Semiconductor Industry Association CEO Brian Toohey expects little political change regardless of who wins the presidency.
Here's an overview of policy areas the SIA is pursuing right now:
Corporate tax reform
Toohey said one area that likely will see movement is some reform in
corporate taxes, where the current system, according to the SIA, creates
an uncompetitive climate for U.S. semiconductor companies.
"There are disagreements on elements but there's broad alignment among
the White House, Treasury, and House and Senate Leadership on what the
basic structure of tax reform should look like. For our industry,
international tax reform is critical and we hope that all sides will
look beyond the campaign rhetoric on this issue and put in place a
competitive territorial-based system," Toohey said.
"It's part of the larger immigration debate which is deadlocked," Toohey
said. "There was a House vote on high-skilled immigration reform before
Congress adjourned for the election that demonstrated increased
bipartisan support for this issue, and we are working to have it taken
up again in the lame duck session. We remain hopeful that a compromise
can be reached," he added.
"Many of our companies are impacted by our outdated export control
regime," Toohey said, adding the SIA is calling for a simplification of
some of the controls. For example, there are certain criteria revolving
around radiation-hardened ICs that can result in the devices being
categorized as munitions, which could prevent them from being exported
to key markets such as China.
"The Obama Administration is methodically working through an overhaul of
export controls. We feel good about the direction," Toohey said.
The Defense Department's recent procurement mandate that certain types
of semiconductors include an anti-counterfeiting DNA marker is "not well
thought out" and needs re-assessment, Toohey said. "It sounds like a
very good idea, but there may be alternative solutions that produce
better results for all parties. The industry stands ready to help guide
this process moving forward."
Grid lock is good. The founding fathers wanted the government to move slow. From my point of view, the slower the better. We have so many laws that the normal citizen cannot step out of their front door without breaking the law. These CEO’s that go to the Washington trough to get money or “special favors” is ridiculous. Lobbyists are a part of our republic but having a grid locked government prevents more stupid legislation. Sure wish we would have had grid lock when the Obamacare bill came forward, how many more jobs would have been created without that load stone around small businesses neck. Again grid lock is good… very good…..
@Daryl.H, indeed you're correct. But how do we square that in a time when technology moves at a pace that far outraces the ability of the legislative and executive branches to consider its implications. Still good? (Thanks for writing, by the way!).
I think it's also fair to say, the implications are never easily predictable for that exact reason, so we need a system that can react and change. It's futile to think you can examine all outcomes. A gridlocked system is not productive in the long run. It will require contuned cooperation between goverment and industry leaders.
"Every new law is a lost freedom."
It's true JR, but the other extreme is anarchy. Surely, the law against knocking fellow citizens on the head and taking their belongings is probably a good one.
The problems is what you and others were implying that rather than relying on a simple set of sensible laws current governments (including mine in Australia) keep tinkering with the details and create an overly complicated and cumbersome system where the original intention is more or less lost.
If the basic principle of the law is correct and it is clearly defined, there shouldn't be a need to update laws just because a new technology came around. A good example is privacy. If privacy is breached, it shouldn't matter what technology is used effect it.
Another problem is the "law industry" where the more complicated the law system is, the better opportunities it presents for them. It's not hard to imagine (or see!) the result.