, I say let them have it, but since he/she is dishing out his/her responsibilities they are the ones who need to pay them, not us(the taxpayer). I can't imagine obama paying over 30 czars the kind of money they are making out of his own pocket. Would this kind of thing fly in the real world? If you hired someone to do a job for you, and you were quoted a certain price that you agreed to, and then after the job was started he came to you to receive payment and you noticed that he added three workers to the initial price, and that he was expecting you to pay them, because they helped him get the job done. Would you say ok, or would you say ok but their wage is coming out of your initial contract not in addition to it?

 

[lisab]

Ok... so what's the big deal? Has anyone figured out yet what these "Czars" do that is so horrible, wrong, and apparently borderline illegal? I really don't get it.

I agree, SA. Like I said many posts ago, I hate the "Czar" title (dang, what idiot thought of that?!?), but I don't think it's wrong for the President to assign one person to manage one issue, and to be his go-to-person regarding that issue. I can even see where that might make government *more* efficient.

 

[Wax]

So the czars all started with FDR, what a surprise. You can sure find the believers in the all powerful national government easily. The majority of presidents chose not to follow that precedent to the same degree as the original grabber of un-constitutional authority, and it also makes it hard to argue that Bush was a conservative(thank god I've never tried to argue that point).

FDR had internment camps. Whats the big deal? (Its racist)
Hoover abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. Whats the big deal? (It started the great depression)
FDR spent large amounts of debt, in a recession(after Hoovers programs caused the recession). Whats the big deal? (It prolonged the gd)
First Bush and now Obama are following the same pattern. Whats the big deal? (Only time will tell, but so far I would have to say it doesn't look too good)

Isnt that the purpose of history? Learning from your mistakes. It is not to insure the same things happening again, because it has happened in the past. What would the point of that be? Do we have to accept czars solely because other generations believed them to be neccesary? Or even other recent administrations, one party or the other.

According to your reasoning, every single president who used a Czar created some type of social disaster and that the Czar had some type of direct relationship to the disaster. Do you know what a fallacy means?

 

[WhoWee]

I agree, SA. Like I said many posts ago, I hate the "Czar" title (dang, what idiot thought of that?!?), but I don't think it's wrong for the President to assign one person to manage one issue, and to be his go-to-person regarding that issue. I can even see where that might make government *more* efficient.

Let's not forget the President has a Cabinet.

 

[Jasongreat]

According to your reasoning, every single president who used a Czar created some type of social disaster and that the Czar had some type of direct relationship to the disaster. Do you know what a fallacy means?

No, according to my reasoning, presidents that have grabbed power not given to them by the constitution have had bad consequences come from those assumptions. I did include Hoover, who had no czars according to the wiki article.

I was answering the question of since bush had czars, what's wrong with obama having them too. Just because it has been done, doesn't make it right. I tried to show examples of some of the biggest un-constitutional power grabs, and the consequences of those. I never said czars caused anything, but I have stated czars haven't and won't solve anything, except for getting the president out of doing what he was hired to do.

 

[lisab]

Let's not forget the President has a Cabinet.

So you want him to expand his cabinet, to include these one-issue managers? I don't see that these so-called "czars" are covering issues that warrant that.

 

[WhoWee]

So you want him to expand his cabinet, to include these one-issue managers? I don't see that these so-called "czars" are covering issues that warrant that.

No, I want him to use the tools he has, before creating more departments.

 

[Hepth]

No, I want him to use the tools he has, before creating more departments.

But he's not making new cabinet positions? And you can't expect EVERYTHING to be handled by a handful of people. So you make new positions. Which cabinet member would you have in charge of WAN/LAN/Internet/web security at the whitehouse, that they should be able to directly answer his questions pertaining to its administration, plans, etc?
Well, its not really feasible to assign this task to DoD or DHS cabinet members, they have so much on their own plate. So you make a new position "Director of the White House Office of Cybersecurity". It happens, since you make a specific position, that you get this unoffical nickname "Czar".

Doesn't seem that wrong/crazy... Seems like intelligent management.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Its not so much what the czars do, it is more the fact that the general government was never given the power to create a czar. It is that certain executives have decided that it would be more efficient to spread around the power(and responsibilities) of the executive, a power they were never given the right to do.

My impression has been that these people are advisors, not that they have been given any special authority or power that is generally invested in the president. It would seem they mostly do research and hold meetings with people who represent interests in their specified domain and then take information and findings back to the president to use in making decisions. This allows the office of the president to gather information for decision making purposes on multiple important issues while the president maintains his general responsibilities and a fairly rigorous schedule.

If I am wrong and these people do actually possesses any executive authority then please show me examples, I would like to be enlightened. So far as I have seen though we only have accusations of the president outsourcing his responsibilities and no evidence to back them up.

 

[WhoWee]

My impression has been that these people are advisors, not that they have been given any special authority or power that is generally invested in the president. It would seem they mostly do research and hold meetings with people who represent interests in their specified domain and then take information and findings back to the president to use in making decisions. This allows the office of the president to gather information for decision making purposes on multiple important issues while the president maintains his general responsibilities and a fairly rigorous schedule.

If I am wrong and these people do actually possesses any executive authority then please show me examples, I would like to be enlightened. So far as I have seen though we only have accusations of the president outsourcing his responsibilities and no evidence to back them up.

Here is one example to consider.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57G0E820090817

"U.S. pay czar says he can "claw back" exec compensation
Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:11am EDT

By Steve Eder

MARTHA'S VINEYARD, MASSACHUSETTS (Reuters) - Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's pay czar, said on Sunday he has broad and "binding" authority over executive compensation, including the ability to "claw back" money already paid, and he is weighing how and whether to use that power.

Feinberg told Reuters that Citigroup Inc included the contract of energy trader Andrew Hall in submissions due Friday by seven major companies still locked in the federal government's TARP Program.

Feinberg said he hasn't looked at Hall's contract, which reports have said could pay him as much as $100 million this year.

"Whether I have jurisdiction to decide his compensation or not, we will take a look and decide over the next few weeks," Feinberg said after speaking at a public forum in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, part of a newsmaker series hosted by the Martha's Vineyard Times newspaper.

Feinberg has been consulting with seven companies that have yet to pay back money they borrowed from the government, including Citi, American International Group Inc, Bank of America Corp, Chrysler Financial, Chrysler Group LLC, General Motors Co and GMAC Inc.

Those companies faced a deadline of Friday of submitted proposals to Feinberg for their top 25 employees.

Feinberg said on Sunday that decisions he makes will be "binding," but the law limits his power over contracts signed before February 11, 2009.

He also said he has the authority to use a "clawback" provision to go after compensation for executives from any company that received money from the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Progr.am (TARP).

"I have the discretion, conferred upon by Congress, to attempt to recover compensation that has already been paid to executives not only in these companies, but in any company that received federal assistance," Feinberg said during his remarks.

Asked by Reuters if he could use that ability to target a firm like Goldman Sachs Group Inc, which paid back $10 billion in bailout money, Feinberg said: "Anything is possible under the law."

"I can claw back, but we haven't focused on that at all," he said."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here is one example to consider.

That's a power of the executive branch? Obama's responsibilities being given to someone else?