iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Carl J. Schramm
 
GET UPDATES FROM Robert E. Litan
 

The Startup Act: A Proposal to Jumpstart the American Economy

Posted: 07/20/11 04:50 PM ET

The US government has tried trillions of dollars of fiscal and monetary stimulus, and yet our economy remains stuck in low gear. The officially measured unemployment rate hovers around or above 9 percent, but millions more are so discouraged by the poor job market that they have stopped looking for work, while many others want to work longer hours but can't.

Much more conventional stimulus doesn't appear to be in the cards. The Fed has essentially said it has done all it can do, especially given the recent uptick in the inflation numbers. The Obama Administration has floated the idea of extending or even expanding the social security tax cut of 2010 for another year, but in light of the huge federal deficit there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for the idea on Capitol Hill. Before he announced he was leaving his post as the President's top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee said it was now the private sector's turn to boost the economy, implying there is little more that the government could or would do.

Given the continuing turmoil abroad -- in Europe and the Middle East -- and with consumer and business confidence weak, it's hard to be optimistic that private businesses, now sitting on roughly $2 trillion in cash, will suddenly get the urge to begin hiring more workers (although they have been spending a lot on new equipment). Is there any way out of this mess?

The Kauffman Foundation believes there is, and it lies in recognizing the force that propelled the US economy for at least three decades until the financial crisis plunged us (and others) into the Great Recession and the subsequent weak recovery. That force is new firms or startups. Research supported by our Foundation has documented that companies less than five years old accounted for virtually all net new jobs over this thirty year period. Furthermore, new companies have been disproportionately responsible for many of the breakthrough innovations that characterize modern life today -- the automobile, the airplane, computers, air conditioning, Internet search, genetic therapies, to name a few -- that have accounted for enormous improvements in living standards.

The recession has taken a toll, however, on potential high-growth new companies. As a recent Kauffman study has documented, the annual numbers of newly formed companies that hire other workers, which were already falling before the recession, have continued dropping. While sharply lower computer and telecommunications costs, perhaps best illustrated by the rise of "cloud computing," may be reducing the need for workers by many startups, the falling numbers also likely reflect a disturbing slowdown in the formation of potential scale companies.

Simply put, then, if we want both a stronger recovery in the short run and a higher sustained rate of growth in the long run, then the United States must begin to produce more scale startups. By our calculation, if the US economy could somehow consistently generate 30-60 new companies whose annual revenues eventually scale to at least $1 billion, we could enjoy permanently a one percentage point increase in our growth rate.

How can we do this, or even something short of it, especially in the coming environment of budget austerity, at all levels of government? Many ideas have been floated or considered among elected officials and experts from both political parties. It's now time to put them together and enact a targeted, but comprehensive Startup Act to get our economy moving again.

Such a bill should encourage the building of more scale firms, lower the cost of capital for financing them, accelerate the development of new commercially relevant ideas, and remove barriers to expansion for new and existing firms alike. Here are some highlights.

Let's import a lot more skilled workers, beginning with those who want to come here and found companies. Let's change our tax code to facilitate the financing of small business, with a permanent capital gains exemption on investments in startups held for at least five years and a significant cut in corporate tax rates for new companies in the first three years they have taxable income. To make it easier for growing private companies to go public, let's give their shareholders (who can best judge the benefits and costs of financial auditing mandates) and those of other public companies with a market cap of $1 billion or less the choice whether to comply with the onerous requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

To get more new ideas into the marketplace faster, let's give the Patent and Trademark Office the tools it needs -- primarily differential fees for faster service, but with special breaks for small business and individual inventors -- to cut down the enormous and growing backlog of patent applications. Furthermore, let's create a competitive market in technology licensing by enabling faculty inventors more freedom to license their federally funded innovations, without having to be hostage to their own universities' licensing offices. And let's finally truly reform federal regulation by sun-setting all major rules after 10 years, requiring all new major rules to pass a benefit-cost test, and by collecting sufficient data on regulation at the state and local level to permit private sector organizations to rate these jurisdictions on their business-friendly climates.

It's time to re-start America by jump-starting our startup engines of growth. We have no time to waste.

Carl Schramm is President of the Kauffman Foundation, where Robert Litan is Vice President for Research and Policy.

