No one has advocated a direct boycott of the census but there have been calls to only partially fill out census forms – even though that would be a direct violation of federal law. Those calls are the problem. They feed a climate of mistrust in the census and need to be refuted. Unless conservatives understand how important it is to participate in the census, that climate will result in fewer conservatives being counted and hand Nancy Pelosi more congressional seats.

I and other conservatives have worked hard to fight off the Obama Administration’s harmful census plans. We fought off their attempt to run the census directly. We fought off ACORN’s attempt to participate and we fought off ill-conceived statistical sampling schemes that would artificially inflate the number of Democrat voters. We have been largely successful in keeping this count apolitical and it would be a tragedy if some of our ill-informed friends handed Democrats a victory at the last minute.

Some commentators have mocked reports of low census participation in conservative areas, but op-eds like this reveal that it is, potentially, a problem.

“Every generation needs its own heroes,” McHenry said in a statement launching his proposal. “President Reagan was a modern day statesman, whose presidency transformed our nation’s political and economic thinking. Through both his domestic and international policies he renewed America’s self confidence, defeated the Soviets and taught us that each generation must provide opportunity for the next.”

Conservatives’ efforts to deify Reagan, of course, are nothing novel. In 1998, a GOP Congress renamed Washington-National Airport to honor the 40th president. There’s that enormous $800 million trade center on Pennsylvania Ave. bearing Reagan’s name. The Navy christened the USS Ronald Reagan, an aircraft carrier, in 2001. And there was even a 2005 congressional push to replace D.C.’s 16th St. in favor of Ronald Reagan Boulevard. (It failed.)

What’s confusing is why Reagan would be the hero of anyone claiming to be a fiscal conservative. In 1980, the year Reagan was elected president, the federal debt was just under $908 billion. Eight years and several tax cuts later, it was $2.6 trillion — a jump of 186 percent.

Put another way: Reagan racked up more debt in eight years than the previous seven presidents had managed in 35 — a span that included the Korean and Vietnam wars.

How disillusioned are Republicans by Reagan’s legacy? In 1998, after the airport renaming, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) called the move a fitting tribute to “the man who initiated the concept of a responsive, smaller government.”

He might have added: that can’t afford itself.

UPDATE: Libertarians aren’t fooled. While GOP leaders were celebrating their claims to fiscal rectitude last month at CPAC, Wes Benedict, head of the Libertarian Party, issued a statement pointing out that Reagan “signed massive spending bills that made his the biggest-spending administration (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.”

An article posted at CNS News, linked prominently from the Drudge Report, noted that the Obama administration is on track to beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration in terms of average federal spending as a percentage of GDP. However, the article failed to note that the Reagan Administration already beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration easily. Roosevelt’s average was 19.4 percent of GDP, while Reagan’s average was 22.3 percent of GDP.

With that in mind, Reagan’s face on the $50 bill might carry something much different than the flattering symbolism that supporters envision.

“We’re using a variety of sources and finding everyone who has been referred to as a ‘czar,’” said McCleary. “It would be appropriate for the WH to release a formal list.”

In the meantime, McClearly provided me with two sources that McHenry’s office is using to build a czar list: this list from Politico, and this thread from the conservative web forum FreeRepublic.com. The FreeRepublic thread begins with a list from the conservative AmericanDaughter.com, which calls the appointment of czars “the beginnings of dictatorship” and includes several administration officials who’ve actually been confirmed by the Senate.

