
Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act - icey
http://startupvisa.com/2010/02/24/kerry-lugar-startup-visa-act/
======
briansmith
This would just allow the rich and connected to choose thousands of people to
budge to the front of a 3-5 year long line that other green gard applicants
(EB-3) are waiting in. If there are resources available to process more EB-5's
and EB-6's, then put them to use accelerating the process for the people that
have already waited years for their applications to be approved. Accelerate
that process and you'll accelerate the creation of startups by our friends
that are already here.

Edit: Above I said "a 3-5 year line," which is inaccurate. The current line is
7-9 years long.

~~~
pg
That's such a dishonest way of describing the situation that it's hard to
believe it wasn't deliberate. You describe this bill as if it merely allowed
powerful people to get their friends into the country, and it's not like that
at all. Startup investors are not identical with the rich and connected. Angel
investors are generally fairly rich, but not all VCs are. And they're not
choosing people at random to bring into the country. They have to invest money
in someone's startup to do that.

~~~
adw
To be fair, you can turn that round; my reading of what Brian said was that he
thought this bill was open to abuse, which could make _your_ reading seem
disingenuous.

Neither interpretation's fair to either of you, though.

(I have no horse in this race; living in Europe, the idea of a visa seems a
bit anachronistic, really.)

~~~
tsally
_(I have no horse in this race; living in Europe, the idea of a visa seems a
bit anachronistic, really.)_

I can understand why visas might seem obsolete from a European perspective,
but from an American perspective regulation is a necessity. Per year we
already accept the highest number of permanent residents in the world. In 2008
we naturalized a record number of people. And most importantly, per year we
grant the highest number of people political asylum. These numbers, combined
with the fact that unemployment in the US is the highest it's been since the
early 1940s, makes accepting large number of immigrants impossible.

I'm not defending this bill or the current system; I know there are areas that
need improvement. But fundamentally the US needs some sort of visa system.

~~~
jseliger
"And most importantly, per year we grant the highest number of people
political asylum. These numbers, combined with the fact that unemployment in
the US is the highest it's been since the early 1940s, makes accepting large
number of immigrants impossible."

This claim is specious: the high-end immigrants who are likely to start tech
companies and earn PhDs are enormously employable and likely to employ others.
If you want more employment, bring in people who are likely to make jobs;
notice the high number of tech startups with founders who are immigrants or
the children of immigrants.

Still, I doubt that these visas are going to have any noticeable impact on
unemployment because the rate at which they'll be granted isn't going to be
high enough.

As for immigration more generally, see James Fallows' comments here:
<http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/american-decline> . Allowing
immigration is one of the relatively few things that America does right.

------
tptacek
This is a bill that proposes to give US venture capitalists the overt ability
to terminate the residency status of founders and their families.

Not only do you have to get sponsored by an effectively arbitrary class of
financiers (it is possible that Warren Buffet wouldn't qualify under these
terms, depending on whether he has _personally_ made 2 equity investments last
year), but even if your company creates 10 US jobs and is cash-flow-positive,
if you don't raise $1MM in capital or make $1MM in revenue, you're out.

~~~
lionhearted
> This is a bill that proposes to give US venture capitalists the overt
> ability to terminate the residency status of founders and their families.

False.

"To make visas available, we would amend immigration law to create a new EB-6
category for immigrant entrepreneurs. We would draw from existing visas under
the EB-5 category. The EB-5 permits foreign nationals who invest at $1 million
in the U.S., and thereby creates 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas
where unemployment is high, foreign nationals only need to invest $500,000 to
obtain residency. Though roughly 10,000 visas are annually allocated for the
EB-5 category, less than half were used in FY 2009, so the addition of
immigrant entrepreneurs should not present an unreasonable burden."

Green card is permanent residency - once they've got it, they've got it. This
looks pretty awesome.

[http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-
vi...](http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-visa-
act-2-24-10.pdf)

It was a pdf and I coudln't figure out how to highlight so I retyped it myself
- apologies if there's a minor grammar/spelling error.

