Download VC now and plan increases it MacMillan 10 – [Douglas, writer for

VC now and plan increases it
MacMillan 10 –
[Douglas, writer for Bloomberg BusinessWeek , Mar
3, http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2010/tc2010033_186150_page_2.htm]cn
Proponents say it could attract thousands of new startups in a few years, and tens of thousands of jobs. Ron Hira,
professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, says the backers of the StartUp Visa have not done enough research to show that there
is widespread demand for it. Another point of contention is whether the bill would force U.S. entrepreneurs to compete with foreigners for essentially the
same pool of funds. Last year, venture capitalists invested $17.7 billion in U.S. firms, according to data compiled by the National
Venture Capital Assn. and PricewaterhouseCoopers, from a peak of $100.5 billion in 2000. Kerry and VCs
say the StartUp Visa would help
add to—rather than take from—this total. "I'm sure it would increase" the total VC investments, says Ron Conway, an
early investor in Google (GOOG) and PayPal who now runs the SV Angel fund. Kerry agrees: "Once the program
catches on, we expect that it would lead to the funding of more startup businesses here than would be the case
without it."
Immigrant entrepreneurs are key to solve energy and US leadership on climate
Madrid ’10 (www.americanprogress.org AP Photo/Seth Perlman From a “Green Farce” to a Green Future
Refuting False Claims About Immigrants and the Environment Jorge Madrid October 2010 From a “Green
Farce” to a Green Future Refuting False Claims About Immigrants and the Environment Jorge Madrid October
2010 Jorge Madrid is a Research Associate with the energy team at the Center for American Progress. He holds
master’s degrees in urban planning and public administration from the University of Southern California and is
a former graduate fellow with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus institute.
We need leadership and solutions, not scapegoats To reiterate: The United States will only reach meaningful
cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and curb the effects of climate change through global partnerships. The
United States, as the world’s highest emitter of GHGs, must lead by example and not be distracted by those
who want to create a political wedge between the environmental community and advocates of sensible
comprehensive immigration reform. Caving into such tactics hinders our path to a clean and green future and
diminishes our standing as a global leader. The facts lost in anti-immigrant green farce arguments are critical, and they need to be
understood and addressed. For instance: • Thirty-eight percent of U.S. GHG emissions come from buildings. • Commercial and industrial buildings
account for as much as 50 percent of U.S. energy use and residential buildings account for another 20 percent. • Twenty-nine percent of U.S. GHG
emissions come from transportation. • Seventeen percent of global GHG emissions are caused by deforestation. • Fifty-seven percent of global GHG
emissions are caused by burning fossil fuels. • The United States meets 85 percent of its energy needs by burning fossil fuels. How much we consume is
definitely a factor in the above figures. And that number is influenced by population and per capita consumption. But more important, these figures
represent a problem in how we consume—and that relates to our production, consumption, and distribution
systems that are polluting and unsustainable. The United States needs to lead and not scapegoat to solve its
own sustainability challenges as well serve as an example for the rest of the developing world. Draconian anti-
immigrant policies are not a magic bullet that will set us on the right path. In short, we must focus on solutions instead of tinkering at the margins with
misguided and ill-informed anti-immigrant scapegoating. More people do not necessarily equal more stress on the planet, and stopping the flow of
immigrants to this country will not solve our environmental challenges. Blaming immigrants for climate change is a sham. In fact,
immigrants actually live greener than most Americans and they can play a critical role in solving our
environmental challenges. Hate groups and other immigration restrictionists who disguise themselves as environmentalists—who argue for
zero net migration, sealing off our borders, and enforcement-only initiatives—must be silenced with the facts to prevent misguided policies and to
promote a more reasonable discussion on how to solve our problems. As the nation moves toward comprehensive reform of the federal immigration
system immigrants should be considered allies in the fight against climate change and the march toward green
policy. In their roles as entrepreneurs and greencollar workers they are assets in our efforts to revive the economy and
implement climate solutions. This country must examine its own unsustainable systems of energy generation
and consumption rather than blame immigrants. And it needs to make tough decisions on how to fix these
systems. Our dialogue about sustainability and climate change should focus on real problems and solutions, not fallacies. Freeing the national
debate from distractions and political wedges can help the United States lead the global charge toward a
cleaner and greener future.
Won’t pass – bundled with the others – and Baucus
The Hill, 1/13 [Erik Wasson, “GOP asking White House to move three trade deals together, Rep. Brady says.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/international-taxes/137821-brady-house-gop-negotiating-to-movethree-trade-deals-together]
one of the things holding up the submission of
the Korea free-trade agreement to Congress is the fact the House GOP is negotiating with the administration to
obtain a “tight” timetable under which the stalled Colombia and Panama agreements will also come up for a
vote. “I know John Boehner has spoken to the president about timing ... we are seeking a hard deadline, a tight sequence for all three,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said. Brady said that “whether it's
The head of the trade subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee said in an interview Thursday that
all at once or a defined sequence and timetable, we just have to get them all done.” U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk made clear in a public appearance Thursday that the administration continues to
, it would be a huge mistake to force all of the
trade agenda into one lump vote with Korea,” Kirk said. He added that the administration does not want to “short-circuit” the process of fixing the problems
resist tying the Korea free-trade agreement to the other two deals. “We think as attractive as it might sound to some
with the other two. Brady countered that Panama last year signed a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the U.S. to address concerns that it is a global tax haven. Tax issues and labor rights
concerns had been holding up consideration of the agreement. “Panama has jumped through every hoop backwards and forwards,” he said. “It is ready to be submitted.” Securing a vote on Colombia,
which has been stalled due to concerns over anti-union violence, may be more difficult, Brady acknowledged. “I think we can push hard to have Panama included in that package, we are going to have to
another reason for the South Korea agreement delay is the fact that Senate Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is unhappy that the renegotiated deal did not fully open South
Korea to U.S. beef exports.
