There is a fascination in DC with "czars". With the Iraq war not proceeding exactly as planned, Pres. Bush is looking for a "war czar". The obvious question is "Isn't that your job?", but it seems he has had an upgrade to "commander guy".
(Man, I couldn't even make up stuff this good). The list of czars is getting longer.
# In 2001, with escalating concerns about possible attacks on our information technology infrastructure, Bush named a "cybersecurity czar."
# In 2003, the president's desire to help his corporate benefactors led to the creation of a "regulatory czar" at the Office of Management and Budget. Around the same time, Bush named his first "AIDS Czar." (He didn't choose wisely -- Bush tapped Randall Tobias, the administration's former top advocate of global abstinence-only policies, who was recently forced to resign after procuring "massages" from a controversial Washington escort service.)
# In 2004, faced with growing discontent over the nation's struggling manufacturing industries, Bush appointed a "manufacturing czar." (He chose the chief executive of a Nebraska company that had laid off manufacturing employees and built factories in China.)
# 2005 was a banner year for czars. In February, Bush responded to revelations about failed national security intelligence by creating an "intelligence czar." Shortly thereafter, we had a "bird-flu czar." A few months after that, following the tragically botched handling of the response to Hurricane Katrina, there was a "Katrina czar."
What if the administration appoints a business czar - would he/she be the "biz-czar"?
Anyhoo, the tendency to appear like we're solving problems by handing it to a czar strikes be as overt belief in dictatorial power for stuff you really really want to get done. No wonder our government is doing so well with the old democracy method.