In Financing Entrepreneurs, Harvard's Sahlman and Carnegie Mellon's Florida assert that there is no shortage of money available for new businesses. Industrial-policy critic T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, says, "I could leave Cypress, write up a business plan, and raise $10 million in a week. No good idea goes unfunded."
Even if venture capital were short, the federal government should stand clear of such inherently risky investments. The market research firm Venture Economics reports that between 1969 and 1985 one-third of the investments made by 13 venture-capital firms resulted in partial or total losses. Venture capitalists make money by striking it rich on a few investments, knowing that many others will turn sour.
But the whole point of the competitiveness bill is to funnel money to areas the marketplace might find too risky to support. Indeed, the bill appears to guarantee that it will predominantly finance losers. Before a civilian technology company can get a license from the Commerce Department, the company must show that it will make investments "in critical technology projects for which eligible technology firms cannot obtain necessary financing solely through commercial capital markets."
"I think this means that if you have an idea which cannot hack it, come to uncle," said Danforth, the bill's chief Senate opponent, during the floor debate. "We like bad ideas. If you have got a bad idea out there, we will fund it. In fact, if it is a good idea we will not fund it."
From the supersonic transport to the Synthetic Fuels Corporation to the Sematech consortium, the feds have a lousy record of supporting commercial technologies. The National Venture Capital Association's Heesen worries that the existence of federal venture-capital funding might lure private investors into throwing good money after bad.
And unlike venture capitalists, who have a financial incentive to cut their losses and let failing companies go under, the government has every incentive to keep pouring money into losers: Lawmakers' constituents demand it. Writing last year in The Wall Street Journal about the competitiveness bill, Carnegie Mellon economist Allan Meltzer noted that governments often confuse wealth creation with job creation. With government as a venture capitalist, politicians and the people who work in money-losing businesses will be able to demand subsidies to keep firms open and, as Meltzer says, to provide "hope for a better future."
When the bill reached the Senate, the Democrats appeared genuinely surprised at the intensity of Republican opposition. Majority Leader George Mitchell expressed the exasperation of his party when, two days before the final vote, he complained that "we have [spent] nearly five full days [debating] a bill that is very similar to a bill passed in less than five minutes two years ago." In fact, just before Congress ended its 1992 legislative year, the Senate had easily passed a competitiveness bill; but the 1992 version authorized only $208 million in spending and didn't contain the venture-capital program. (That bill died without a House vote.)
Danforth, Kansas's Nancy Kassebaum, Georgia's Paul Coverdell, Colorado's Hank Brown, and other Republicans added amendments to the 1994 bill to, among other things, prohibit the Postal Service from penalizing businesses that use Federal Express and other private couriers, reform civil liability for piston-engine aircraft manufacturers, and make the cost of proposed federal regulations more visible. Hollings thundered that these amendments were not "germane" and were merely attempts to derail the bill.
That was indeed partly the point, though only partly. Republicans had hoped to get these amendments through Congress by attaching them to other bills likely to pass. And these amendments would certainly have enhanced "competitiveness" more than Hollings's bill.
The debate eventually got personal. Danforth, who had backed Sematech and the Chrysler Corporation bailout, appeared an unlikely opponent of the bill. But more recently, the Missourian has moved away from overt industrial policy and toward capital-gains tax reductions, tax credits for basic research, and less-targeted supports for businesses. Yet when Hollings correctly pointed out Danforth's past votes, he accused the Republican of engaging in "monkeyshines, which is a polite expression, maybe, for hypocrisy."
While Danforth didn't respond directly to Hollings's harangue, Specter defended his Republican colleague. He asked Hollings to apologize and tone down his rhetoric; unflattering personal comments directed from one senator to another violate Senate rules. After a heated exchange, Mitchell called "no harm, no foul," and returned the debate to the bill.
Outnumbered Republicans faced an almost-unified Democratic Senate (only New Jersey's Bill Bradley opposed the bill) and shaky support from liberals in their own party. Danforth was able to continue his filibuster only because Kassebaum insisted that her amendment to reform aircraft-manufacture liability remain attached to the bill. She was the swing vote, and after six days of debate, Mitchell made a deal: Kassebaum's aircraft amendment would be introduced as a separate bill and voted on immediately after the competitiveness act. Danforth could propose a separate amendment that removed the venture-capital program from the bill.
Danforth agreed. His amendment failed, 55-44. The entire bill passed by a 59-40 vote, and Kassebaum's bill passed, 91-8. The House and Senate will work out their differences in a conference this summer. As of early May, the House leaders had not appointed their conferees. With all the amendments attached to the Senate bill, one congressional staffer predicts a dozen committees may be involved in reconciling the two versions of the bill. "This conference is going to be a mess," he says.
Congress is clumsily responding to legitimate concerns about the health of American businesses. Cypress CEO Rodgers admits it can be difficult for mid-size companies to grow into big companies. Start-ups can get venture capital from a number of sources; large firms with healthy bond ratings can issue debt relatively cheaply and often have better access to the stock market. But mid-size companies face fewer, and less attractive, choices: borrowing heavily from commercial banks, issuing debt at junk-bond rates or stock at an equivalent discount. If Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, banks could purchase securities from the same companies to which they loan money, giving medium-size companies a new source of equity capital.
Using the idiom of Democratic consultant James Carville, Rodgers suggests another change in policy that would help companies of any size: "Cut the capital-gains rate, stupid." When Congress reduced rates on capital-gains and other income taxes in 1981, new commitments to venture-capital funds doubled to $1.3 billion the first year. Lower capital-gains rates would also entice individuals and companies to make investments in established but growing companies.
Susan Eckerly, deputy director of economic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, suggests other reforms: Make the business tax credit for research and development permanent; deregulate telecommunications; reform product-liability laws; reduce government mandates on employers--many of the sorts of amendments Republicans wanted to add to the competitiveness bill. Eckerly says she favors "anything that lets businesses keep more of their money and not send it to Washington."
Unfortunately, repeated government failures won't dissuade politicians from passing out the pork and claiming credit for the successes they may stumble across. Too few elected officials agree with Bill Bradley. "Government bureaucrats reading business plans and interviewing would-be Bill Gateses will not stimulate or expand the flow of private capital," he said. "Given a choice, I will stake my faith in markets and not in bureaucrats."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
nfl jerseys|11.17.10 @ 3:38AM|#
gvbuh
منتدى العرب|3.9.11 @ 9:37PM|#
Thank you