Ok, not counting the ones continued from Bush, Obama appointed 24 NEW czardoms and re-opened 5 that were stopped under previous pesidents and started again by Obama.
GWB started 30 new ones but stopped 9 of them before his term was up. Besides those, 7 stopped sometime in 2008. Eleven were continued by Obama.
Obama is less than 5 years in office, so cannot compare to 8 yrs of Bush just yet.

Corzine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

your "source" about czars says: "The czars generally have a very limited scope of authority, little or no staff, and no budget of their own."

Richard C. Holbrooke assembled an extensive staff as
AfPak czar, as an example

of course, they all would; they are DIRECTORS of the office of whatever they are named to; that means building space, staff, budget, etc. It would be totally blinded to say they are a one-person show. And many of them have far-reaching authority, not at all limited scope.

And it is not so that the term czar was first used for Obama's appointees. The term was first used in Woodrow Wilson's time.

On July 13, Obama used the term “Drug Czar” when referring to Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, as an example.

That is an extremely slanted piece with derogatory adjectives and phrases. You cannot use that as a source. You should have learned that in high school English class.
"Because the monarchs of imperial Russia were called czars, and Russia later became part of the Soviet Union, they assume that you will believe that anyone associated with that title is a communist and, therefore, evil. Yes, that's what they think of you." Where's the proof of that? And an intelligent person would not make the leap from Russian czar to the Soviet Union.
"The czars generally have a very limited scope of authority, little or no staff, and no budget of their own". Tell that to
Kathleen Sibelius, for instance.
"Gotta love those hypocrites" repeated four times
" incessant whining" used several times instead of talking about objections .
"Gee. Republicans keep telling us that they just worship the Constitution eversomuch. It's a shame they can't be bothered to read it" Such hubris to assume that.
"Have you ever met a kid who just likes to whine? No matter what's going on, no matter how safe and comfortable they are, they're just not happy unless they're whining. And then they don't understand why people don't want to be around them" Truly biased, derogatory language. People object to things they believe to be wrong. Characterizing it as whining shows bias and disdain, thus not a source for a meaningful discussion.
"This would be funny if it wasn't so gloriously pathetic. Seriously, we all have better things to do with our time." That is precisely what I would say about that piece...except it would be funny if it WEREn'T pathetic.

yes, 38 new czars have been appointed under Obama, so far, but my objection was to all the czars and I did not say it was something new. They go back to FDR. You really must learn to read for content and meaning.

Obama called them czars and they are not just advisers; they are heads of bureaucracies tasked with organizing and overseeing functions that are supposed to remedy problems. Did you see one word about Obama or who appointed them in my posts? You are wayyyy toooo defensive so you read into posts what is not there. The point is not who appointed them, but the fact that they are a drain on the economy; their functions overlap what used to be handled by departments that already existed.

I wasn't talking about the workforce; I was talking about the bloated administration (top level people) of which there are too many; The general workforce gets laid off, forloughed, but not their administrators earning the big bucks. I was talking about redundancy and waste and also the many czardoms that have been created, along with their staff, offices, salaries, pensions, health plans, etc. etc. Wasteful practices have been documented in the billions all over the governmental bureaucracy. There is no need to make the average citizen feel the hurt just so he can then cry uncle and agree to more taxes.

nothing wrong with the sequester itself; as was said, it is just a limit on the INCREASE in spending; nothing was actually cut. But then the government agencies were told to cut stuff that really hurts the average citizen, so he would rail against the sequester; like shutting tours of the White House, cutting the number of TSA agents and flight controllers. That kind of stuff instead of cutting the horrendous waste, redundancy and bloated administration that exists in the departments and agencies.

1st and 3rd really give a sense of place; fabulous

it has been said

SHEESH! you are very hostile and assuming way too much. I have relatives who are bee keepers and if I accepted explanations without checking I would not have brought up the point of mites and fungus. If you had just stuck to the plain facts without your hostile aspersions, we might have had a conversation. As it is, I did read up on it some more since my first reply and see the point of bees becoming disoriented from pesticides. But YOU have to go for the throat and assume all kinds of nonsense about right wing and cover up, etc. Shame, shame on you. That just precludes what you might otherwise have said in a factual manner to which one might listen.

http://philly.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/pussification-of-america-oregon-planning-a-memorial-to-honor-50k-bumblebees-who-died-in-a-target-parking-lot/
http://rt.com/usa/oregon-dead-bees-memorial-403/
http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f32/oregon-memorial-to-honor-50-000-fallen-bumblebees-501105/
http://www.asternews.com/2013/06/28/memorial-to-honor-50000-bumble-bees-that-died-in-oregon-parking-lot.html
http://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/0eNW12h6JF0If
http://frrole.com/o/memorial-to-honor-50000-bumble-bees-tha-foxnews-portland
and on and on
truly you have blinders on

The bees were dying off because of some mite or fungus; ask any beekeeper