 
 
 
The US government has tried trillions of dollars of fiscal and monetary stimulus, and yet our economy remains stuck in low gear. The officially measured unemployment rate hovers around or above 9 perc...
The US government has tried trillions of dollars of fiscal and monetary stimulus, and yet our economy remains stuck in low gear. The officially measured unemployment rate hovers around or above 9 perc...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 140
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
01:58 PM on 07/21/2011
We cannot and should not ever have government "force" the economy to grow based on government ideas. The state of the economy is more of a cultural issue centered around the idea of which new or older businesses appeal to who, and how much money are the consumers willing to pay. Any business which is a high quality business, objectively speaking, will thrive, if consumers are objective and pay high quality businesses for that which those businesses provide. This, therefore, is a job for each of us, as individuals, not for our government to impose on our behalf.
10:21 AM on 07/21/2011
I love the idea of a startup act, since public private partnership has been a key feature of ALL of our major accomplishments. But right now the real issue is income flowing to middle class consumers.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Paul Abrams
02:29 AM on 07/21/2011
Some of your ideas are good, and are already happening, e.g., the zero cap gains tax on investments held 5yrs in small companies. But, your last idea, sunsetting all regulations at the end of 10years is crazy talk. The cost of sunsetting and then reinstituting the regulations would be enormous....and, talk about uncertainty. I'll take stringent FDA testing of my drugs and food, thank you very much. And, environmental impact statements so we are treating our natural resources with the respect they require and deserve. I'd like to know the SEC is enforcing insider-trader rules so I don't get screwed out of my investments. But, hey, that's just me.
A much more potent idea would be to LIMIT any capital gains preferences to profits from purchase of newly-issued equity from companies that have 80% of its employees living in the US. Right now, we are all subsidizing, through the low cost of capital the cap gains tax preferences provide, companies that hire workers overseas. We also should abolish FICA and Medicare taxes, and replace the revenue with a national sales tax on goods AND services, exempting food, rent, clothing, medicines, doctor's visits (those items on which the least wealthy spend most of their money) from that tax. That would put foreign-made goods and services and those made in the US on a more equal footing, rather than having US mfg carry all the burden for social security and medicare.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lane Campbell
Say what?
12:14 AM on 07/21/2011
Good initial premise -- but the best thing the Federal and State governments could do for startups is eliminate or waive (literally) thousands of capital-destroying regulations for small and startup businesses. I'll give you a couple of quick examples, just from the automotive world. When the Federal auto safety regs first hit, back in the late 60s, it became mandatory to crash-test a dozen vehicles in order to get their certification. For a lot of small, "shade tree" builders and innovators, that could be an entire first year's startup production. Or, as I learned in the 70s, the lab costs alone to emission-certify a single motorcycle engine was over $165,000 (in 1976 dollars). For a lot of small startup builders of the period, that alone would have eaten up more than half their total startup capital (you know, the money they needed to spend on machine tools and initial inventory). That's just a tiny, microscopic picture of a gigantic tapestry. Yes, government IS the problem.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
11:07 AM on 07/21/2011
On the other hand, society doesn't want vehicles that crumple in accidents like aluminum cans.

Every time you hear someone complaining about "regulations," if you dig a little deeper, what they really want is the "freedom" to produce shoddy goods at low cost and high markup. They lamely argue that "the market" will take care of those who poison their customers or cripple them with unsafe products.

But we all know that old theory is wrong. Even when the market did work perfectly to keep bad products out, the buying public must first experience harm before shunning the supplier that harmed them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lane Campbell
Say what?
10:28 PM on 07/21/2011
I take a little offense at the presumption that de-regulation translates into shoddy goods and high markups. I also don't presume to know what "society" wants, any more. Apparently, they want rolling cocoons that are overweight by 25-30% and are "crashworthy" in the sense that they will protect the cell-phone babblers, nose-pickers, and latte-sippers who drive them, no matter what they bumble into. Circa 1966-68, what I wanted to build was a tiny (92-inch wheelbase) two-seater that would have weighed less than 1100lb dry, with chassis/body structure made to race-car specs: i.e, crumple-zones fore & aft with a rigid center body cage to protect the occupants. Sorry, but letting bureaucrats dictate car design is nothing but a prescription for mediocrity. And the costs of compliance suck up the kind of capital only a mature corporation can afford to spend. Startups and small-fry need no longer apply.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatrickforO
America needs a Labor Party
09:20 PM on 07/20/2011
Hmm. There's one thing Kaufman is leaving out. I'm afraid we're going to have to make a little foray into truth. Right now, the statutory requirements in the new national healthcare bill form a strong incentive for a company with 49 employees to grow no further. Why? As soon as there are 50 or more employees, if the business owner does not provide health care coverage, s/he must pay the government a $2,000 fee for each employee after the first 30 (which are exempt). So, I've got 49 employees, and gross say, $10 million a year. After I pay out payroll, my share of social security tax, workers comp insurance, and FUTA, which pays for unemployment, and subtracting cost of sales and the company's taxes and my rent, overhead, etc., I might be making maybe $40,000 or $50,000. Maybe. Then I hire that one last employee...Immediately, I own the federal government a fee of $2,000 X 30, or $60,000. Oh-oh. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm a fervent progressive, but this really is what it looks like on the ground. Why, why would I ever hire that 50th person? See what I mean? This is why we need a single payer healthcare plan that is NOT tied to employment. You want to see job creation at 250K/mo? That's how to do it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
11:13 AM on 07/21/2011
Well, if your business is such that an extra employee won't bring you enough extra profit to cancel out the increased fees and taxes, then you're right... it makes no sense for you to hire an extra person.

