Editorial

Too many czars

IT IS too early to say if the President?s decision to declare herself the country?s anti-drug czar will bear fruit. With public attention focused on allegations of high-level bribery in drug-related cases at the time, it was understandable that the President wanted to do something dramatic to assure the public that something was being done.

Since then, the debate has shifted to propriety of the President?s plan to require drug testing at all high schools and colleges. Ironically, the loudest objections came from her own appointee, the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, who argued?unconvincingly, we believe?that the testing somehow violates international conventions on children?s rights.

No sooner had that debate been settled that a new wrinkle appeared. Now we learn that the President has removed the energy secretary as chairman of the task force on climate change, and again appointed herself as the country?s czar, this time to oversee efforts to curb emissions.

Although no official reason was given for the President?s takeover of the task force, Palace sources say the President wanted to prevent another embarrassing clash between the energy secretary and her adviser on climate change.

As part of her new job, the President has cleared her schedule every Friday so that she can devote five hours ?to concerns and initiatives for environmental safety.?

We applaud the President?s desire to make a difference in anti-drug and environmental efforts, but we suggest that appointing herself czar in every area of concern may not be the most effective way of doing so.

We don?t need yet another czar?even if it is Mrs. Arroyo?to micro-manage every problem area; what we need is a President with good men and women she can count on to get the job done, and to take ultimate responsibility for their failures as well as successes.

US President Harry Truman understood this when he popularized the phrase ?The buck stops here? by putting it on a sign on his desk. This didn?t mean the president would take over each task when a problem arose; it meant the president would make the hard decisions and accept ultimate responsibility for them?including the people she puts in office.