
Obama Wins The Election. Here’s His Technology Agenda. - jabo
http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/06/obama-wins-the-election-heres-his-technology-agenda/
======
rdl
I really hope the STEM immigration reform happens, independent of
"comprehensive immigration reform". The main people blocking "just do the STEM
part now" immigration reform are congressional Democrats, and I'm not sure if
the election changes anything there. Maybe the President getting re-elected
pretty solidly gives him more moral power in arguing with the Congress?

~~~
nhebb
There are other immigration reforms issues that have had wide bipartisan
support, but congress doesn't seem to like to package legislature that way.
There's a strong historically tendency towards bundling.

> Maybe the President getting re-elected pretty solidly ...

Electorally, yes, but it's a squeaker by popular vote. As of this writing, the
victory margin is less than half of a percent.

~~~
backprojection
I live in Texas, and I voted for Johnson. If I lived in Ohio I would have
voted for Obama. It's hard to find numbers at the moment, but it looks like
Johnsons's pulling 5%.

~~~
cglace
I will never understand anyone who votes for the Libertarian candidate and
then says their other choice was the far more progressive option.

Is it because both are the contrarian play to something else?

~~~
randallsquared
Are you confused because you believe that libertarians are on the right,
maybe? If you examine libertarian positions, you might be surprised to find
many of them "left" of Obama.

~~~
cglace
Socially, yes they are "left" of Obama. Where they differ on all positions is
the roll of the government to remedy social and financial problems.

~~~
rdl
There are some issues which aren't fiscal (directly) but aren't really social
policy (directly), where Libertarians are the farthest "left" (or right, or
whatever) of the two big parties, and where people may vote based on morality.

GTFO Afghanistan ASAP (and their overall isolationist position) is one of the
big ones. I could see someone who was pro-state intervention in domestic life,
pro big taxes, etc. still voting Libertarian if he thought GTFO Afghanistan
ASAP was the most important issue.

It's basically impossible to put US politics (or anywhere, really) on a strict
left/right linear chart.

------
TheFuture
RIM bailout? That one I would believe.

Open government? Wow, I remember that one from 4 years ago.

Skilled immigration? They don't vote for Dems. Unskilled immigration is all he
cares about.

Pour more money into failing "green" tech. Yes, let's build more Chevy Volts
filled with toxic batteries.

Seriously, there is no tech agenda from this pres.

~~~
rayiner
Here is the thing with investments into Green Tech. The economically proper
thing to do would be to have Pigovian taxes on pollution, and let the market
sort out how to achieve the lowest pollution levels. I think > $1 trillion in
new taxes, even if they were offset by reductions in income tax, etc, wouldn't
really go over well. But that's the Right Solution (TM).

So we're stuck with things like subsidizing Green Tech.

~~~
krzyk
Subsidizing never, ever created a good solution. It always makes poor
solutions, that cost more than they are worth. Compare to subsidizing
medicaments. When they are subsidized then they cost more then when government
lifts the subsidy.

If you want a good solution then make it fight for life in the current market,
eventually it might win - in this case you will really get a good solution.

~~~
rayiner
Ideological handwaving never results in a good argument.

Here is the basic problem with the market for energy. Say I give you the
choice of two candy bars: one costs you $1.00, the other costs you $0.75 and
also costs some random third party $0.75. Which do you pick? The latter, of
course. Everyone always picks the latter, and the end result is economically
inefficient.

This is the same choice when it comes to energy. A Harvard study found that
the externalized costs of coal range from $350-500 billion:
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/us-usa-coal-
study-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/us-usa-coal-study-
idUSTRE71F4X820110216). Fully half the true cost of coal power is externalized
to people outside the transaction of power producers/power users. The market
doesn't yield efficient results when costs can be externalized like this.
That's Econ 101 level knowledge. There are only two ways to fix this market
failure: either tax coal power to reflect the externalized costs, or subsidize
green tech to compensate. In our political system new taxes are pretty much
impossible, hence we adopt the latter solution.

------
westicle
Maybe I'm showing my hn colours, but I'm surprised by no mention of SOPA/PIPA.

I would have thought broad policies which have already been introduced as
bills during the last term in office would be more significant to technology
than potential immigration reforms.

I note that I'm not from the USA, so my perspective might not be as well-
informed as it could be.

------
padobson
Doesn't say anything there about defending internet freedom or net neutrality.

Not that Romney would have, but it can never be pointed out enough that we're
not given real choices with these elections. Given that 98.5% of the
electorate voted for one of the two bozos, it's clearly not being said enough.

