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 foolsgambit11 on 7/24/2012 6:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
If the Founding Fathers didn't want PPACA, they shouldn't have given Congress the power to tax. Besides, the idea that the Founding Fathers' views would be absolute, and not adaptable to the facts of the world we live in, is absolutely asinine. That's why they entrusted a branch of the government with interpreting the Constitution.

The Heritage Foundation wasn't the source of the individual mandate idea? http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-a-...

Have you ever read Adam Smith? The entire wealth of nations is a diatribe against government working hand in hand with business to promote business interests. Businessmen favored protectionist trade restrictions, local monopolies and cartels, because they were good for their business. But they were bad for the nation. Your understanding of Adam Smith is apparently only rivaled by your understanding of the Constitution. You might want to check yourself here, because you also don't know what the hell Marxism is either. Apparently for you, anything but trickle-down capitalism is Marxism.

A bureaucrat whose job it has been to study public sector job creation and implement government policies to promote it has a lot more experience in what works and what doesn't, what the limits of government capabilities are, etc., than a guy who has spent the past 20 years focused on their narrow little world in business. I used the word bureaucrat specifically because I knew it would rile you up. Sorry. But it's true, bureaucrats aren't all the useless wastes we associate with the DMV.

Arguing that someone who has become successful should be thankful for the help they received along the way isn't denigrating their hard work. Reminding them that they owe society something back for everything they've received isn't denigrating their hard work. Again, this is a case of you trying to assign the worst motives to Obama because you have preconceived notions of who he is.

Reagan was the beginning of the drive to cut taxes, a philosophy that began taking roots in the Republican party a decade before he took office thanks to the efforts of people like William F. Buckley. Prior to that, the Republican party was very different. Conservativism was very different. Remember, it was Nixon who created the EPA.

And by the way, the difference between conservatives and liberals isn't whether the government or individuals are responsible for American success. We both think it's American individuals who are responsible - but which individuals? Conservatives seem to think it's Donald Trump. Liberals think it's the everyman, and promote government policies which give the average American the best chance at being successful.

You can throw around labels all you want, but it's pointless when they mean nothing. That's my point. When the policies of Obama don't differ qualitatively from those of Bush, how do you justify applying a moniker to one but not the other? I'm not bringing Bush up to try to bash him, or promote Obama's popularity. I'm just trying to demonstrate many conservatives' hypocrisy in considering Obama's policies.

And finally (though I'm pretty sure you won't even come back to read this), your attempt to paint me as some kind of radical from a handful of statements demonstrates a lack of acceptance of nuance. This may be the reason that you've decided Obama is a Marxist - anything less than a doctrinal adherence to a libertarian conservative ideal is radical socialism to you.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/25/2012 12:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Getting tired of that argument. I love how Liberals quote from the Heritage foundation on this one thing, then on the other hand call it a "Right wing extremist" group on every other point that they prove the utter failure of Liberalism. You can't have it both ways.

But here's a hint, I don't care what the Heritage Foundation thought about it. Why? They aren't lawmakers. They aren't Congress. They can have whatever opinion they want, it's Obama and his radical thugs that passed Obamacare.

quote:
Arguing that someone who has become successful should be thankful for the help they received along the way isn't denigrating their hard work. Reminding them that they owe society something back for everything they've received isn't denigrating their hard work. Again, this is a case of you trying to assign the worst motives to Obama because you have preconceived notions of who he is.


Telling people they "owe society" is usually the first step in some Marxist/Socialist agenda. Obama want's higher taxes on the rich, higher fees for everything, mandated Obamacare...then scratches his head why his job creation plans have failed and unemployment still sucks and we still have a sluggish economy.

quote:
And by the way, the difference between conservatives and liberals isn't whether the government or individuals are responsible for American success. We both think it's American individuals who are responsible - but which individuals? Conservatives seem to think it's Donald Trump. Liberals think it's the everyman, and promote government policies which give the average American the best chance at being successful.


LOL oh that's classic! Well if that's what you believe, Obama has been a perfect example of why that Liberal ideology doesn't work.

In essence you believe you can redistribute wealth better than the free market can, for the betterment of everyone. Not just a "select few" rich.

The problem is the Government doesn't have it's own money. It has OUR money. The money the Government spends is essentially taken out of the peoples hands. So when Obama increases spending by 300+%, and claims he can "stimulate" the economy with it, how is that possible?

Liberals destroy the wealth of the populace with reckless spending. The money Obama and the Liberals are spending, WE assume the responsibility for paying back. Fools, how can you give Americans the best chance of being successful, when you're reaping money from them and incurring debt that's MORE than our GDP? The collective American public, rich and poor and middle class alike, cannot even sustain this debt.

Who have you bettered? Who's been helped? Ask the African American community, who saw Obama as their savior, how they've been helped. Nearly 20% unemployment rates for that demographic. But by god, they'll keep voting those Democrats in because they want to "help" them. Please. It's a sham. Liberal ideology helps nobody, and scaled up to a national level, does MUCH harm to all of us.

quote:
If the Founding Fathers didn't want PPACA, they shouldn't have given Congress the power to tax.


First of all, they didn't. Even Roberts said they cannot use the Commerce Clause to impose such a tax. The Commerce Clause CANNOT be used to compel entry to a market.

Secondly, it's not a "tax" at all. But a penalty. And just because you Liberals now pretend you don't know what the difference is, the Founders sure as hell did.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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