The FreeRepublic list, and some comments from that thread — which got pretty wild, as is the norm for the site — are after the jump:

1. Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar, Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS czar, Jeffrey Crowley [openly gay white man]
3. Auto recovery czar, Ed Montgomery
4. Behavioral science czar, position not yet filled
5. Bailout czar, Herbert Allison Jr., [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
6. Border czar, Alan Bersin
7. Car czar, Ron Bloom [Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury , under Senate oversight]
8. Climate change czar, Todd Stern
9. Copyright czar, not appointed yet
10. Counterterrorism czar, John Brennan
11. Cybersecurity czar, position will be vacant on August 21st [upon the departure of Melissa Hathaway]
12. Disinformation czar, Linda Douglass [This is a new media buzz since our earlier list, a response by pundits to the White House request for informants: see Glenn Beck and Lew Rockwell]
13. Domestic violence czar, Lynn Rosenthal
14. Drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske
15. Economic czar, Larry Summers
16. Economic czar number two, Paul Volcker
17. Education czar, Arne Duncan
18. Energy czar, Carol Browner
19. Food czar, Michael Taylor [a former Monsanto executive, or, the fox in charge of the henhouse]
20. Government performance czar, Jeffrey Zients
21. Great Lakes czar, Cameron Davis
22. Green jobs czar, Van Jones [who has a communist background]
23. Guantanamo closure czar, Daniel Fried
24. Health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
25. Infotech czar, Vivek Kundra [Shoplifted four shirts, worth $33.50 each, from J.C. Penney in 1996 (source). His last day in DC government was March 4 but on March 12 the FBI raided his office and arrested two staffers.]
26. Intelligence czar, Dennis Blair [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position. He is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral]
27. Latin-American czar, Arturo Valenzuela (nominee) [although this post is referred to as a czar, he is nominatied to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and so is subject to Senate confirmation. Voting on his confirmation was delayed to clarify his position on Honduras. Watch WaPo's Head Count to track status of confirmation.]
28. Mideast peace czar, George Mitchell
29. Mideast policy czar, Dennis Ross
30. Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg
31. Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein
32. Religion czar, aka God czar Joshua DuBois
33. Safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings [appointed to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a newly created post (that does not require Senate confirmation); openly gay founder of an organization dedicated to promoting pro-homosexual clubs and curricula in public schools]
34. Science czar, John Holdren
35. Stimulus oversight czar, Earl Devaney
36. Sudan czar, J. Scott Gration
37. TARP czar, Elizabeth Warren [chair of the [Congressional Oversight Panel for the Trouble Assets Relief Program; note that Herb Allison is frequently called the TARP czar]
38. Technology czar, Aneesh Chopra
39. Trade czar, Ron Kirk
40. Urban affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion
41. War czar, Douglas Lute [retained from Bush administration, married to Jane Holl Lute, currently a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security]
42. Water czar, David J. Hayes [a Deputy Interior Secretary and therefore subject to Senate oversight]
43. Weapons czar, Ashton Carter [actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and so subject to Senate confirmation]
44. Weapons of mass destruction czar, Gary Samore

Some comments from the thread:

If the czars have high-level, decision-making authority as their titles would indicate, then it is my concern that their appointment without Senate approval represents a circumvention of our Constitutionally-mandated confirmation process.  On the other hand, if the czars have no actual power, then I am equally concerned that taxpayers are fronting the bill for the salaries of these figureheads and their staff.

The problem, as I noted yesterday, is that these huge lists of “czars” include people who’ve been confirmed by the Senate, like John Holdren, Obama’s science adviser, and people who have been labeled “czars” in the media even though their jobs were created by acts of Congress, like Director of National Intelligence John Brennan. Rep. Jack Kingston’s (R-Ga.) list of 34 “czars” includes no less than seven people who have been confirmed by the Senate. Who’s on McHenry’s list, which is 10 names longer?

McHenry’s letter to the Committee on Oversight is below the fold:

September 9, 2009

Chairman Edolphus Towns                        Ranking Member Darrell Issa
Committee on Oversight                            Committee on Oversight
& Government Reform                               & Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives                   U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515                            Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Towns and Ranking Member Issa:

I respectfully request a hearing by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the responsibilities of the Obama Administration’s various “czars.”

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint high government officials.”  The Senate’s role is clearly defined in this process, requiring its advice and consent to presidential appointments to high-level positions in Cabinet departments and independent agencies.

Since taking office in January, President Obama has appointed 44 policy adviser “czars” with positions of responsibility ranging from conducting our nation’s foreign policy to overhauling our health care system.  These czars are neither vetted by the Senate nor required to testify before Congress on their activities.  Furthermore, the scope and limitations of their authority still remain unclear.

