What the tech industry needs from President-elect Obama

Now that the election is over and Barack Obama enjoyed a landslide victory over John McCain, it's time we shift our focus from the past, to the future. Keeping in tradition with that mindset, it's also best that we forgo the use of Obama's campaign initiatives in developing a framework for the future. If presidential politics has taught us anything over the past 200 years, it's that what the candidates say on the campaign trail and what they do in the Oval Office is usually much different.

Rest assured that no one has any idea what the future will look like and it's difficult to say what President-elect Obama will do since the current macroeconomic conditions can change at any time.

But one thing is for sure: if we truly care about the vitality of the tech industry and want to see it stay as one of the most important sectors in our economy, status quo simply isn't going to do that.

Over the past five years, few companies in the tech industry have even considered an IPO in the U.S. thanks to draconian policies in the form of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that make it far too costly to be a public company in this country. And in the process, the government's fear of companies has made the U.S. far less competitive globally and American-based tech firms have felt that strain.

Realizing that, soon-to-be-President Obama needs to evaluate the economy and realize that the tech sector is being impacted heavily by laws that punish them for operating in the U.S. instead of encouraging them to expand their businesses here.

If he doesn't, the entire industry could be left in a dire position.

For once, a U.S. president since Ronald Reagan needs to protect the interests of our businesses. In order to do that, President-elect Obama needs to ensure that government funding is being put in the right places to help the tech industry stay on top.

Obama needs to ensure that the Research and Development tax credit stays permanent and government grants needs to be given to innovators to help the U.S. take a leadership role in important sectors in the industry, like nanotechnology. If Obama doesn't invest in the intelligence of the people in this industry, how can we expect consumers to invest in their products?

More importantly, President-elect Obama needs to realize that imposing significant taxes on companies simply won't solve any of our economic troubles. The technology industry is one of the most important sectors in our economy, but if he decides to tax major firms even more, we can expect one outcome: the tried and true dictum that companies don't pay taxes will rear its ugly head once more and prices industrywide will rise. And when that happens, we can expect even worse financial results from major companies in the industry and the possibility that many of those firms will move their operations overseas to protect their financial interests.

But President-elect Obama also can't forget about Silicon Valley. For years, Silicon Valley was the incubator for major tech companies and the place where many IPOs surfaced. But now, it's in danger of becoming a burial ground unless start-ups can get the tax breaks and credits they need to stay in business.

And most importantly, Obama needs to look at the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the damage it has done to Wall Street as it enriches public accounting firms like PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, and KPMG, and find a way to regulate companies without making it such a costly trek to an IPO that tech companies won't even consider trying it.

With an economic crisis putting added pressure on the tech industry, Obama has numerous concerns and a series of hard decisions to make. And as the tech industry continues to face significant pressure from all sides of the economy, I can only hope that our next president recognizes that and realizes that if the U.S. is to be competitive going forward, we need to be serious about making the country a haven for technology companies and the single beacon of hope for small businesses across the world.

Say what you will about last night's election. But now that it's over, we need to move forward, fix the mistakes that have been made, and ensure that the technology sector of our economy is alive and well across the U.S.

Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.

[baivab]

A rather un-inspiring commentary with the same stuff repeated over and over again. To the contrary, considerable # of companies went IPO from US. Sarbanes-Oxley Act - did not affect IT as much as it did financial companies, for example. In fact, IT companies benefited as new IT solutions were developed and releases as enhancements or products in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
What's required - is a complete re-visit to how IT (US) companies look at human resources. (a) Immigration laws, work permits, permanent residencies need to be visited (b) More opportunities for US citizens to work at competitive salaries (c) Increase H1 quota and STOP H1/L1 abuses (d) Faster green-card processing time (e) Tax breaks for US citizens working in IT, thus giving them a level playing field with non-US resources (f) Educating young ones in colleges to opt for Comp. Sc. qualifications

[SebDavies]

write your own column if you can do better

[ColonelTravis]

Sarbanes-Oxley or not, you will be begging for the good ol' draconian days with this new Congress and president .

[ojazra02]

Very nice article. The duty of government is to protect the wealth of it's constitutes through what use to be know as a "Protective Tariff".

Today, this is a forgotten policy --- As the world pushes for globalization, look for all nations to become equal: that is equally poor...

Thank you.

[bradyme]

Wow, really? I though the current policies encouraged outsourcing and growing companies to keep moving out, then staying in. Funny how we help develop, then push out our ideas and labor, just to help make more money with in the country. There got to be balance. Right now it's all in one direction. OUT of country.

[universeman]

ojazra02 the duty of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to protect their wealth. Wealth is a private matter; rights are a political matter.

All nations are most emphatically not becoming equally poor because of globalization. If you look at the dramatic rise of India and China in the last 15 years, you can see that fully 1/3 of humanity is being lifted out of grinding poverty. This is the benefit of trade, it enriches all.

[ojazra02]

Government does have a constitutional duty to protect civil liberties, it also has provisions for what used to be termed a "Protective Tariff" as was stated earlier. This was a mechanism put in place to defend the wealth of the United States, and its citizens. It (Protective Tariff) was removed at around the same time the Federal Reserve act became law, and also at around the same time the Federal Income tax became enacted.

Without a protective tariff, wealthy nations will have to compete with other nations (Like China and India) that have a far less standard of living, and who can also build cheap goods - much lower than the US - because there financial standard is much lower. To make it an even playing field for all, protective tariffs were once used.

China is suffering in this economic mess as well, they are shutting down factories and its citizens are going homeless, much like the US. India will most likely be next, as the dominoes will continue to fall and impact other nations.