This article discusses the tech strategy of some of our presidential hopefuls:
Senator Clinton has proposed creating a $50 billion national alternative-energy investment fund and increasing basic research budgets at key federal agencies by 50% over the next decade.
With the effects we are seeing in private industry research and the prevalence of people’s awareness and willingness to use alternative energy – why does this need to be a government investment. This should be done to allow the free market decide and innovate. Currently in the tech sector there is no stagnation that government needs to spend money on trying to get perceived innovation – the innovation is already happening.
Senator Obama has posited wider broadband penetration as a way to create job opportunities for the urban poor and says he’ll overhaul fees the government charges phone companies to pay for it.
Reducing fees and allowing the market to establish the way to do this – I also find no fault on holding the companies to actually do this if they want a fee reduction. There should be a term limit on this fee reduction with oversight of how compliant is the companies receiving this are.
McCain favors peeling back layers of Federal Communications Commission regulations to promote competition in Internet services.
The correct method is always less spending by the government or more freedom for companies (as long as they are not breaking the law).
Edwards has proposed an alternative-energy fund to promote wind and solar power, and biofuel to make cars and trucks more efficient.
We are back to spending for innovation that is evolutionary and going to take place anyways – there is no reason to have the government invest in this when it is going to happen anyways.
Romney has said the country needs to invest heavily in new technology for power generation, nanotechnology, and creating new industrial materials.
We are back to the investing – tax credits and fee reduction are the ways to do this – reducing the amount of money into the government and staying with the companies reduces costs to the tax payers for the bureaucrats payroll that would administer this fund. Let’s please take the initiative so the government needs to have the least involvement and smallest pay roll possible as it saves us all money in the long run.
Obama, Edwards, and McCain have been most explicit on patent reform. Obama’s campaign says such a law would promote more scientific research and discourage excessive litigation.
There really is no way to cut litigation without getting more explicit in the patent detailing. While patent reform needs to take place – I feel it involves more how a normal person can receive a patent without the help of big business behind them and allow them to leverage that patent as easily as big business.
Edwards’ campaign says he would create a national plan whereby the government pays for a year of public college for more than 2 million students who take college-prep courses in high school, work part-time during college, and stay out of trouble.
Why are we paying for this – do all of us that have finished college or have gone in the past get a credit? There should be methods in dealing with the colleges – especially the State schools for cost reform instead of paying for students to go.
To figure out the cost to tax the payers – 2,000,000 x 30,000 (if they are going to a state school) 60,000,000,000 – which is 60 billion dollars. What taxes are going to increase to pay for this? The nation is already in debt over the Iraq war – we need to decrease spending until we get a balanced budget.
My biggest problem with this piece over all is that they didn’t mention Ron Paul once. You can say they only did the top-tier candidates, but McCain looks like he doesn’t have a chance. Ron Paul is considered the most friendly of nominees that the tech industry likes.