More czars and promises?

Note the lead paragraph of an AP article, "America has failed for too long to protect the security of its computer networks, President Barack Obama said Friday, announcing he will name a new cyber czar to press for action."

Here is yet another czar being unconstitutionally named with neither the Senate's confirmation nor their vestment of said appointment in the office of the President, the courts of law or the heads of departments as laid out in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The article further expounded, "Overall, computer company executives and members of Congress hailed Obama's announcement as a good first step, while warning that there is much hard work still to be done."

Apparently, some if not all members of Congress are aware of this czar appointment...and
applaud it! Why are they not more possessive of their authority? Are they bogged down in more important things like creating universal healthcare?

Also, when I hear Congress saying "there is much hard work still to be done", I fear that is code speak for spending more taxpayer money. They will at least have to hire someone. How is that expenditure covered...in the auto-pilot, unreviewed annual budget increases? Don't you wish they wouldn't "work" so hard.

At least one Senator, from the northeast no less, is on record expressing concern. The article noted, "'Placing a strategy 'czar' in the White House will hinder Congress' ability to effectively oversee federal cybersecurity activities and will do little to resolve the bureaucratic conflicts, turf battles, and confusing lines of authority that have undermined past cybersecurity efforts,' said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee."

I grow tired of seeing an ever expanding, unchecked executive branch with which I strongly disagree on principle and on Constitutional grounds. Does it also not bother you that these are called czars? Wasn't that a term used to describe rulers in pre-revolution Russia?

Another point in the article mentioned that "He assured the business community, however, that the government will not dictate how private industry should tighten digital defenses. And he made it clear that the new cyber security effort will not involve any monitoring of private networks or individual e-mail accounts. The Internet, he said, should remain open and free." Is this yet another government promise on which we should hang our hats? Note that the Social Security Trust Fund established in 1939 would be "raided" by Congress starting in 1965. So much for that promise.

No more czars, no more promises. Both only lead to more government control and less individual freedom.