But now think of industries and companies in which the average revenue per employee is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even millions, as in the case of Google). In those cases, hiring another employee makes good sense.

And of course, if you provided health care in the first place, you wouldn't have to pay any fees at all. See, that's the thing. You have to provide health care. So maybe the wife doesn't get a mink coat this year.
photo
Si1ver1ock
the bread of wickedness, the wine of violence
07:47 PM on 07/20/2011
Chines stimmulus approx. 600 billion / Our stimulus 700 billion = approx .86 times into an economy 1/4 the size of the US economy ( 4 X .86 X 700 billion )
US stimulus equivalent to Chinese stimulus would be approx. 2400 Billion.

Chinese growth rate: China expanded 9.50 percent in the second quarter of 2011

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-11-13/opinion/17128559_1_chinese-government-china-s-gdp-savings-rate

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-growth
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatrickforO
America needs a Labor Party
09:24 PM on 07/20/2011
Interesting mathematics. You're using the ratio of stimulus package value to the size of the economy and saying that since China put out a far larger amount, their economy is doing better. This implies, of course, that we needed a stimulus package maybe two or three times the size of ARRA, and maybe without the $245 billion in tax cuts that were part of ARRA. I agree. Good post.
photo
ManOutOfTime
Obama 2012: I'm in ... !
03:11 PM on 07/20/2011
We could also jump-start the return of manufacturing jobs to the US from China. Would such an effort not be a key support to job creation by the kinds of firms you cite? A high percentage of the new firm and small business creation since WWII has been in the construction and real estate sector - contractors and specialties, realtors and title agents, etc. - and who were the customers for these small businesses? Factory workers, office workers, and public sector employees. Doesn't do much good to create jobs without demand for the goods and services provided ...
photo
Marlyn
If I'm wrong, let me know.
02:13 PM on 07/20/2011
"Let's import a lot more skilled workers" ???

Oh right, rather than educate Americans to do these jobs.

LOL
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doublehappi
05:55 PM on 08/09/2011
the article is about start ups, you are not entitled to starting a company because of nationality/ethnicity.

It is about ideas, Skill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrMainstreet
political thought from outside the beltway
11:43 AM on 07/20/2011
This sounds very much like a plan to spur innovation and entrepreneurship here in the states and then we can manufacture the product or products overseas.
When will the American people ,our government and our business leaders come to the understanding that any real strengthening of the economy will come when we employ low skilled to moderately skilled people in this country manufacturing products for American consumers.
I want you to look at Apple's latest figures and tell me they couldn't produce every iPhone and iPad they make in the United States and still make a huge profit rather then the enormous profits they make using slave labor in China. This "China First" "Foreigner First" economy may be good for shareholders but it is destroying the economic fabric of the American people.
12:19 PM on 07/20/2011
As much as I understand and agree with your point, there is no way Apple would ever produce those products in the US because of their profit margins. I love the thought of spurring innovation and entreprenurership in this country though. The cost to start a business these days is insane and prevents innovative business models, particularly in capital intensive industries...which are the industries that need the most innovation becauase they've been so dominated by monopolies for such a long period of time. Many of those capital intense industries by the way, employ low skilled labor (i.e. food service/production). I do believe that we need a viable manufacturing sector but l don't see a competitive advantage there in any way...infrastructure and green technology but not manufacturing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
09:10 AM on 07/20/2011
The proposals here sound good to me, with the exception of IMPORTING foreign workers. As an inventor, whose invention has been copied by our TBTF banks and major card schemes, I agree that intellectual properties and work of inventors need to be protected from infringements by BIG Corporations.