~~~
tptacek
Here's the text of the proposed bill:

 _‘‘(3) SPONSORED ENTREPRENEURS.—The Sec- retary of Homeland Security shall
terminate the per- manent resident status of a sponsored entrepreneur and the
alien spouse and children of such entre- preneur if the Secretary determines,
not later than 3 years after the date on which such permanent resi- dent
status was conferred, that—_

 _‘‘(A) the qualified venture capitalist or qualified super angel investor who
sponsored the entrepreneur failed to meet the investment requirements under
section 203(b)(6)(A)(i); or_

 _‘‘(B) the entrepreneur failed to meet the job creation, capital investment,
or revenue gen- eration requirements under section 203(b)(6)(A)(ii).’’;_

The job creation, capital investment, and revenue generation requirements (by
the way, this language is ambiguous, with the "or" being more restrictive here
and less restrictive earlier in the bill) are:

 _‘‘(I) create not fewer than 5 new full-time jobs in the United States
employing people other than the im- migrant’s spouse, sons, or daughters;_

 _‘‘(II) raise not less than $1,000,000 in capital investment in furtherance
of a commercial entity based in the United States; or_

 _‘‘(III) generate not less than $1,000,000 in revenue._

You know more about immigration law than I do. All I can do is read. Tell me
what I'm misinterpreting.

~~~
neurotech1
You did mis-interpret the gist of the bill.

The VC funders have less significantly less control than a employer of a H-1B
visa.

Basically they are saying you have a 2 years (max 3 years) to meet the
requirements (investment and jobs)of the visa, or go home. A EB-5 visa has a 2
year "conditional status" along similar lines.

A H-1B visa, the employer can terminate your job, and you have 30 days to
leave the country. A VC can't do that unless the founders have given up their
controlling interest.

~~~
andreyf
You're saying the same thing. To put it plainly, what I think tptacek is
saying, is that after 3 years, investors have a strong upper hand in
negotiating a round, knowing that "Homeland Security" has set an artificial
bar for how much a company must raise if the founders are to stay in the
country.

Edit: he said it explicitly here -
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1148789>

~~~
neurotech1
My whole point is they don't "have the upper hand" if you've already made $1m
in revenue.

~~~
tptacek
Yes. It just puts people with viable $900k/yr companies in a ludicrously bad
negotiating position.

~~~
alex_c
Which could be argued (by entrepreneurs looking for a startup visa) is still
better than nothing.

No, it's not perfect, but what alternative do you propose?

~~~
tptacek
Drastically relaxing green card restrictions.

~~~
davemc500hats
perhaps a laudable goal, however: 1) not mutually exclusive to proposed
Startup Visa Act 2) politically MUCH more challenging to pull off

feel free to contribute to other efforts to promote your ideas. however, hope
you don't feel the need to tear down our (complementary) ones that may be
achieved practically & expediently.

light a candle, don't piss on ours.

~~~
tptacek
Your idea isn't complementary to mine, and if it can't handle criticism on
Hacker News, it certainly doesn't deserve to get a vote in the senate.

~~~
davemc500hats
the criticism here is largely one-sided and poorly argued by a few such as
yourself.

if you must make it zero-sum, then i'm quite willing to face the music in the
senate.

so be it: have at thee, gauntlet thrown.

~~~
andreyf
I think we're getting too personal. Both of you make a good point:

Thomas says that there certainly _will_ be companies who will be forced to
raise a arbitrary amounts of money at an arbitrary time (in both cases, I mean
"arbitrary" in relation to their business), even when they're otherwise doing
well. On top of that, the VCs negotiating that round will know that their
investment is what determines the fate of the company.

Dave points out that this is the best solution which is politically viable.

Both seem true, in my opinion. Still, and with all due respect, Dave's bio
does say he "invests in startups if they _let_ him" (emphasis mine). This law
will create a class of startups that are _forced_ to look for investment at a
stage that may have make business sense, with the only strategy at a "fair"
valuation being to play off investors against each other. This is certainly in
the interests of people who invest in startups.

I wonder if bundling the interests of "those who can afford to lobby" into
laws is the only way to get laws passed in the US nowadays.

------
davemc500hats
sorry i'm just seeing this thread now; been working all morning / early
afternoon keeping up with posts & info on Startup Visa Act. i'll do my best to
comment where appropriate based on my understanding of the proposed
legislation.

1) people who want to "buy a VISA" (aka have the money to invest in a new
business already) wouldn't need any new legislation. the existing EB-5 handles
this.

2) VCs have no specific control over entrepreneurs ability to qualify / remain
in the US, however the entrepreneur is initially required to get at least one
sponsoring US entity (VC or qualifying angel) to support the application and
invest at least $100K. for renewal, they would have to qualify either by
reaching profitability at a $1M revenue run rate, creating a minimum of 5 US
jobs, or achieving a subsequent round of financing of at least $1M. True there
are a few edge cases which might not qualify, however we're doing the best we
can to draft legislation which is reasonable in most cases. (creating 5 US
jobs in 2 years is a fairly low bar, which should be substantially easier than
getting to break-even on at least $1M revenue, or raising subsequent capital).

