As a rebuttal, when was the last time a "czar" position appeared with no statutory or budget authority attached?
However, the idea of a Cybersecurity Czar seems ineffective to begin with (remember DHS). A Cybersecurity Committee with mandatory quarterly/biannual face-to-face meetings with the POTUS seems more useful. The committee can concentrate on giving status updates and a high-level cost-benefit analysis that the POTUS could understand, while the POTUS would simply decide for or against.
It'd be cheaper (no separate department + overhead), the security folks can concentrate on their area of expertise instead of the politics, and the POTUS would have one less adviser breathing down his neck. It might suffer from design-by-committee flaws, but security people seem more apt to play nice with each other (at least from my 5000 mile view).
(It makes too much sense to ever exist)