backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Jul 25 at 1:08 PM

Republicans, Democrats both support measure to expand federal power, but Ron Paul leads minority opposition

In an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper published by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (NWS), President Obama laid out his opinion of why poor cybersecurity is such a dire threat to the nation and his opinion on what should be done about it.

I. President Obama Calls Out Businesses for Poor Security

In the piece he describes the results of a recent wargames simulation by nation defense and intelligence agencies, recalling, "Across the country trains had derailed, including one carrying industrial chemicals that exploded into a toxic cloud. Water treatment plants in several states had shut down, contaminating drinking water and causing Americans to fall ill."

The scenario was fictional, but President Obama warns it could happen, if safeguards are not put in place.

Train derailed
President Obama claims terrorists could use cyber-attacks to derail trains.
[Image Source: Zimbio]

He blames poor security partially on the corporate sector, calling out the glaring incompetence security-wise of decision makers at some utilities and other vital infrastructure firms.  He writes:

Yet simply sharing more information is not enough. Ultimately, this is about security gaps that have to be filled. To their credit, many of these companies have boosted their cyber defenses. But many others have not, with some lacking even the most basic protection: a good password. That puts public safety and our national security at risk.

The American people deserve to know that companies running our critical infrastructure meet basic, commonsense cybersecurity standards, just as they already meet other security requirements.
 
 
Obama speaking
President Obama wants to expand the federal gov't to "solve" the cybersecurity "crisis".
[Image Source: U.S. Aid]

President Obama is proposing an amendment National Security Act of 1947 [PDF], which is ostensibly targeted at promoting information and expertise sharing between U.S. government agencies and key civilian-sector contractors/infrastructure providers.

II. Bill to Expand DHS is Backed by Both Parties, But Has a Few Vocal Critics

The bill, S.2105 [PDF], is a redraft of earlier House bill H.R. 3523.  

The new bill is dubbed the "Cybersecurity Act of 2012".  The key change from the earlier house measure is that the Senate bill funnels the information shared by private sector firms through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  President Obama vocally opposed the earlier House bill, which put the DHS in more of a backseat role.

Homeland Security
The bill would expand the scope of the DHS. [Image Source: CyTalk]
 
The new bill enjoys a fair measure of bipartisan support in the Senate.  It is sponsored by Senators Susan Collins (R- Maine), Joe Lieberman (I/D- Connecticut), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), and J. D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D- West Virginia).

However, the bill has a couple of vocal opponents among the more liberal and more conservative members of the House.  Among those opposed to expanding the DHS's role is Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).  Rep. Paul called the bill "Big Brother writ large."

Ron Paul
Rep. Ron Paul is one of the few opponents of the measure to expand federal government.
[Image Source: AP]

Rep. Paul has suggested that the Department of Homeland Security is poor in talent, offensive to civil liberties, and redundant, commenting [source]:

Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes, to fly them but not land them. And they totally ignored them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So, increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn’t absolve us of the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering. But we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information.

President Obama is urging Democrats and Republicans to come together, as they oft do, to overlook civil liberties and debt concerns and pass a bill to expand the federal government.  As with many such expansions of federal government pushed by America's two ruling parties in recent years, there will likely be large price tag to this measure.  And as usual the justification is "national security".

Sources: WSJ, U.S. Senate



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By steven975 on 7/23/2012 9:12:47 AM , Rating: 3
I keep hearing people say this, but they never come up with a coherent reason as to WHY and HOW?

How does a stable currency ruin an economy again?

And, he's on record as it not necessarily being gold, but backed by SOMETHING other than fiat.


By juserbogus on 7/23/2012 9:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
the gold standard was NOT a stable currency! don't you guys ever read any history about the crap you talk about?


By steven975 on 7/23/2012 10:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
While it had some short-term price fluctuations, long-term it is more stable than fiat currency.

Also, it doesn't have to be gold. Are you saying fiat currency is inherently superior than a commodity-backed currency, and for what reasons?


By The Raven on 7/23/2012 5:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
Don't argue with him. Find common ground which was my point. RP nor anyone else is going to single handedly bring back the gold standard. Only Nixon could do that lol. That aside we should all be in agreement. I mean there have got to be plenty of people who say the same type of stuff about the republicans right? Like,"If they would just get rid of all their moral regulations and prolife this and that, then I could agree with them." So if I vote republican does that automatically make me prolife? I just don't understand the push against RP because people think he is a nut. He may be a nut but he is not the kind of nut that you have to worry about putting in charge of the military/nukes or economy. Those nuts are Obama, McCain, Romney, etc. All the ones who think they know better than the rest of us and want to play Risk with our kids.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2012 5:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
You know I'm never one of these people who pull the "Everyone else is doing it" card, but in this case I'm pretty sure there's a good reason the entire civilized world switched to fiat currency. Maybe "gold standard" worked well in the past when we weren't part of a global economy, but how in the hell could it work today and allow us to be competitive?

quote:
Those nuts are Obama, McCain, Romney, etc. All the ones who think they know better than the rest of us and want to play Risk with our kids.


Why would you put Romney along with Obama? That's just harsh. What has the man ever did to you?

quote:
I just don't understand the push against RP because people think he is a nut.


Because he is? The man is nuttier than a fruitcake lol. But most of it is the good kind of nuts.

Also we're just very cynical. Let's be honest, most of what Ron Paul wants to do doesn't have a hope in a hell of actually being done in today's highly partisan culture, and we know it. His Presidency would most likely be very ineffective. 4 years? It would take him 20 years to do everything he wants to do.


By The Raven on 7/25/2012 12:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also we're just very cynical. Let's be honest, most of what Ron Paul wants to do doesn't have a hope in a hell of actually being done in today's highly partisan culture, and we know it. His Presidency would most likely be very ineffective. 4 years? It would take him 20 years to do everything he wants to do.
This is one point that he lost during the debates when people asked him how he would do anything with more than half of the legislature against his small gov't ideas. I can't even remember what he said (it wasn't very good) but he should have said that "at least with me you know that I will not push to make things worse (e.g. More bailouts, stimulus, war, regulation, subsidies, tariffs, bans, QE5...6...7...)."

Sounds pretty damn effective to me. The alternative is to encourage the gov't get bigger and bigger as it has most dramatically since WWII. Doesn't matter if it is a dem or a rep. No difference. Granted there were people who would have surely minimized gov't like Goldwater or Uncle Milton. But they didn't get elected because they didn't promise to 'pay off' voters. Well we have seen where that has gotten us and it is folly to keep going down that road.

Public servants have become public suckups. RP is sucking up to no one. He just plain represents a bunch of like minded individuals who want smaller gov't.


By The Raven on 7/25/2012 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(e.g. Cybersecurity Act , More bailouts, stimulus, war, regulation, subsidies, tariffs, bans, QE5...6...7...)
Whoops, forgot one lol.

Also regarding the fiat currency and central banking. Essentially it is like gov'ts running around using nuclear armaments on foreign countries. And just because you don't see mushroom clouds people don't mind it. But when you explain that the mushroom clouds are disguised as limited personal economic mobility and the armament is controlled by the likes of Bernanke, Volcker and Greenspan (unelected BTW), you start to think it is not a good idea.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/25/2012 1:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Public servants have become public suckups. RP is sucking up to no one. He just plain represents a bunch of like minded individuals who want smaller gov't.


If he was smart he would suck up just a little in order to win. Then when he's in office he can slash the Government and shoot down the protestors like dogs in the street lol.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki