President Obama has announced on several occasions his desire to essentially close the Small Business Administration (SBA) by combining it with the Department of Commerce. Anyone who has been in Washington long enough to have lunch knows the Department of Commerce is essentially a division of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber and I aren’t exactly close friends.

President Obama

If Mitt Romney wins this election, he will start talking about closing the SBA before Anne gets the new curtains ordered for their White House bedroom. Despite their unending campaign baloney about investing in the middle class and creating jobs, Republicans, since Ronald Reagan, have had it out for the SBA. Reagan tried closing the SBA twice. The corporate bosses want that 23 percent of the federal contracts allotted to small businesses and they want it now.

President George W. Bush tried to starve the agency to death during his administration by cutting the SBA budget and staff by almost 50 percent. The agency was so understaffed during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath that 2,000 temporary employees had to be hired to assist the storm victims in receiving SBA backed loans to rebuild their businesses. He told his SBA appointee, Administrator Hector Baretto, that he wanted the agency closed by the end of his first term. Some mouthy guy in California launched a PR campaign that made that assignment a lot more difficult than Bush and Barreto had ever expected and the SBA was saved. Barrreto was ultimately fired for his failure to fulfill his mission.

Fortune 500 firms and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have lobbied to close the SBA for decades. The Small Business Act mandates that a minimum of 23 percent of the total value of all federal contracts be awarded to small businesses. Why do corporate giants want the SBA closed? It’s really quite simple – GREED. The corporate giants that call the shots in Washington DC want every penny the federal government spends to go straight into their pockets.

The fact that small businesses are responsible for more than 90 percent of all net new jobs in America, 50 percent of the private sector work force, more than 50 of the gross domestic product (GDP) and more than 90 percent of all U.S. exporters doesn’t mean a hill of beans to the most ruthless corporate giants ruling the roost in Washington DC.

Let’s take a quick inventory, the U.S. is in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 80 years, small businesses are responsible for the overwhelming majority of net new jobs, and there is only one miniscule federal agency to service the 27 million small businesses where the majority of Americans work.

The corporate-backed, corrupt politicians see this issue a different way. They don’t want to squander a measly $900 million a year on the only federal agency that services the small business that are responsible for the vast majority of net new jobs. Forget the fact that the SBA’s budget is roughly one tenth of one percent of the budget allotted to the Department of Defense (DoD), which outright loses or misplaces almost 10 times as much money a year as it takes to run the SBA. There is obviously no way we can ever balance the budget and cut the deficit without closing one of the smallest agencies in Washington DC, right?

In all seriousness, the best way to determine if a politician is an outright, lying crook and a conman is to just look for one that proposes to close the SBA under the guise of saving money to balance the budget and cut the deficit.

Any honest elected official in Washington would realize that doubling the SBA staff and budget is the best way out of our economic recession. The SBA budget was higher 30 years ago than it is today. We need to reopen the SBA field offices the Bush administration closed. We need to reinvigorate each and every federal program to help our nation’s chief job creators – small businesses.

Hey, I’ve got a wacky idea, why don’t we stop giving federal small business contracts to some of the biggest companies on earth? Every year, for the past seven years, the SBA Office of Inspector General (SBA OIG) has named the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants as the number one management challenge at the SBA.

I know it sounds crazy to quit giving billions of dollars a month in federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms but, who knows, it just might help the 27 million small businesses that are the irrefutable engine of economic growth and job creation in this country.

Creative Commons photo by Bernard Pollack on Flickr.

If Mitt Romney is elected President and Republicans take over both the House and the Senate, it would be a nightmare for small businesses.

Will small business dry up under President Romney? (Photo: Kevin Dooley / Flickr)

I don’t want to upset my Republican buddies but I predict that Mitt Romney would follow a long line of Republicans that have been trying to close the Small Business Administration (SBA) and end small business programs ever since Ronald Reagan was president.

Reagan tried to close the SBA twice. His budget director David Stockman even went before Congress and argued for closing the SBA, making the outrageous claim that the SBA was “a billion dollar waste—a rat hole.” Thankfully, Senate Democrats, led by Senator Carl Levin (Dem-MI), opposed the move.