~~~
gte910h
America has HUGE minority rule issues. I predict 2016 will have a major non R
vs D theme of "Swing state vs everyone else".

Reforming states to something that doesn't cause third parties to be spoilers
(by using a voting system such as IRV), probably in the NE to start, is likely
the new wave that gets us out of this mess.

~~~
moultano
Please not IRV. If we're going to change voting systems, Approval Voting is
better in every conceivable way. (It's simpler, closer to what we do now,
produces the condorcet winner more reliably, and doesn't have the crazy non-
monotonicities that IRV does.)

~~~
gte910h
Technically, yes. Approval is better. Politically, IRV has a better chance of
not getting huge opposition by the major parties

------
curt
Missing for those in technology hoping to sell the company they build:

Capital Gains Rate is likely to increase from 15% to 23.8%

~~~
prostoalex
I'll refer you to Ken Fisher's Debunkery <http://www.ken-fisher-
debunkery.com/>

But the gist is that when you plot the capital gains rate and stock market
curves on the same graph, there's no dependency, which is counter-intuitive.
However,

1) Endowments, pension funds and 401k's don't care about capital gains tax
rate as they're shieleded at 0%

2) Foreign buyers are exempt from US rates as long as they pay their home
country rates and there's a double-taxation agreement in place

3) People don't choose to buy less, people just choose to sell less. Combined
with fairly stable demand generated from (1) and (2) the price of quality
assets actually tends to grow faster in high-capital-gains-tax years than in
low-capital-gains-tax years.

What's correlated with higher capital gains taxes is brokerage profits -
sellers don't sell as frivolously.

~~~
curt
Your entire premise is flawed since they all apply to companies in the stock
market not a company sale. It's unrelated to my original statement but....

Investment vehicles, such as a 401k, do pay capital gains taxes just not on
the sale they pay when the individual pulls the money out of the account.

You're arguing for less liquidity in the market? Liquidity is a good thing
because it allows the market to more efficiently deploy capital.

PS... correlation does not equal causation otherwise the amount Chocolate
eaten per capita has direct effect on the number of Nobel Prize winners.

~~~
prostoalex
> all apply to companies in the stock market not a company sale

Nope. First off, companies in the stock markets sell, too. Second off, tax-
free vehicles are used for investments in private equity, venture capital,
real estate, etc.

> Investment vehicles, such as a 401k, do pay capital gains taxes just not on
> the sale they pay when the individual pulls the money out of the account.

Nope. It's all treated as regular income at the time of withdrawal, so former
and current capital gains rates have no effect.

I agree with your argument on liquidity - I don't argue for it, I'm just
saying that net effects from increased capital gains are far more subdued than
apocalyptic scenarios people usually attach to them. Excess liquidity also
generates bubbles, so there's a fine line you have to walk where even though
you can get a no-documents loan to buy up dozen of new real estate properties,
you probably shouldn't.

------
xradionut
Open data is the big thing for me. There's a lot of buried gems in the gov
data and doing the ETL and make it available to the public in a usable format
is a good way to build skills.

~~~
danielweber
So what can he open up now that he couldn't open up during his first term?

~~~
rcavezza
Anything he believes is good for the public but may have hindered his
reelection.

