Obama, Romney differ on major homeland security issues

order – and the stalled legislation — would let federal agencies propose new security regulations covering critical infrastructure systems,electrical grids, water-treatment plants, railway-switching systems,and financial-transaction networks.

Government agencies would also be able to suggest, but not decide, which systems would be covered by theproposals, and what kind of legal avenues could be used to issue and enforce new rules.

The executive order would create a new cybersecurity council under DHS whichwould cover critical infrastructure. The council would include representatives from the Departments of Defense, Justice,and Commerce, as well as the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Romney
Romeny agreed with most Republicans that the Cybersecurity act gives federal agencies too much power over private firms.

Romney’s Web site has just a couple paragraphs — in a 43-page PDF — on cybersecurity, including the statement below.

The multi-faceted threat we face in cyberspace requires a much more coordinated effort by the Department of Defense, the intelligence agencies, the Department of Homeland Security and the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury to secure America. This effort must prevent duplication, maximize information sharing and bind together the disparate competencies of these agencies.”

The policy documentreveals little about an actual plan to protect the nation’s infrastructure from cybersecurity attacks,and Romney has not talked about a plan during the campaign.

Killer Apps, a blog on Foreignpolicy.com, asked a Romney campaign spokeswoman about a more detailed plan on cybersecurity.

“Mitt Romney has promised to make cybersecurity a top priority early in his administration,” the spokeswoman told Killer Apps. “He will order the formulation of a national cybersecurity strategy, to deter and defend against the growing threats of militarized cyber-attacks, cyber-terrorism, and cyber-espionage. Once the strategy is formulated he will determine how best it can be implemented.”

Infrastructure
This is another issue that both candidates have largely avoided, even though, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, there would be a need to invest as much as $2.2 trillion to shore up the U.S. agin infrastructure. The topicwas barely mentioned in the three presidential debates and was not mentioned in the vice-presidential debate.

Many states across the country have outdated water and wastewater systems, bridges in need of repair, and roads that need to be re-paved or flat out replaced. It is becoming apparent that the responsibility to deal with the massive infrastructure problem will fall to the states.

Obama
The Obama administration tried to get a $60 billion infrastructure plan passed last year, but it was quickly rejected in the senate. The president tried to combine the infrastructure proposal with the need to reduce unemployment, and his response to the Republican rejection of his plan was sharp: “The American people deserve to know why their Republican representatives in Washington refuse to put some of the workers hit hardest by the economic downturn back on the job rebuilding America,” Obama said in a statement. “It’s time for Republicans in Congress to put country ahead of party and listen to the people they were elected.”

The legislation would have provided an immediate $50 billion investment in roads, bridges, airports,and transit systems. It also called for the creation of $10 billion infrastructure bank to leverage private and public capital for longer-term infrastructure projects to serve.

This time around Obama has a different plan for allocation money to infrastructure. In his booklet on job creation,titled The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan for Jobs and Middle-Class Security (PDF),Obama proposes to “commit half of the money saved from responsibly ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to reducing the deficit and the other half to putting Americans back to work rebuilding roads, bridges, runways, and schools here in the United States.”

Romney
Romney has not talked much in his speeches about the nation’s infrastructure, sohis economic plan may be the place to gain an insight into his thinking on the issue.

The key, observers say, is that Romney’s economic plan would require a nearly 30 percent reduction in all discretionary spending, and there appears to be no exemption made to investments in shoring up the U.S. infrastructure (this is the conclusion of the pro-business Bloomberg Businessweek and the liberal-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities). 

The Christian Science Monitor explains that the cuts Romney proposes in discretionary spending, and his plan to increase defensespending, would likely mean cutting spending on infrastructure.