OK, here's one for the group to discuss. I keep seeing all sorts of guff about Obama having too many Czars. Fact (by any list I've been able to find on the net): Bush had more Czars than Obama. Granted it took Bush eight years to get his number and Obama has nearly matched that in less than one. No other presidents since Roosevelt have used many czar positions and Roosevelt only had a dozen or so during all of WWII. So, forget the stuff about the numbers and the debate on why there are so many czars from these two. What I'm curious about is this: did Bush do something right in having so many Czars and Obama is wise to follow the Bush lead or are they both wrong?
I don't have a problem with the czars as such, just that some have such weird pasts, not paying taxes, membership in strange groups, affilations with felons. That type of thing. I can understand why they need people to keep track of things, but I would wish they were more picky in who they chose for those positions.
Mike, can you use another word than p****d which would better expain what your are trying to say. If it is the word it think it is, it is being misused and out of context, if it is a swear word, it isn't a good one. Bob Miller
