Over the many sites that I have searched, their is no real clear answer to this question. However, irresponsible it may be to appoint someone else to simplify your job that a majority voted to trust one man to accomplish and subvert the constitution directly due to the ever increasing size of the bureaucracy of the Fed, it is clear that Republicans and Democrats going as far back as F.D.R. have been doing this. This is a real problem that needs only to be solved by downsizing the federal government. The number that shows up the most is 4 czars for Bush, but I have also seen 35, though, that was over a two term administration. If the number was 35 but over a two term admin, it would still not justify the actual subversion of the law. The real problem with this, Pres. Obama has now appointed 33 individuals to czar positions in less than 10 months. With that said, I revert back to the statement about simplifying the Presidency by appointment of these people as czars with a question back. Has Obama appointed these czars in such rapid fashion due to his lack of experience in this type of executive position and needs that much help or is he creating a shadow government? This one man has been trusted with the administrative duty and inlight of all the "CRISIS" that we have seen over the last year, are we to believe that he is so incompetent at executing his administrative obligations that he needs 33 extra sets of hands in the mix or........?

Which President Bush ?

George H. W. Bush? who was the 41st president, hence the nickname of Bush 41, or are you asking about his son, George W. Bush, who was the 43th president.

George W. Bush had a total of 36 positions (many temporary) filled by a total of 46 different individuals over the years, of which 21 were confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
The number of 46 is still highly objectionable, as some of the alleged czars were only nicknamed czars by media outlets.

As far as I know George H. W. Bush assigned 3 appointees with 2 being what were called czar jobs.