identify leverage on Colombia,” he said. Brady said
Too much labor opposition in Korea
Seattle Times, 1/19 (Bruce Ramsey,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013969903_bruce19.html?prmid=op_ed)
A partisan in that battle, Kim Kyung-ran, was in Seattle last week to see her allies at the Washington Fair Trade
Coalition. She speaks for the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, which opposes the agreement. She said
U.S. companies want the agreement in order to invest in Korea. Why would Korean labor oppose that? She
answered that the jobs created by U.S. corporations won't be any good. They will be in services only and will
have no guarantee of lifetime employment. She had just described the sort of job millions of Americans have,
and are used to. But until a decade ago, the Korean worker was in a different system. His pay was much lower
than the American's, but he had a lifetime job guarantee. Kim's union confederation wants to go back to that
world — at least, to the guarantee. But that world is gone. Clark Sorensen, chairman of the Center for Korea
Studies at the University of Washington, says the job guarantee was part of a social contract in which the big
Korean corporations were financed by state banks. The state guaranteed the company and the company
guaranteed the worker. That system, which was built up during conservative governments, collapsed in the
Asian financial crisis of 1998, and was swept away by Korea's liberal reformer, President Kim Dae Jung. His
policies worked. The Korean economy was the first to pull out of the Asian crisis, and in the recent recession it
has suffered less than the United States. "The Korean economy is really changed," Sorensen says. But many
Koreans still associate the companies with favoritism, he says, "and they don't believe the government." Maybe
they shouldn't believe their televisions. Three years ago, Korean TV ran a documentary on the fatal dangers of
U.S. beef, warning darkly of mad-cow disease. People responded with a huge candlelight demonstration against
American food — a protest that fed right into the campaign against the trade agreement. Kim's group, the
Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, does not speak for all of Korean labor, most of which is not organized
and some of which is represented by a confederation more moderate on business issues. In a country of 49
million, Kim's group does speak for about half a million workers, and, says Yong-Sung Jonathan Kang,
professor at the UW School of Law, it is "a big player on the left in Korea." It has helped to make the trade
agreement a big political issue against President Lee Myung-bak, who, says Kang, has "expended a lot of his
political capital" to support it.
International meetings kill passage- despite GOP support
Brooks 1/13 [Peter, staff writer at Family Security Matters “Congressional Cross Examination”,
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8403/pub_detail.asp]
On this point, many Republicans are unhappy the president has not moved forward on a number of pending free trade
agreements (FTAs), which could help boost our economy with work for higher-paying export jobs. Obama’s trip to the G20 meeting last fall
was expected to lead to the adoption of the Korea-U.S. FTA, but the Administration’s efforts to force additional
concessions produced a stalemate instead. There will be questions about that fiasco as well as getting Colombia and Panama
FTAs done and implemented.
Plan popular
Johnson 10
[Bobbie Johnson, “Silicon Valley campaign seeks startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs”, The Guardian, 1-12010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/silicon-valley-startup-visa-entrepreneurs]
Reform of US immigration laws is one of the hot topics facing the Obama administration. The internet campaign, which has the
support of a range of entrepreneurs and investors, is encouraging the White House to back a "startup visa" giving hi-tech entrepreneurs US residency in return for starting a company. The American
technology industry, particularly in northern California, has long relied on bringing in talent from overseas. A quarter of American technology companies have foreign-born founders, and more than half of
The Founders Visa campaign argues that regulations stifle innovation by
forcing students to return to their home countries after completing their studies, or by issuing employment-based visas that lock
people into working for large companies. Its proposals would modify an immigrant visa that is reserved for people who invest at
all Silicon Valley businesses were founded by immigrants.
least $500,000 in the US and make it easier for hi-tech entrepreneurs to set up businesses. "We want to make it easier for entrepreneurs to come to the US, start new businesses, and most importantly
. "Instead of the visa going to an investor, a startup company founder or entrepreneur
who receives a minimum amount of private investment could qualify." Brad Feld, a hi-tech financier with the Foundry Group and one of those
create more jobs," says the group on its website
behind the campaign, said progress had been made in recent months - but that the proposal had to compete with other heavyweight issues being tackled by the Obama administration. "Shortly after I
started talking to people in Congress about this it became clear that this wouldn't be a 2009 legislative issue given the massive financial and healthcare reform issues being worked on in Congress," he
wrote recently. Feld said the group planned to push harder early this year "with the goal of having this be part of whatever immigration reform activity happens next year – especially in the context of a
More than
90 congressional representatives have already put their names to an immigration reform bill that includes the
proposed modifications. One of them, the Illinois Democrat congressman Luis Gutierrez, said: "Lots of special interests play the immigrant blame game every day because they like
renewed push for job creation activity in the US". Immigration reform is becoming a hot topic again in US politics, after failed attempts to overhaul the system under George Bush.
things the way they are and don't see a need for change. Right now, our visa quotas are determined by politics, not by labour and economic need."