3) it is not my understanding that creation of this new class will put
substantial hardship on processing other types of visas, altho obviously the
cost in time & resources is non-zero. that said, since most of the rqmts for
the application process in this new visa class are market-based, not based on
bureaucratic review, we expect to have a faster processing time than for other
types of visas (and hopefully would not slow down existing visa processing
much if at all).

for more info, please see <http://StartupVisa.com>

~~~
aditya
Dave,

I think the big issue most people on here are having, is the fact that if you
fail to either create 5 jobs or revenue of $1MM or a larger VC round, you get
kicked back to your own country despite having invested 2 years and all the
effort that comes with planting your roots in a completely new country.

It is hard to understand this if you've (and I'm not calling you out) never
switched countries but the older you get the harder it becomes to simply pick
up and move and since you are at the mercy of either the VCs in raising a new
round or the market in creating a sustainable entity it becomes less
attractive as an immigration option. What if you do create 5 jobs and then
tank in a year? Even if you have a million users?

An easier solution would be to give everyone with a successful track record of
being an upstanding citizen (paid taxes, earned > $xxx amount, has a
professional qualification) immediate permanent residency exactly like the UK
and Canada and not tie it to metrics that are hard to measure and achieve in a
short amount of time.

~~~
davemc500hats
aditya: dude, if you can't create at least 5 jobs in 2 years with $250K in
capital, you're a pretty pathetic excuse for an entrepreneur.

this is not a handout, it's a hand up. we expect people to innovate, create
jobs, and create positive economic results.

we're trying to help those who are willing to help themselves. and yes, those
entrepreneurs who are more capable -- that is, can run a business profitably
at some scale, and can create a minimum # of jobs -- will have a better shot
than others.

there is nothing unfair or unethical about trying to help those entrepreneurs
who are willing to do the work necessary to make it happen.

~~~
aditya
Hah.

The question is what happens when you fail. Obviously, if you have 100-250k,
you can hire 2 people. But then what happens if the biz fails? You created 2
(probably more jobs) and now you're going to get kicked back to your own
country? Or am I mis-reading this, and as soon as you hire 2 people you get
your green card?

~~~
davemc500hats
sorry, no free rides... if you fail, you have to start over again.

(that is: you can always start another business, pitch new investors for
funding, and re-qualify for the new business. there is no restriction on
multiple attempts, however you will have to convince investors you're worth a
2nd chance... or 3rd... or 4th... etc)

------
alex_c
As someone who might be interested in this if it passes, I think it's a step
in the right direction, and I don't really understand the objections.

I think this is much better than an H1-B. In many ways, you have more control
over your fate as an entrepreneur than as an employee - I've seen mentions of
entrepreneurial servitude, but working for a company on a H1-B seems like a
much more precarious position. In addition, with this proposed visa there are
clear targets to hit - you know what you're getting into upfront.

Talking about rich people bringing their friends into the country... as far as
I understand it, it sounds like EB-5 is still much better suited for that. Pay
$500,000 to start a business somewhere in rural America, and you're done - no
strings attached, no work required (the business doesn't even have to be
successful, unlike this proposal).

~~~
kvs
It's true current H1-B is broken or favors the employer. I think a fairly easy
fix to that is to not bind H1-B to an employer and let the employee move
around within the scope of the visa. This can alleviate some employers who
take advantage of H1-B holders.

------
rajat
Why not just expand the number of qualified people to which we give green
cards? Admit that if you qualify for a H1-B visa, you should be eligible for a
green card. This eliminates H1-B visa abuses, protects the H1-B applicant from
abuse, and most importantly, allows skilled people to come to this country.
Some of them will undoubtedly start their own companies.

We might have a serious illegal immigration problem in this country, but
admitting skilled immigrants is certainly something we should want to
encourage.

~~~
davemc500hats
this is a reasonable suggestion, and it is currently being addressed by other
proposed immigration legislation.

however, our proposed legislation simply focuses on making visas available to
people who can help 1) create jobs, 2) create innovation, and 3) create
economic output.

the two are not mutually exclusive, and are likely even complementary.
however, this does not mean they have to be merged, and they can be worked on
indepedently.