~~~
deelowe
I seriously doubt Obama is now completely unconcerned with his future in
politics. He's much to young to hail mary his second term like this and
there's no precedent that would indicate anything of to sort. Also, he's going
to be focused on winning back the house in 2014. As it stands, he's in for
more gridlock over the next 2 years given the split in congress.

Remember, this is the same guy that supported the NDAA, has increased drone
usage both locally and abroad, and didn't take to well to the whole Bradley
Manning/wikileaks deal (also, what was his stance on sopa/pipa). Obama is only
for "open government" to the extent that it furthers his party's agenda.

~~~
njharman
Does any ex-president have a political career? Where would they go from the
top? He's never going to have as much power and ability to make difference as
2nd term US President. It's now or never.

~~~
deelowe
Ex-presidents do a lot of work that goes unreported once they leave the white
house. They typically work directly with the president who's currently in
charge on foreign affairs by meeting with dignitaries, they assist with
humanitarian efforts, they work as part of the national convention (John Kerry
and Jimmy Carter assisted Obama with his speeches and debates), and so on.
Just because they aren't in the white house, doesn't mean they aren't active
in politics. These guys have experience that is extremely valuable to anyone
who's currently in or is trying to get to the white house. Also, remember that
it takes a certain type of person to be president. Most of these guys would go
insane if they just went back to their ranch once they left.

The President's Club is a great book that covers some of the ways ex-
presidents stay involved in the politics of the day, even if you don't hear or
read about it in the news.

~~~
Evbn
And all of that comes with 0 accountability to the electorate, which was
parent's point.

~~~
deelowe
My argument is that if it's something he things is good for the public, but
could damage his status within his party or his party's opinion in the eyes of
the public, he sill won't do it.

------
saurabhpalan
I am really looking forward to the Startup visa...its about time

------
mtgx
What is his copyright agenda, though?

------
emmapersky
Its a shame the startup visa won't cover STEM graduates from non american
schools.

~~~
HistoryInAction
You'll be able to get in through funding. Believe me, Startup Act 2.0 isn't
Startup Visa Act isn't IDEA Act. There's a whole spectrum of potential
implementations of the solution.

I've put together a coalition that's building the next bill. Note that
acquisitions aren't taken into account in the current bills. It'll be fixed.

We've been going through some iterations within political space. No more press
releases, starting today, game on for startup visa.

~~~
throwaway1979
I remember seeing that the UK gave visa preferences to people with MBAs from
certain top american schools. I wish there was something equivalent in the US
for technical people (e.g. people with a masters/PhD from a top 20 non-us
school). There are current solutions but none support someone doing a startup.

~~~
HistoryInAction
Too many Congresscritters scared of something like that being used to hack the
system. It's going to be American schools-only, if we can pass anything at
all.

And yes, current solutions are pretty awful. I detail some hacks here though:
[https://www.quora.com/Blueseed/Are-there-any-interim-
solutio...](https://www.quora.com/Blueseed/Are-there-any-interim-solutions-to-
Blueseed-co)

More and more founders are looking to O-1, especially if they can raise a
round, putting them in the top few % of all 'startups,' including mom and pop
shops, but damned if I'm explaining Steve Blank's segementation of the new
business market to USCIS.

------
hayksaakian
tl;dr you'll still have to bust your ass to execute a successful startup.
Don't expect the government to do your job.

~~~
cglace
But do expect them to give you money if you are building green tech.

------
beatgammit
Well, I guess I'm not starting my startup for another 4 years...

------
rpm4321
tl;dr: Tax it.

~~~
jamesaguilar
Possibly the least accurate TL;DR I have ever read.

~~~
rpm4321
Yep, sorry. I thought it was obviously facetious. Probably not in the spirit
of HN, but with all the victory lapping by the liberal wing of HN tonight, I
guess the libertarian in me got a bit carried away.

~~~
MartinCron
I feel your pain, but I guess that's what bleeding heart liberals do. Isn't
it?