While Reagan’s plans to close the SBA failed, I believe he devastated small businesses by changing the definition of a small business from 100 employees to 500 employees, which was illegal. To change the definition like that, you’d have to put the proposal up for public comment, which Reagan didn’t do. Moreover, a company with 500 employees is much too large to be a small business, considering that 98 percent of all U.S. firms have less than 100 employees and 89 percent of U.S. firms have less than 20 employees.

The SBA was safe under President George H. W. Bush but President George W. Bush removed the SBA Administrator from a Cabinet-level position and told his SBA Administrator, Hector Barreto, to close the SBA by the end of his first term. I’ve spoken with people who said Barreto admitted this in a meeting. Bush cut the SBA budget and staffing every year that he was President and the budget has never recovered. Even when Ronald Reagan was president, the SBA’s budget was more than $1 billion.

Republicans are always talking about small business, but their track record is appalling. I believe that the Republican desire to close the SBA is based on the party’s marriage with big business. Federal law mandates that a minimum 23 percent of federal contracts must be awarded to small businesses. That’s more than $120 billion annually that big businesses want.

If Mitt Romney is elected and Republicans control both houses, within a matter of months you’ll see the SBA abolished. At the very least, you’ll see the SBA budget slashed just as it was during the Bush administration, or you’ll see them close the agency under the typical Washington scam of combining it with the Department of Commerce. Combining the SBA with the Department of Commerce is a way to close the agency without public scrutiny. You won’t be able to see the budget being cut or the employees being laid off.

So my prediction is that a Mitt Romney Whitehouse and Republican-controlled legislature would end all federal small business programs, including those for women-owned, minority-owned and veteran-owned small businesses. This would be detrimental to the economy.

The smartest most cost-effective thing you could do to create jobs is to simply uphold existing federal law that says 23 percent of all prime contracts dollars go to small businesses. After all, small businesses employ more than half of the private sector workforce, are responsible for half the gross domestic product, more than 90 percent of U.S. exports and, according to U.S. Census Bureau (PDF), more than 90 percent of all net new jobs. Unfortunately our government is controlled by big business and their greed and corruption knows no bounds.

As a small business advocate, I am afraid of a Romney White House and a Republican legislature.

Everyday, as I watch the national news, everyone is talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, but small businesses are conspicuously absent from the discussion.

According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, small businesses are responsible for creating over 90% of net new U.S. jobs. Independent organizations like the Kauffman Foundation have found that small businesses created virtually 100% of all net new jobs created since 1980. That means Fortune 1000 firms have not created one net new job in America in over thirty years.

The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy points out that small businesses employ over half the private sector workforce, are responsible for over half the gross domestic product and 97.5% of all U.S. exporters. To boot, small businesses also employ at least 43 percent of all high-tech workers and produce 16.5 more times the patents per employee than large patenting firms.

The fact that real unemployment (the U-6) is pushing into the high teens seems to be a pretty good indication that President Obama’s economic polices are a dismal failure.

If President Obama and Congress were serious about creating jobs, it would be simple for them to do; they could support small businesses.

Step one is for the President to keep his campaign promises, starting with his 2008 promise to “end the diversion of small business contracts to corporate giants.”

The Small Business Act, which mandates that 23% of the total value of all federal contracts be awarded to small businesses, is probably the most cost effective economic stimulus and job creation program in U.S. history. Unfortunately, a series of federal investigations conducted since 2003 have found that, in the last decade, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal small business contracts have been diverted to the very Fortune 1000 firms that haven’t created one net new job since 1980. Read the rest of this entry →

As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), President Barack Obama renewed a program large prime contractors use to circumvent the Small Business Act. The Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program (CSPTP) is fascinating for a number of different reasons. First of all, it’s a test program that has never been evaluated. It is more than 20-years-old and was also originally passed under the guise of helping small businesses. Let’s examine this test program and see if it really helps small businesses.

The federal government has a statutory goal of awarding 23 percent of all federal contracts to legitimate small businesses. A great way to hit the 23 percent goal and stimulate the middle class is to require prime contractors to subcontract with small businesses. The law says that any prime contractor that fails to make a good-faith effort to hit their small business-subcontracting goal shall pay a penalty in the amount of the deficiency. The CSPTP undermines that law. Before the CSPTP, prime contractors were required to submit quarterly subcontracting reports that the public, watchdog groups like the American Small Business League (ASBL) and federal investigators could use to monitor compliance.

Think about it: no reports and an exemption from any penalties for non-compliance. Does anyone really think that is going to increase contract opportunities for small businesses? If President Obama genuinely thinks that the CSPTP is going to stimulate growth among small businesses, we should try the same thing with the IRS. I think the IRS should adopt President Obama’s plan for small businesses. That would mean no income tax forms and no penalties for not paying your income tax.

So if Obama thinks it’s going to help small businesses to renew the CSPTP, which allows contactors to avoid the law, let’s do the same thing with the IRS and see how that works. Of course, that will never happen.

So Obama’s renewal of the CSPTP is the antitheses of everything we need right now to help stimulate our economy. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, small businesses create more than 90 percent of all net new jobs; they are responsible for half the GDP, half the private sector workforce and 90 percent of U.S. exports. And president Obama is renewing a program that will decrease the volume of federal contracts going to America’s chief job creators.

Another prime example of when you quite listening to what Barack Obama says and start watching what he does, he’s anti-small business.

Despite the President’s claim that it will ‘streamline’ the federal government, Obama’s recent proposal to consolidate six federal trade and commerce departments is actually an attempt to close the Small Business Administration.

For over three years I have been predicting that President Obama would try to close the SBA by combining the agency with the Department of Commerce. The reason— he is directed by the Fortune 500 firms that control our government. These Fortune 500 firms have lobbied our top politicians for decades, trying to close the SBA and wind-down federal small business programs.

I’m talking about the same Fortune 500 firms that fund the majority of K Street lobbyists, contribute the most to presidential campaigns and purchase the majority of all national advertising. These firms want the SBA closed because they don’t want to compete with small businesses for federal contracts, they don’t want to subcontract to small businesses. Bottom line— they want 100 percent of all federal contracts.

I can’t recall a time when any President in recent history has held a national press conference to talk about saving $3 billion over a decade— to put that amount in perspective, the $3 billion over 10 years that will be saved by the consolidation is equal to .05 percent – or five hundredths of one percent— of the $6 trillion that the Pentagon is projected to spend in the next decade. If President Obama were really trying to shrink government he wouldn’t start by consolidating the smallest agency in town.

When you really think about it, it’s illogical to hold a national press conference about such a miniscule slash in federal spending. The whole press conference was a ruse to distract the public, the media and Congress about the President’s plans to wind down federal small business programs and therefore allow large firms to hijack 100 percent of all federal small business contracts.

Take his elevation of SBA Administrator Karen Mills to the president’s cabinet, for example. Congress has 90 days to decide whether to approve the President’s consolidation request. If approved, the SBA dissolves and Administrator will have no agency to represent. Basically, President Obama’s proposal means that Ms. Mills will probably be out of a job in 90 days.

In the midst of the worst economic downturn in 80 years, the very last thing our nation needs is the reduction of federal programs that support small businesses. As any good economist will tell you, small businesses are the nation’s chief job creators.

According to the latest Census Bureau data, America’s 29 million small businesses annually create 90 percent of all net new jobs, produce half the GDP, employ over 50 percent of the private sector workforce and account for over 90 percent of U.S. exports.

Nevertheless, if Obama’s merger is successful, within a matter of months small businesses will once again be unrepresented on the president’s cabinet and they will no longer have a federal agency designed to assist them.

As I have been saying for a long time now; if you stop listening to what he says and look at what he does, you’ll discover that Barack Obama is one of the most anti-small business presidents in U.S. history.

Visit asbl.com/optin.html to receive the American Small Business League’s free weekly e-newsletter about small business issues and how you can get involved.

keeping company (image: buckshotjones/flickr)

Before the holidays are over, the Obama administration will most likely eliminate the nation’s oldest and most successful program for directing federal infrastructure spending to minorities.

By abolishing this program, which was established by the Civil Rights act to require that five percent of federal infrastructure spending be with minority-owned small businesses, the Obama administration will cost minority-owned small businesses between $25 billion and $50 billion in losses each year.

The elimination of this program will no doubt increase the unemployment rate for minorities around the country and potentially force thousands of minority-owned companies from coast to coast to close their doors.

But unless you’ve been reading my blog or following the efforts of the American Small Business League, you probably had no idea this was happening because the government always tries to keep negative news out of the press.

For almost two decades I’ve watched federal agencies adopt policies and procedures that result in the gradual dismantling of federal programs for small businesses. Most of these policy changes are in clear violation of the Small Business Act of 1953, which mandates that 23 percent of all federal contracts must go to small businesses. Traditionally you’ll see the Whitehouse and federal agencies bury these anti-small business policy announcements in the Federal Register at times when reporters are less likely to see it, like the busy holiday season.

This seems to continue under Democrats or Republicans, most likely due to the avalanche of lobbying dollars spent by the defense and aerospace industries to acquire the majority of all federal contracts awarded each year.

On September 9, 2011, President Obama announced his administration’s initial proposal to dismantle this federal contracting program for minority-owned small businesses in as quiet a manner as possible— a densely worded, vague notice published in the Federal Register on a late Friday afternoon, while the mainstream press was in a frenzy over the ten year anniversary of 9/11 looming just two days away. Read the rest of this entry →

"Earth, courtesy Apollo 17" by woodleywonderworks on flickr

As I watch the coverage of our nation’s failing economy, an army of political pundits and economists parade through news programs giving their take. Yet one piece of information is conspicuously absent from mainstream coverage of the economy: small businesses create the majority of net new jobs in America.

According to the US Census Bureau, small businesses create more than 90 percent of all net new jobs. A recent study by the Kauffman Foundation found that companies less than five years old create virtually 100 percent of all net new jobs. Clearly, those firms are all small businesses. Conversely, the study found that large corporations created virtually no net new jobs in the last 30 years.

It should be common knowledge to leaders in Washington that large corporations are shipping jobs overseas at a record rate. Nearly every company on President Obama’s Jobs Council has lost a significant part of their US workforce over the last ten years. President Obama named the President of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, chair of the council, and GE has shed more than 36,000 US jobs since 2001 while adding more than 25,000 abroad. Following 2009, GE employed 36,000 less people in the US than it did abroad.

President Obama, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and every news commentator and economist is confused here. They need to understand one thing: you cannot create jobs by giving money to Fortune 500 companies. They don’t create jobs. They are losing jobs.

If the goal is to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the leaders in Washington need to direct money to America’s 28 million small businesses. These are the companies where most Americans work, where a majority of gross domestic product comes from and more than 90 percent of all US exports are produced. Read the rest of this entry →

Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department would begin an investigation into News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch. The FBI has also decided to investigate Mr. Murdoch and News Corp. Both investigations begin amid allegations that the now defunct News of the World attempted to hack the phones of 9/11 victims.

The illegal monitoring of private citizens’ communications by the media is reprehensible. And yet, the federal government has engaged in this kind of surveillance as well. Over the past decade, the US Government has given itself free reign to spy on the American people. Citing the broad threat of terrorism in the months following September 11, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor phone calls, text messages, internet history, email, and other forms of communication without search warrants. This unprecedented violation of the fundamental rights of American citizens was soon given statutory authorization through Title II of the Patriot Act of 2001.

The Bush Administration referred to the executive order as the “terrorism surveillance program”, and claimed that the NSA’s mandate was only to monitor “foreign communications”. However, many abuses have come to light that completely disprove these claims. At one point AT&T was made to provide total, unfettered access to its major interconnect locations, phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic to the NSA. Worse, officials from the NSA have since admitted to spying on millions of private American citizens as part of the warrantless wiretapping program. Former NSA officials admitted that journalists were a prominent target of the nationwide monitoring.

In May 2011, President Barack Obama re-authorized key provisions the Patriot Act, guaranteeing the government’s power to monitor the private communication of its citizens for at least another four years. And so we have to ask ourselves: if the previous administration used these powers to monitor the public and the press, is it fair to assume that this administration has and will continue to do the same? With private information gathered by law enforcement agencies in one hand and the full prosecuting power of the Justice Department in the other, just what can’t this President do to anyone he might think is an enemy? It seems no coincidence that Eric Holder is spearheading an investigation of Mr. Murdoch, who owns media outlets that have been among the most critical of President Obama.

If the government finds monitoring its enemies so easy, is it a distinct probability that the Obama Administration is using surveillance to monitor members of the media, Republican members of Congress, and major republican donors? I would argue it is very likely the Obama Administration will monitor the communications of any person or organization that is perceived to be overly critical of the President.

As a small business advocate, I currently have fifteen open lawsuits against the Obama Administration. Is it unreasonable to think that the Obama Administration might be monitoring our communications? My organization, the American Small Business League (ASBL) is focused on changing another corrupt practice in Washington: the diversion of federal small business contracts to large corporations. This rampant abuse continues to occur with the full knowledge and consent of Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department. In fact the Justice Department is actively opposing our use of the Freedom of Information Act to expose this corrupt practice.

I have had many conversations with journalists and producers in print and television media who cover our issue. It is not unusual for a media appearance to be cancelled suddenly, or for a print story to be given the red light by an editor at the eleventh hour. The same journalists and producers have told me that representatives from the Obama Administration have called them and used whatever spin at their disposal to discredit the ASBL and myself. A former government intelligence officer has also told me that it is standard operating procedure to monitor anyone who is suing the government.

The surveillance of private communication is a prime example of the federal government reaching extraordinary lows to silence and discredit the very citizens it is supposed to work for, in order to keep as much legitimate criticism of its activities off the mainstream radar.

I do not approve of any person or organization hacking into a private citizen’s phone and/or internet connection, whether it’s a media conglomerate or the government. However, we live in a time when the government has been able to use phone hacking and wiretapping to spy on American citizens arbitrarily and with no oversight. This violates the very essence of our republic.

If Eric Holder wants to investigate phone hacking in the United States, I commend him. To start, there should bean investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and a Congressional hearing into the government’s surveillance of private citizens. Let’s look at all instances of phone hacking across the nation. It is illegal, violates our fundamental rights and any person and/or organization (including government agencies) engaging in this corrupt practice should be prosecuted. The American people deserve to know who is doing what with all of the accumulated private information over the last decade. The very best place for Attorney General Holder to begin these investigations is with the NSA.

The federal government has a goal of awarding 23 percent of the total value of its purchases to small businesses.  It is not currently meeting that goal.  A recent study by the American Small Business League  (ABSL) found that small businesses only receive between 2 and 6 percent of federal government contracts (PDF).

The top “small business” contractors of 2008 included Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, 3M, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, Rolls Royce and General Electric (PDF).

Since 2003, more than a dozen federal investigations have found billions of dollars in federal contracts intended for small businesses actually flowing into the hands of Fortune 500 firms and other large businesses.  In Report 5-15, the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General referred to the issue as, “One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today.”

The ABSL  has estimated that this issue pulls more than $100 billion a year in federal contracts out of the middle class economy. With that in mind, President Obama should use the power of his office to directly impact these issues, and stimulate the economy in the following ways:

1. Issue an executive order that would keep his campaign promise to, “end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.”  Economists agree that the best way to stimulate the economy is to direct federal infrastructure spending to small businesses.  Ending this abuse would infuse the nation’s middle class economy with billions of dollars a month in existing federal infrastructure spending.

2. Support the passage of H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act.  H.R. 2568 represents a pure, simple and effective means of directing billions of dollars in existing federal spending to the nation’s 27 million small businesses.  The bill was introduced by Congressman Hank Johnson (D – GA) and currently has bi-partisan support from 26 co-sponsors.

3. Restore the Small Business Administration’s  budget and staffing to pre- Bush Administration levels.  The SBA had a larger budget during the Reagan Administration than it does today.  Since 2003, a series of federal investigations have pointed to a lack of oversight as a major contributing factor to fraud and abuse in small business programs.  President Obama should ensure that the SBA is fully capable of supporting small businesses, and adequately providing oversight on America’s small business programs.

