The American Small Business League (ASBL) has selected Representative Jason Altmire (D-PA-4) as the single most anti-small business member of Congress. During his four years in office, Representative Altmire has introduced several bills that could have destroyed millions of small businesses, cost countless jobs and diverted billions of dollars in federal contracts away from the middle class economy.
During his first year in office, Congressman Altmire introduced H.R. 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion Act of 2007. H.R 3567 would have drastically changed the definition of a small business. Currently a small business is defined as a firm that is "independently owned." Congressman Altmire's bill would have allowed businesses majority owned and controlled by billionaire venture capitalists to be considered, "independently owned." The legislation would have forced legitimate small businesses to compete head-to-head against big businesses and venture capital syndicates for federal small business contracts, grants and loans.
In response to Congressman Altmire's legislation, the former Ranking Member of the House Committee on Small Business, Steve Chabot called the bill "eviscerating," and stated that the bill would "drastically change the long-held standard [under the Small Business Act] that a small business is one that is 'independently owned and operated," according to AllBusiness.com.
In reference to that same language, former SBA Administrator Steven Preston stated, "We must object."
During 2009, Congressman Altmire introduced H.R. 2965, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act. This legislation was intended to reauthorize a vital small business program; instead Congressman Altmire inserted language into the bill that would have once again drastically changed the definition of a small business to include billionaire venture capitalists.
Numerous small business organizations, like the ASBL, as well as chambers of commerce across the country have opposed Representative Altmire's relentless campaign to change the definition of a small business to include firms that are not small.
Jason Altmire is the epitome of the type of person who should not be in Congress. He is a coldblooded lobbyist who was willing to push legislation that would have shut down small businesses across the country. I will do everything I can to make sure he's not reelected. People need to quit listening to what Congressman Altmire says and start looking at what he has done. He is a crooked politician that does not deserve votes or trust from the people of Pennsylvania.
Follow Lloyd Chapman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LloydChapman
Meanwhile, to address "Lon's" notions regarding "affirmative action" for small business: The SBIR program requires 11 federal agencies to set aside 2.5% of their research budgets for small businesses, leaving 97.5% set aside for big businesses--that's affirmative action on steroids, I would say.
Small businesses, one of which I work for, are red-hot cauldrons of innovation, arguably more so than big businesses. We desperately need their lean, entrepreneurial, and independent efforts driving technology onward, and it will be a pity if the House cabal determined to turn over the SBIR/STTR programs to big business has their way. Given the current political climate and next week's elections, it won't be surprising if they succeed. Just tragic.
What is interesting is the basis of the attack. The charge is not that Small Business need a level playing field in order to compete. The charge is that Small Businesses need affirmative action to get by and Altmire is not giving them enough advantages. This may be right. But it is interesting that the American Small Business League is not making its argument from the basis of free market capitalism but rather from the need to be protected from free market capitalism.
More over, the charge is not, "Small Businesses need affirmative action to get by and Altmire is not giving them enough advantages." The Charge is... Jason Altmire has made decisions and taken actions that have endangered thousands of businesses nationwide and placed countless jobs in the line of fire.
I looked through your website. It does support the charge of being non-partisan (at least narrowly, but given that it is Democrats in power it seems likely that it would be even more clearly non-partisan if I went back to the Bush administration).
But more than 95% of the news stories linked to were about the value of set asides for small businesses. I am not sure what the value is of pretending this is not an embrace of affirmative action for small businesses. It might even be a good thing to be embracing affirmative action for small businesses. I think affirmative action is justified in some other contexts and so am open to arguments for affirmative action for small businesses.
I have trouble taking seriously arguments for affirmative action for small businesses (quotas yet) which deny that that is what they are.