(that said, it is likely all such legislation will be considered in a
comprehensive immigration bill supported by the left & the right sometime this
year... we hope :)

------
TheTarquin
I'll preface my comments by saying that, as a libertarian, I'm a fan of pretty
much anything that opens the US up to greater immigration. That being said,
this reads to me more like a publicity stunt than an actual gateway to
bringing successful entrepreneurs to the US. The effort required to hunt down
qualifying talent overseas and to hook them up with VCs willing to make a
(sizable) investment seems like it would make it significantly less attractive
than finding a domestic startup in need of funds.

If they want a way to really bring skilled people into the US, they could
start by heavily revising or completely doing away with the execrable
immigration quota system:
<http://www.immigralaw.com/english/immigrationquotas.html>

------
vaksel
I don't think this is about startups...I think this is about bringing already
semi-successful companies into US.

~~~
fnid2
It's not about successful companies. You can have one of those without
investing $500,000 into it. Make no mistake, this visa is about helping rich
people make more money by enabling them to collaborate with other rich people
around the world.

If that is not true, then entrepreneurs should be allowed into the country
whether or not they've invested $500k into a business. What if you've invested
3 years into a business or 10 years? Why not let those people in too? They
create jobs.

This bill is absurd. It's classist. It's contrary to the American dream where
_hard work_ and _accomplishment_ is the ticket to wealth, not a check for
$500,000.

Why don't we just remove the veil and call it what it is, "The Rich Man's
Visa".

~~~
icey
The EB-5 visa (the "investor's visa") has been in place since 1990. The
article mentions that half of the available visas under EB-5 go unused, which
is where this bill is suggesting additional visas be allocated.

The bill that's just been introduced doesn't require the entrepreneur to do
anything except start a business and be funded. After 2 years they either have
to garner more funding or have over $1,000,000 in revenues.

I'm more than a little confused as to how you see this as being "the rich
man's visa", especially in light of the fact that the existing EB-5 program
fits that nickname much more accurately.

~~~
seldo
Yes, this is just the "slightly poorer than the EB5 man's visa", with the
added stipulation that they have to create jobs, which seems like a great
side-effect.

Fundamentally US immigration needs reform to a points-based system. But this
is a relatively quick and simple tweak that would create a lot of jobs.

------
fnid2
If anyone wants to buy a ticket to the U.S., I have lots of startups you can
invest in! Just send me the money and we'll start the paperwork.

------
Aegean
I don't see why it is so capital-oriented. It is certainly better than
nothing, but a fairer scheme would also include skills assessment. Otherwise
its against the nature of entrepreneurship - venture capital is not a
prerequisite to a successful startup, its only _one_ of the helpful
ingredients. On such a thing like visa where it is a _yes_ or _no_ situation,
it shouldn't just depend on availability of venture capital.

~~~
davemc500hats
"skills assessment" is typically a more SUB-jective metric. subjective metrics
are more easily misjudged, misinterpreted, and likely more time-intensive to
audit (read: subject to abuse by bureaucracy & likely to increase processing
times).

raising capital, creating jobs, or making revenue are very OB-jective metrics,
and are much less easily abused or compromised (read: determined easily by
provable data, likely to not be interfered with or misinterpreted by
bureaucrats, and likely to streamline / reduce processing times).

in other words, market data & stats are provable & will likely speed up the
process.

there is nothing quite so unfair or undemocratic as an INS official who has
had a bad day, is misinformed, or is behind on paperwork -- or heaven forbid
all of the above.

we hope to avoid this situation by making the Startup Visa rqmts very easily
objective & provable based on verifiable data.

------
djb_hackernews
What if there are multiple founders? Do you need 1Mil per founder after 3
years? Can only one company be started per EB-6?

I really really hope we get a profile of the people and companies that get
started if this bill passes.

------
maxklein
That's pretty cool. So all I need to do is to get a friend of mine to register
as an Angel, then give him 100k I've got my Visa. A lot of people can raise
100k - this seems like it would cause a lot of immigration to happen.

~~~
icey
They've proposed strict requirements as to who can perform these kinds of
investments in order to prevent the kind of loophole you're describing.

~~~
tptacek
Those requirements are, in their entirety: that you are an accredited
investor, and that you've made 2 $50k equity investments within the last 3
years.

~~~
icey
Ha, okay so "strict requirements" is not the right way to describe it.

To do what Max was talking about would only require $200K to get in the door,
and the willingness of an accredited investor to commit fraud.