4. Eliminate the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program, which allows prime contractors to circumvent federal small business subcontracting goals.  It is imperative that the Obama Administration hold prime contractors accountable for hitting small business subcontracting goals.

5. Stop the pentagon from dismantling federal contracting programs for minorities.   The federal appeals court ruling in Rothe Development Corporation v. Department of Defense (DoD) effectively ended small business preference programs for Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB).  President Obama should take steps to ensure that SDBs are protected in federal contracting programs.

In November of 2009 Robert Reich stated, “Who is going to buy the stuff we make, or the services we provide?  Right now there is only one buyer left… the government.  The only way to get jobs back right now is for the federal government to spend even more on the roads, bridges, schools, parks, public transport and everything else we need.  Make up for the cut backs on the state level, and in this way, put Americans back to work.”

As the White House well knows, small businesses are responsible for creating between 65 and 90 percent of net new jobs (PDF).  It is critical for our economic recovery that the government takes steps to make sure that 23% of federal contracts actually go to small businesses, and not Fortune 500 companies.

Lloyd Chapman is the founder of the American Small Business League

Other posts in this series:

. Question: What Things Can Obama Do Now?
. Bill Black: What Obama Could Do Now
. Alan Grayson: What Obama Could Do Now
. Glenn Greenwald: What Obama Could Do Now
. James Galbraith: What Obama Could Do Now
. Cynthia Kouril:  Five Things President Obama Can Do Now
. Jon Walker: What Obama Could Do Now

Lloyd Chapman is President of the American Small Business League

Despite at least $3 trillion in government spending aimed at stimulating the economy, a multitude of economic indicators now show that the economy is poised to slip into a double dip recession. I believe, as I am sure you do, that we need to bring down unemployment in order to stimulate the economy. To date, none of the actions taken by Congress or the Obama administration have met that need.

As you may know, small businesses create the overwhelming majority of net new jobs in America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, businesses with less than 20 employees create over 97 percent of net new jobs. Statistics from the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy indicate that small businesses create over 90 percent of all net new jobs. Any effort to create jobs must be focused on small businesses.

One of the most effective economic stimulus programs ever passed by the U.S. Congress was the Small Business Act of 1953. The Small Business Act requires that 23 percent of the total value of all government contracts must go to small businesses. This makes perfect sense, considering the important role small businesses play when it comes to the U.S. economy and job creation.

Since 2003, over a dozen federal investigations have found that most small business contracts actually go to Fortune 500 firms, European conglomerates and thousands of other large businesses around the world. Some of those companies are: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, British Aerospace (BAE), Rolls-Royce, Raytheon, Dell Computer, General Electric, Honeywell International Corporation, Ssangyong Corporation headquartered in Seoul, South Korea and Finmeccanica SpA, which is located in Italy and has 73,000 employees.

In March of 2005, the SBA Inspector General referred to this problem as, “One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today.” The SBA Inspector General has listed this problem as the number one management challenge facing the agency for the past five consecutive years. Even President Obama recognized the magnitude of the problem in February of 2008 when he said, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.”

Ending the diversion of small business contracts to large businesses would redirect over $100 billion a year in federal contracts back into the middle class economy. This would be the most powerful economic stimulus to date and can be used to drive demand directly into the hands of our nation’s small businesses. With this economic stimulus in mind, I urge you to support H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act. It was introduced by Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson, and currently has 26 cosponsors. This bill is a deficit neutral means of ending the 10-year-old contracting scandal that has facilitated the diversion of over $1 trillion in small business contracts to corporate giants.

The single most effective and deficit neutral way to create jobs is to direct existing federal infrastructure spending to the middle class. So if you want to stimulate the economy and create jobs, H.R. 2568 would be the most effective way to do that. It could be passed and signed into law as soon as Congress comes back in session. I believe that H.R. 2568, which would bring over $100 billion a year, and every year, to small businesses, would be more effective than a one-time shot of $30 billion in loans.

As our nation slides into its worst economic disaster in history; it would be inexcusable to allow the continued diversion of billions of dollars a month in small business contracts to corporate giants. I think that the Democratic Party and President Obama would be wise to take dramatic action to stave off a double dip recession before the November election, and I think that H.R. 2568 would accomplish that.