This speaks to the futility of Obama's claimed plan to limit congresional spending, earmarks in particular. It's clear that while he has little ability to stand up to his own party, they certainly plan to stand up to him on that issue.

For one, Sheets is wrong to imply that calling a mere presidnetial advisor a czar some how creates some new and magical presidential authority. You can call a presidential advisor anything you like, he only excersite the power of the President. That is to say, if the President lacks authority, so does any advisor, so-called czar, acting his his name.

The real problem is not the creation of so-called czars but rather Presidents attampting to exercise authority which they simply do not have. For example, BO wants to run the Census from the White House basement. Yet the authority to run the Census was given by Congress to Commerce Department. The power grab, not the naming, that is the problem.

I don't expect too much complaining from Congress aside from Sheets.

Byrd also urged the president to prohibit the right of executive privilege from appointees' in agencies overseen by the Senate.

I don't know, I'm sort of with Byrd on this one. Or perhaps it's just because we've been being burned with this executive privilege crap in recent history.

The problem is that our government, outside of the Pentagon where IIRC the idea originated, is incapable of dealing with matrix managers. It's too hierarchical.

he is in many ways exactly what the Framers envisioned when creating the Senate.

Well, natch. He's a lot closer to them than the rest of us.

[Byrd] is in many ways exactly what the Framers envisioned when creating the Senate. He is keenly interested in protecting his own power base, jealously guarding it from encroachment.

Exactly. We need more of that. The legislative branch should be jealously contesting with the executive branch for power rather than rolling over as they did for Bush.