Slashdot Mirror
Former BSA VP Confirmed as Tech Undersecretary
RedOregon writes "The Senate has confirmed Robert Cresanti as the Commerce Department's new undersecretary for technology.
Who's that, you ask?
He was the former vice president of public policy at the Business Software Alliance.
Does this give anyone else the Heebie Jeebies??"
You're getting the heebie jeebies from an undersecretary? The position means very little, be glad he wasn't given a real job like a spot on the Supreme Court.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
Sounds like par for the course to me.
About the same as a Doubleclick hack (Nuala O'Connor Kelly, Chief "Privacy" Officer of Doubleclick) advising HomeSec on privacy.
Or the Gator/Claria hack (D. Reed Freeman, former Gator/Claria Chief "Privacy" Officer) sitting on HomeSec's Data "Privacy" and "Integrity" Advisory Committee.
Maybe we should be thankful. Based on precedent, the BSA guy should be put in charge of the Copyright office, or perhaps hired by NSA to... adjust its priorities when it comes to what sort of traffic is worthy of further investigation.
Anyone taking bets on when Jeff Bezos gets picked to head USPTO?
It could also be argued that the administration is picking people who know something about what they're regulating and understand the issues. Mind you, I don't say you're wrong, just that there's more than one interpretation of this.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Fortunately Ebay did in fact reinstate my auctions but I was pretty unhappy about the disgusting way I had been treated. I can only hope that the shoot first, ask questions later attitude will be moderated now that this guy has a government job.
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
It could also be argued that the administration is picking people who know something about what they're regulating and understand the issues. Mind you, I don't say you're wrong, just that there's more than one interpretation of this.
No, "foxes guarding the henhouse" usually implies people who know the situation but profit from not enforcing the rules.
The problem with conservative government is that it's primarily run by people who wish it didn't exist in the first place. The reason why everything is so screwed up in the current administration is because it's staffed by people who have such disrespect for the institutions that they are running that they don't bother to do the job right.
Witness FEMA. Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform once stated, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Congratulations. Was New Orleans a good enough bathtub for the people to realize the problem with letting people with this attitude run things?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Where does government money go that doesn't create jobs in America?
Much of it is spent very, very inefficiently (relative to activity in the private sector). Or, much of it is "spent" as grants, social programs, and other hand-out-ish type stuff that doesn't actually require (or produce) an actual productive job in return for that money. Simple re-distribution of money from a worker to (say) a non-worker does not create a job.
Pork-type spending (like, building pointless highways in the middle of nowhere, or sponsoring a teapot museum in the Carolinas - really!) may ultimately employ people in the literal sense, but it doesn't focus that money in areas where there's a real, 'natural' demand for the output of those workers. It's very distorting, and creates false spots in the economic landscape.
Why do you expect investors to invest as much money in America as the American government as opposed to investing in overseas and multinational companies
I expect investors to invest money wherever it suits them. If they're smart, they'll invest a goodly amount in domestic activity... but there's nothing wrong with investing in operations overseas, because that creates larger, newer, hungrier markets in those other places... and if you're still banking on the US as an innovative, useful place, those other countries will then have more to spend on our higher-end goods and services. Do you really think we're better off running low-end textile mills in this country? Or, are we better off leveraging developing economies that need the stimulation at that level, and focusing locally on more high-end, info/service/brain-type stuff that we do so well? It's not as simple as investing in/outside our borders, because we're completely past that as an economic model anyway. Practically everything we consume is made in China... so why not invest there and have a greater impact in how we operate parts of our companies there, and do everything we can to make Chinese citizens able to buy from us the stuff that we're still better at?
I think the other thing that's worth mentioning is that "tax cuts" cover a lot of ground. Where it really counts is in reducing the capital gains taxes, so that people who have their cash tied up in something (a second family house, or a pile of stocks, etc) can liberate it and move the investment onto something else (which stimulates growth) without getting killed by taxes. This is much more of a middle class thing than people think it is. Just selling one stock and turning right around to buy another that looks promising... that can clobber you with taxes. No money has landed in your hands, and some other company's just raised the capital with which to expand their business (and thus hire people, etc), but all the sudden 20% or so of the money you were willing to relocate into a needy part of the economy is... gone. That completely kills the incentive to push money into the hands of growing businesses that will make the most of it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.