The government need to SERIOUSLY revamp or create the funding that SMEs need. I, for one, will pledge that I will hire only american workers if I get funding for my project in the U.S.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Miss Muffett
Don't worry about money - it will go away.
09:35 AM on 07/20/2011
There has been an idea floated in Congress about reforming the way the patent system works, which would give independent entreprenuers and inventors a much easier time working their way through the legal system, as well as put some necessary protections in place for the inventor!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
03:03 AM on 08/01/2011
Sorry, I have been away. Thanks for this info. I hope such a system is put in place. It's a good way to protect Small and Medium Enterprises.
07:12 PM on 08/03/2011
Oh, you'll PLEDGE to hire American workers IF you get enough US GOVT FUNDING to make you consider coming back to the USA.

That's really big of you. You PLEDGE. How about we treat you like every other borrower, and get an ironclad SECURITY interest, AFTER we're satisfied that you're sincere, and not just another entitled crybaby?

Like you would even know an American worker if one bit you.

Here's a clue, pal. Not every American worker looks or thinks or cries like you.
Tim The Enchanter
Gary Johnson 2016
02:19 AM on 07/20/2011
But it is nice to see a plan that isn't "we need more government regulation and deficit spending"
Tim The Enchanter
Gary Johnson 2016
02:18 AM on 07/20/2011
And guess what, now that I've downsized, I won't be hiring anyone because it's too much hassle. Too many regulations, taxation issues, costs both direct and hidden. I have no intention of growing my business again beyond what I can handle myself. I started up 10 new small business activities during the recession and shut down all but a couple as a few started taking up my time. I could have hired others and kept them going, but it's just not worth the hassle.

Government was designed to FOSTER business, wealth creation and freedom. It is now the enemy of these things.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
07:07 AM on 07/20/2011
No, it is not. Demand rules. If you had demand, you would hire or you would lose business. The equation is really very simple.
Tim The Enchanter
Gary Johnson 2016
10:15 AM on 07/20/2011
Incorrect. If I have more demand, I simply work longer hours or turn away things that don't interest me. I will work 12-16 hours a day, 7 days a week, it's not a problem for me. I have a project coming up where I'll be doing exactly that. Could easily hire someone, but not going to.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kye154
12:18 AM on 07/20/2011
"The US government has tried trillions of dollars of fiscal and monetary stimulus"? Did it ever occur to anyone that the money went to the wrong places? Since private employment is lagging badly, ( mostly because it all went off shore), it is really time to start up the WPA again. One thing Americans need to learn about their "service oriented economy", it is not self-sustaining without manufacturing. Nor is manufacturing alone self-substaining without science and technological advances and inputs. And, the bulk of our service economy is servicing debt, (i.e. mortgages, personal loans, etc.,), which doesn't really add anything to the overall economy, other than shuffle money to the top. Our economy is very poorly structured and not self-substaining. That is why we have reached a point where, everyone is out of cash, and sucking air, jobs are gone, bills mount up, and people are getting discouraged with our current system that does not function any longer. If private business interests can't seem to organize and get things moving, then it is up to government to step in and do it for them.

"Let's import a lot more skilled workers"? Bad idea! First of all, since the jobs are going overseas, where are you going to employ them here? Secondly, why doesn't American industry make investments in their workers and train home grown Americans instead? They use to! Bringing workers from overseas doesn't resolve the economic issues at home.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
07:08 AM on 07/20/2011
What they are saying by 'import workers' is that we Americans are just too darn stupid to start businesses, that we need those much smarter foreigners to show us how it's done.

The cost of capital? Banks are sitting on trillions that they are getting from the Fed at no interest.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doublehappi
05:58 PM on 08/09/2011
the article isnt talking about bringing in people to do jobs.

Its talking about starting companies.

unless you are trying to say - why cant we let our own people start companies. ! lol
11:41 PM on 07/19/2011
That's a decent start but the cutting of FEDERAL regulations and FEDERAL taxes has to go way further. Every startup business has to comply with municipal (zoning & licensing), regional/County and State regulations and taxes and THEN it has to comply with FEDERAL Govt regulations and taxes. The best thing to do to help the economy and employment is to jettsison many of the functions of the Federal Govt made redundant by 'lower' levels of Govt.

It's not so much a question of 'big' government vs 'small' government, it's a matter of devolving responsibility to levels of Govt that are more in touch, responsive and accountable than the bone-headed, corrupt paralysis that is typical of the US Federal Govt. The national Govt should focus on national priorities such as defense (aka wars) and diplomacy. Despite their own conceit to the contrary, national Govts are the least capable of creating decent legislation that does more good than harm.
photo
Si1ver1ock
the bread of wickedness, the wine of violence
10:46 PM on 07/19/2011
The problem is lack of demand.

Read about it here->http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/mercy-cant-they-get-anyth_b_903742.html