Senate "Startup Act" neglects the obvious. To create jobs for themselves, US citizens must grant themselves the private incomes to purchase everything they are capable of producing.

Commentary by Roger Erickson

Senate ‘Startup Act 3.0’
(hat tip, Dan Flemming)

A BILL

To jump-start economic recovery through the formation and growth of new businesses, and for other purposes.
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Conditional permanent resident status for immigrants with an advanced degree in a STEM field.
Sec. 4. Immigrant entrepreneurs.
Sec. 5. Elimination of the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based visas.
Sec. 6. Capital gains tax exemption for startup companies.
Sec. 7. Research credit for startup companies.
Sec. 8. Accelerated commercialization of taxpayer-funded research.
Sec. 9. Economic impact of significant Federal agency rules.
Sec. 10. Biennial State startup business report.
Sec. 11. New business formation report.
Sec. 12. Rescission of unspent Federal funds.


SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Achieving economic recovery will require the formation and growth of new companies.
(2) Between 1980 and 2005, companies less than 5 years old accounted for nearly all net job creation in the United States.
(3) New firms in the United States create an average of 3,000,000 jobs per year.
(4) To get Americans back to work, entrepreneurs must be free to innovate, create new companies, and hire employees.


***

This has to be applauded, but let's apply our rule of saying "Yes, And" rather than "No, But." It's a necessary but not sufficient start to national momentum. Let's see if we can shape into into a productive direction.

First, define STEM, then gracefully use "Yes, And" to shape it in a productive direction. As many have learned, the hard way, imagination is far more important than mere "STEM" or "science, technology, engineering, and mathematics" methods. Dare I say it? We need an iSTEM? :)  Or at least an app that helps us to imagine stemming our own, systemic stupidity.

How about a stem list of preferred national outcomes? That's an imagined seedling we should all want to see root and flower. Instead, what we're still calling "policy" is defaulting to Central Planning of a few, by a few and for a few. That always fails - and we know it. No handfull of so-called elites - aka, idiots - has the imagination to even grasp what the US electorate is capable of thinking, knowing and doing ... so they resort to constraining it, as a last gasp method for staying "in control." Note to citizens: It never matters HOW much STEM methods you apply to lack of imagination!

Why on Earth would supposed elites even WANT to "control" what the golden goose is capable of producing for them? Even thinking that exposes them as merely elitely stupid. BMHOTK! Why the hell can't WE, as a people, keep low-IQ megalomaniacs and sociopaths OUT of public policy? For the life of me, I can't find any logic in our current, political selection process.

Something's gonna have to change, and it could be devastatingly swift, transient and nearly unnoticed. Or ... dragging these knuckle-dragging morons off stage could be an ugly, drawn-out process.

ps: The current Senate Startup Act neglected to state the obvious. To create jobs for themselves, US citizens must grant themselves the private incomes to purchase everything they are capable of producing. That's what we created a fiat currency system to do, back in 1933. Somehow, since then, our little animal farm has allowed some people to have more of our fiat than others - thereby defeating the whole purpose of fiat.

For once, I agree with WalMart. Can we just stop the stupid?