~~~
davemc500hats
there are obvious rqmts to qualify that require time and effort in addition to
capital, and a track record of investment over at least 3 years and 6 previous
companies.

there are obvious penalties which would be incurred if someone intentionally
abused this system.

legislation does not prevent all types of abuse, however we have attempted to
reasonably make it unlikely that such abuse would not occur without great cost
and risk to the perpetrators.

we believe we have done a responsible job in drafting the legislation to avoid
this. exact language will depend on how the bill gets negotiated before final
vote.

~~~
tptacek
So, again, requiring a track record of investment over at east 3 years and 6
companies might (for instance) exclude _Warren Buffet_ , and keeping the
requirements loose means that virtually anyone can "sponsor" an "entrepreneur"
for very little money and get them 3 years residency in the US.

This just doesn't seem well thought out.

~~~
davemc500hats
seriously dude, do you like to argue for no particular reason?

yes, it's likely not all investors will qualify -- not perfect, but it's
reasonable to require some domain experience that can be provably audited. and
yes, the investors who do qualify will likely not be completely sketchy and/or
likely to commit fraud.

we picked a reasonable bar to get over that straddles both a rqmt of
experience and some capital without making it so low that people could abuse
it.

investing $300,000 in capital in 6 companies over 3 years does NOT seem like
"virtually anyone" for "very little money".

your perspective again seems irrational & extreme.

~~~
tptacek
My perspective is that the "investor sponsorship" component of this bill is
arbitrary, unfair, and will distort the market. I've been pretty consistent
about this point throughout the whole "argument".

If you don't want to continue arguing, stop arguing. I don't care what bar you
picked for investors, except for the fact that it seems obvious that it's
modelled on the tech investor clique. If you got the investor model perfect,
I'd still have a problem with conflating investment with viability or value to
the economy.

I don't believe for one millisecond that you will concede anything about this
bill, which you clearly passionately support. That doesn't bother me at all,
for what it's worth.

~~~
davemc500hats
i'm conceding about as much as you are, except i'm arguing from specific
economic goals & benefits. you're arguing about "distortions" that appear to
be subjective analysis.

if you want to have a discussion where we have the chance to change each
others' minds, then perhaps we should be talking about what parts of investor
mentality are in question, and why that isn't better than doing nothing /
status quo.

------
BerislavLopac
I agree with the commenters saying that this is not the right way to solve
things. If you want more entrepeneurial talents, get the money out of the
States, not the people in.

------
cuttinedg
Every initiative can be used wisely or misused. Understanding atoms led to
Hiroshima as well as clean fuel.

I am a US resident based out of India and mentor a few students. I do talk a
lot of PG and recently one of my students asked me as to why YCombinator would
not come down to India to organize a camp and find worthy ideas deserving
funding. These are students who, in the current scenario, need to first head
over to US on a student or work visa, and then apply for YC funding. By the
time they do that, most of them would have missed out a few precious years
from the age PG writes about as the golden age for taking risks (and I agree).

This visa opens up those doors. Yes, it can be misused, but if a little use
comes out of it and benefit the world, that is good enough.

US is losing out to India and China with respect to having a whole new
generation being highly educated. This visa is a great measure to continue to
attract talent from world over.

------
rms
PG, did you do any lobbying or anything beyond writing an essay on the startup
visa? How do you think Kerry heard about it?

Edit: I answered my own question, startupvisa.com is the group that did the
lobbying. <http://startupvisa.com/about/>

------
lisabethc
Seems to be a lot of confusion here. If you fail to meet the requirements
after two years - you don't get kicked out of the country. You just can't get
a green card via this method and you will need a new visa. If your start-up is
still viable you could try to get an H1-B etc through it, or go get yourself
another job. All visa holders are used to this kind of precarious situation
already - loose your job, drop/get kicked out of school etc and it does not
matter how long you have lived here, how much property you own, how many US
degrees you have, you are on a ticking clock.

Startup visa is a move in the right direction - it adds another viable path to
permanent residency. A path other than joining a big company and relying on
them for example.

~~~
muriithi
I doubt getting a H1B will be an option in this case. If companies could
sponsor their co-owners for H1B I bet that is what everyone would be doing.

IANAL so I could be wrong.

~~~
lisabethc
A co-owner can be sponsored for an H1-B. I have seen it done. But you have all
the normal H1-B issues e.g., prevailing wage. Also the word from immigration
lawyers is to expect it to be much harder for small startups to get H1-Bs for
any of their employees this year ... very bad news.

