Comments on: What the tech industry needs from President-elect Obama

Don Reisinger thinks the tech industry needs to be a central concern to the Obama administration. But with other pressing issues facing the president-elect, will that happen?

[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.