Each of the two possible scenarios here is troubling.  If the czars have high-level, decision-making authority as their titles would indicate, then it is my concern that their appointment without Senate approval represents a circumvention of our Constitutionally-mandated confirmation process.  On the other hand, if the czars have no actual power, then I am equally concerned that taxpayers are fronting the bill for the salaries of these figureheads and their staff.

Just this past weekend, the President’s Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, resigned after details about his radical views and previous inappropriate comments surfaced in the media.  Mr. Jones’ questionable past would have been brought to light before he took his position had he been vetted by the Senate.  His ability to slip into a position of power without due Congressional diligence only further underscores the necessity for a confirmation process.

I ask that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in its capacity as investigator of our federal bureaucracy, bring these appointed czars before the full committee to testify on their authority and responsibilities.  The American public deserves no less than the transparency and accountability promised by this Administration of its appointed officials.

Sincerely,

Patrick McHenry
Member of Congress

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) just shot out a statement declaring that he has “absolutely no reason to question President Obama’s citizenship.”

I anticipate that as a legal matter the courts will continue to come to the same conclusion.

But he also leaves a bit of room for doubt, adding that his view is based only on a cursory survey of the case. “I have not carefully reviewed the evidence as a jurist would,” he said.

Something there for both sides of this inane debate.

From their statement:

We share Ms. Bachmann’s concerns about ACORN’s involvement in the 2010 Census and will continue pressuring the Bureau to follow their own guidelines for partnering organizations and dump ACORN. However, we can not emphasize enough how important it is for every individual to fill out their census forms.

Every elected representative in this country should feel a responsibility to encourage full participation in the census. To do otherwise is to advocate for a smaller share of federal funding for our constituents. Boycotting the constitutionally-mandated census is illogical, illegal and not in the best interest of our country.

The unfortunate irony is that Ms. Bachmann’s boycott only increases the likelihood that ACORN-recruited census takers will be dispatched to her constituents’ homes. Anyone who completes and returns their census form will remove any need for a census taker to visit their residence.

Furthermore, a boycott opens the door for partisans to statistically adjust census results. The partisan manipulation of census data would irreparably transform the census from being the baseline of our entire statistical system into a tool used to wield political power in Washington.

You don’t usually hear Republicans criticizing a fellow member in such a public and official capacity.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, criticized McHenry for missing the point:

“Every once in a while,” said Norquist, “there’s some silly Republican or clever Democrat who says that people aren’t concerned with high taxes anymore. Well, we just had 600,000 people in the streets protesting big government, inflation, and the promise of higher taxes. You could not get 600,000 people to do that after four months of Jimmy Carter. You could not get them to do that after four months of Bill Clinton.”

Norquist waved off Time’s cover package as the kind of argument Democrats always make after winning an election. “The left is always busy explaining that taxes don’t matter. It’s like the bad guy in the action movie telling the good guy, ‘Put down the gun and we’ll talk.’ It’s not because the tax issue doesn’t scare them. It’s not because the gun doesn’t scare the bad guy. It’s because this is a very powerful issue and they don’t want it around. When class enemies warn you off something, it’s for their benefit, not yours.”

The blame for these bonuses rests solely with the Bush and Obama Administrations and those who march in lock step with their irresponsible policies.

The post-facto excommunication of President George W. Bush continues.

We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010. Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

McHenry has been one of the blunter Republicans ever since his 2004 election—he was the subject of a fine profile by Benjamin Wallace-Wells for his dedication to Tom DeLay’s leadership and the message war. His rough partisanship is one reason why, even though he’s only 33, Republicans like Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) have become more prominent, post-delay.

What about the substance of McHenry’s argument? It’s a nice theory but it’s really not working for Republicans. After a sharp downturn in 2008, approval of Congress is up, led by rising support levels from Democrats and independents. The earmark-a-day, scandal-a-week strategy isn’t bearing fruit.