------
winter_blue
I'm really impressed at how quickly the US government responds to the demands
of its citizens. (in this instance, a demand for a startup visa.) US is an
example of true democracy.

In countries like India, it can take several years to get simple demands of
the people into law. Most politicians there are incredibly self-interested and
care little about the people. (I'm not saying US politicians are not self-
interested, but at least they listen to their people.

If only the governments of India and other countries in similar situations
began listening to their people's demands.. then these countries would be so
much better off.

~~~
alex_c
I'm very happy about this proposal, and I certainly hope it passes, but the
cynical part of me has to note a few things:

1) This hasn't passed yet. Let's see what happens, the US government is a bit
deadlocked right now.

2) I'm not convinced this happens very often. Maybe I'm wrong.

3) I can't help but notice that the demand comes from VCs and investors -
people who control large sums of money - rather than "citizens" or "people" in
the broader sense.

~~~
davemc500hats
re: 1&2 -- yep, it hasn't passed yet... which is why we're still working on
getting support & attention, and why a group of us is going to DC next month
to discuss the issue with elected representatives.

re: 3 -- um, "investors are people too". actually, what you should notice is
that the "demand" came from people who were concerned enough to take action,
and try and get something to happen.

i can't disagree that it helps to have people on your side who can help with
dollars and connections, but the more important point is that people cared
enough to spend time & energy to make change.

with a little luck, we might get it all the way across the finish line.

~~~
alex_c
My point was that if, say, a group of unknown entrepreneurs was pushing for it
instead of a high profile portion of the investment community, I am skeptical
that anything would get done so quickly. It's not a value judgement, it's an
observation - that's what influence is!

Don't get me wrong - I definitely appreciate what you guys are doing. I'll
probably be first in line to apply if this passes, so thank you, and best of
luck!

------
patrickk
By definition this bill would exclude YC type startups. The legislation
doesn't reflect the downward cost of launching a startup because of things
like open source software, falling rents due to economic climate, cheaper
bandwidth, remote web hosting etc. Most legislation in most countries is
reactionary and out of date by the time it's passed into law, and
unfortunately this seems to be the case here too. Still, credit must go to
those involved for the effort made, it a step in the right direction.

------
ojbyrne
As someone who's been in the US for 3 years now (not consecutive) on various
work visas, and have been involved in startups, my opinion is - This thing
sucks less than the current situation.

It's just not possible for the US government to fix things in a revolutionary
fashion, but every little (very little) step forward is still a good thing.

------
vidli
We posted a comical (and informative) post about this a few months ago. We're
calling this Victory Update #1 (and it is, it really is).

Who would have thought...John Kerry is the latest Wizard in the "Lord of the
Visa."

<http://blog.vidli.com/startup-visa/>

------
DavidCh
Canada has something similar.
<http://www.canadaimmigrationlaw.net/Immigration/investor.htm>

------
known
[http://www.canadavisa.com/alberta-provincial-nominee-
program...](http://www.canadavisa.com/alberta-provincial-nominee-program.html)
is also good

------
philwelch
I guess Boston has startups but I didn't think Indiana had a lot. This is
going to help Silicon Valley more than Boston or Indy--where are Feinstein and
Boxer?

~~~
Towle_
It's not about how many startups Indiana has. It's about Lugar.

~~~
philwelch
Aside from keeping him in the news, how does this help Lugar? More to the
point, how does this help Lugar _in Indiana_?

~~~
mlinsey
Lugar is an institution of his own. He's been in the Senate for 33 years. When
you reach that level of incumbency, you stop having to worry about how each
bill of yours affects your re-election chances.

~~~
philwelch
Perish the thought, but are you somehow implying a Senator is attempting to be
a wise and responsible statesman? That kind of nonsense will never fly in this
country.

~~~
mlinsey
You can do anything you want with decades long incumbency - be wise and
reasonable, be corrupt, pursue eccentric but harmless pet projects, be lazy,
be almost anything you want.

I have no idea what Lugar's motives are here, only that getting primaried out
or losing to a Democrat in Indiana is not even on his radar screen. (yes, Evan
Bayh is from Indiania, but there are no other popular former Democratic
governors ready to come out of the woodwork to run against Lugar)

------
freetard
Let's hope it will get voted faster than health care...

------
geebee
Would John Kerry, a lawyer, introduce legislation that might make it easier
for foreign lawyers to come into the United States to start new law firms?

No way.

~~~
coryl
US has a surplus of lawyers, and a shortage of good entrepreneurs.

