The czars – all of them – are dead in the House of Representatives. Even though every "czar" position in government had already been vacated, the House passed a spending bill that officially eliminated the role and forbids the White House from naming more. In some cases, automotive and banking bailouts and executive pay especially, the czar himself was as polarizing as the job he had to do, and the enduring, transformative effects of their work can explain why politicians might target them.

However, just in case you hear of the role again or you read about a policy head who's a czar in all but name (and assuming the Senate passes the bill), you should know that you can't really get rid of all the czars since there's no precise definition of one. Most "czars" get that moniker from journalists even though they have proper, long-form titles. And if you take the position that a czar is an appointee who hasn't been confirmed by the Senate, then czars go all the way back to Woodrow Wilson and World War I, and all but five presidents since then have had czars in their administrations.

The vote eliminated nine of the 33 positions that fit that latter definition, the beloved empty seat of our former car czars being one of them. We have a feeling at least one of those czars will be making news for a while, though – Ron Bloom's been pretty quiet, but it looks like Steven Ratter still has a few things to get off his chest...


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 34 Comments
      thedriveatfive
      • 3 Years Ago
      Government produces nothing but more government. The services they provide are often second rate to that of the private sector and cost more to provide. I sure dont want any of my taxes going to some czar who does nothing effective. Especially when you consider we spend at least 30% more then the revenue we generate. Guess Washington is a fan of fuzzy math.
      LUSTSTANG S-197
      • 3 Years Ago
      When it comes to government, I am generally all for trimming the fat, so to speak. What purpose do some of these people serve, other than to justify their existence? I know some will make this about politics, even though it shouldn't be. Can anyone even explain the purpose of such a position?
      Bill Burke
      • 3 Years Ago
      If you are repulsed by the insane growth of government into every sector of our lives, this is good news. Dispite the frantic expansion of government, this political experiment with unsanctioned czars by this administration has been a clear disaster for the economy,free market capitalism and the American people. This power grab has failed miserably and it's time to move on to government " of, by and for the people".
        hatch488
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Bill Burke
        So Bush quadrupled the number of Czars from Clinton, Obama adds 5 more and you think THIS administration is going crazy?
          LUSTSTANG S-197
          • 3 Years Ago
          @hatch488
          Yeah Commentotron, Sort of like how no one complains about the "Patriot Act" anymore, even though it is still in place under this Administration... Hypocrisy goes both ways, so step off your high-horse. Anyone with half a brain knows politicians are politicians, so you are not really fooling anyone with that argument.
          ojfltx
          • 3 Years Ago
          @hatch488
          hatch, Justifying bad behavior with bad behavior is not a winning proposition.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @hatch488
          [blocked]
          Commentotron
          • 3 Years Ago
          @hatch488
          But ojfltx, nobody got their panties in a bunch over Ws expansion of "czars" and government in general. It's only when we get the pseudo-liberal scary brown space Kenyan marxist muslim atheist that certain folks, all of a sudden, care about the size of government. Only then did we hear from the right how this was, all of a sudden, a bad thing. So, hypocrisy. Yeah. Doesn't float well for a lot of folks.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Avinash Machado
        • 3 Years Ago
        Wilson was a Democrat.
          LUSTSTANG S-197
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Avinash Machado
          Whoever said they were trying to bring Marxist rule Nick? What do you say to those of us who simply view these so-called "czars" as overkill? How are you any different than Glen Beck, or whatever other "right-wingers" you feel are trying to brainwash Americans? Judging by your comments, I am left with the impression that you are no different than the straw-men, real or perceived, that view as such a threat.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Avinash Machado
          [blocked]
        ScarGo
        • 3 Years Ago
        Wilson was a Progressive too. He actually brought us the 17th amendment, taking power away from the states thereby making the federal government less responsive to the people. So what sounded like a good idea giving people the rite to directly vote for a Senator, has given the people less of a voice at the state level. Let's not spread hate on Autoblog.com.
          dzspleen
          • 3 Years Ago
          @ScarGo
          Wait, so you think Senators *shouldn't* be popularly elected?
      carboy55
      • 3 Years Ago
      Just when you thought teabagging Republitards couldn't get any dumber or out of touch with what really matters to regular Americans.
        LUSTSTANG S-197
        • 3 Years Ago
        @carboy55
        And...? Oh, you mean you mean that's it? Wow!! I must say that I am quite moved by your words of wisdom!! Do you have nothing to back up your claim? Do you even know what purpose he served, or are you just talking out your ass?
        Evan McMiller
        • 3 Years Ago
        @carboy55
        And what is that exactly. At least we're not calling names and acting childish like you...
      BTCC
      • 3 Years Ago
      Now if the House would vote to eliminate the Commander in Chief's position.
      AJ Harnak
      • 3 Years Ago
      Caption: "Car Czar eats invisible Pringles."
      ojfltx
      • 3 Years Ago
      Is this the new face of Autoblog under tedeal to merge with HuffPo? It seems there are many more political stories. If they keep it up I will have to go elsewhere. I want car stories. If I want politics I can always go elsewhere.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      Polly Prissy Pants
      • 3 Years Ago
      They only voted to eliminate it because the Congressmen haven't figured out a way to make any shady money off of it.
      bauhaus
      • 3 Years Ago
      Calm down, everyone. This is just political posturing. The House voted; but - as you'll remember from high school civics, or maybe Schoolhouse Rock - the Senate also has to vote in favor of the same text, and the President has to sign it. The Senate has adjourned its session, which means the House resolution dies a whimpering death, as soon as the House adjourns.
      tigersharkjr
      • 3 Years Ago
      Im reading the comments, and the bitching from right wingers is absolutely hilarious. Under Obama, the government has actually gotten smaller. They have laid off hundreds of thousands of workers. In the meantime, in places like Florida where a guy that outright stole billions from the government, and was fined for it, has put in laws that not only made the government bigger, but has it more difficult for some people to get basic services and in the meantime found a way to get richer off it. Like it or not, the bailout worked for Detroit.
        Evan McMiller
        • 3 Years Ago
        @tigersharkjr
        Holy hell are you as ignorant as you sound or are you trying to be funny. Federal spending and employment under Obama has increased, there's no two ways about it. Not sure what you're trying to prove.
        LUSTSTANG S-197
        • 3 Years Ago
        @tigersharkjr
        You lost me at "Right-Wingers". Making assumptions and attempting to insult people is rarely successful at accomplishing anything but starting flamewars. An attempt to be objective will carry your point much further. Otherwise, it's just another political rant. That's my .02.
    • Load More Comments