Posted on March 5, 2010. Filed under: Obama Unveiled... |

There are many people who are having to rely on public assistance for the first time in their lives and it seems that that’s just how our government wants it.  Middle class is slowly becoming the "new poor".  Our government recklessly overspends while the rest of us have been tightening our belts so tight, we’re choking.  After tense negotiations and days of delay, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) allowed a vote on a temporary extension of Federal unemployment benefits, highway spending and other programs.  The $10 billion package passed 78-19 late Tuesday night.  Where the heck are they going to get $10 billion?  I guess Obama’s "pay-as-you-go" got up and left.
That $10 billion would do wonders for small businesses which would, in turn, lead to more job creation.  That’s a better way of getting rid of the unemployment problem, but Obama would rather have Americans eating our of their hands (similar to government-funded welfare) than eating out of the hands of small businesses (where Americans will be self-sufficient and won’t have to rely on a government handout).  What about tax cuts, too?  That would really help the jobless situation and the helpless situation facing so many unemployed Americans who are slowly losing their independence.  Maybe the government doesn’t want us to be independent.  They want to control every aspect of our lives, including our finances.  All you have to do is see how they are frantically trying to pass ObamaCare to see what I’m talking about, for starters.
Please don’t get me wrong.  I know people on unemployment need to be able to pay their bills and have a means to survive and support their families.  What I have a problem with is that this has been going on for quite some time, yet the situation has worsened, not improved.  Instead of putting a plan in place to prevent unemployment (like helping small businesses which leads to job creation and instituting tax cuts), Obama is giving these people money and promising more that isn’t even available.  How senseless is that?  Bernanke has stated that he will not print more money.  In spite of this, Obama promised and gave millions to Haiti, then promised millions more to Chile.  What about taking care of this country first?  He’s giving taxpayer money to other countries and neglecting the country he’s supposed to serve.  The way he’s been throwing massive amounts of money around for fifteen months, it’s as if he’s deliberately trying to collapse the economy so he’d be in a better position to control this country on his terms, not ours or according to the Constitution.  As I’ve said many times before, all Obama is doing is putting a small bandage on a big oozing wound, and now it’s spreading and becoming infected.  He doesn’t seem to be helping our economy and small businesses at all, and I feel he’s purposely ignoring their plight simply to have Americans remain under government control.  He was front and center, though, when big corporations knocked at the White House door.  He answered without missing a beat, but small businesses have been knocking for over a year now, but Obama isn’t answering.  You have to wonder, why?
Just take a look at this story, which is one of many, posted approximately one year ago by The Wall Street Journal and then try to tell me that the job situation is getting better with Obama in the White House…

Should Obama Do More To Help Small Businesses Win Government Contracts?


We have the same old story a year later (story below).  He’s been promising for over a year to support and help small businesses, but all he’s accomplished is growing government bigger and supporting huge corporations who supported him while he was campaigning.  Many Obama supporters still insist that Obama is putting this country on the road to prosperity, but all roads lead to a dead end, with Obama behind the wheel…


A Plea for Direct Lending to Small Businesses

Proposed Legislation Calls for the Small Business Administration to Take On an Added Role—Lender of Last Resort

Small businesses want a more direct line to loans.

Most recovery efforts directed at Main Street have required participation from cautious lenders, but with credit still tight, small companies say they haven’t received the same treatment as large corporations.

Small businesses have been pleading for government aid since American International Group Inc., General Motors Co. and scores of banks received bailouts.

"We need immediate assistance," says Steve Gordon, founder of Instant Off Inc., a small Clearwater, Fla.-based company that makes faucet devices. Mr. Gordon, who is seeking a $500,000 loan to expand his business, supports legislation that requires a direct-government-lending program to small businesses.

"Would you call volunteers or an army if you need emergency aid," he asks, alluding to the fact that the situation requires solutions on a government level and that the banks are under no mandate to participate.

This legislation calls for the Small Business Administration to help business owners find willing lenders and, as a last resort, issue the loan directly. While this provision passed a House vote in October, the direct-lending provision has an uncertain future as it awaits consideration from the Senate, given the fruitless history of similar past proposals and skepticism from the Obama administration.

The SBA currently has loan programs in place that work through banks, guaranteeing as much as 90% of the lenders’ small-business loans against default. In 2009, these guaranteed loans were down 37% compared with two years earlier.

The SBA only provides direct funds to companies in geographic areas that are hit by natural disasters. When he was on the campaign trail, then-Sen. Barack Obama proposed expanding that disaster program for businesses hit by the economic turmoil. A similar concept passed in the House version of the stimulus bill but was eventually cut from the final version.

At a town-hall session in Tampa in January, Mr. Gordon asked President Obama why the SBA wasn’t already lending directly. The president, in his response, said that the SBA "does not have the infrastructure to go all across the country in every region and process loans." He added that creating a direct-lending system would make a "massive bureaucracy."

Mr. Gordon on Friday testified at a congressional hearing that addressed whether a recently announced $30 billion initiative from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP—originally proposed to help community banks make more loans to their neighborhood businesses—would be better spent by the SBA to lend directly. "I went as a messenger," Mr. Gordon says. "They [should] not give banks another dime of money."

Rep. Nydia Velázquez, (D., N.Y.), chairwoman of the House Committee on Small Business, has been a strong proponent of the legislation. In conjunction with Mr. Gordon’s sentiments, Ms. Velázquez says that "given the public’s view of TARP, there is little appetite left for proposals that cut more checks to banks."

Representatives from both parties, including those who voted in favor of the legislation, are concerned that the American taxpayer will have to pay for defaulted loans. Proponents of direct lending argue that taxpayers are already on the hook for 90% of that loss through the SBA’s guarantee programs. Yet, some historical data from the SBA indicates that direct loan-loss rates tend to be higher than those of guaranteed loans.

"The more you look into [direct lending], the more you realize the challenges and consequences it presents. If businesses are being told ‘no’ because they are not creditworthy and lenders won’t make the loan with a 90% SBA guarantee, why should the taxpayers do it with a 100% guarantee," says Jonathan Swain, an SBA representative, in a recent interview.

Ms. Velázquez, however, points to several indicators that show the momentum of the direct-lending proposal. Trade groups such as U.S. the Women’s Chamber of Commerce have called for such a program, and separate legislation with direct-lending provisions have recently popped up in both congressional chambers, she said.

SBA has attracted more than 1,000 banks and other lending partners to its guarantee programs in the past year. It fears that setting up a direct-lending system could foster competition between them and the government and could hinder small businesses from developing a solid relationship with a lender.

SBA administrator Karen Mills has said that it could take a year before staffing, training and back-end computer systems are in place to manage any form of direct lending beyond what the agency already does in disaster scenarios. That would be too late for some struggling businesses. As an alternative, Ms. Mills suggests focusing on existing programs, such as utilizing the services of the SBA’s advisory network.

"We can get them bankable by helping them with their package," she said at this past Friday’s hearing, referring to the owners’ business plans and other necessary application materials required by lenders.

Mr. Gordon, who wants to hire more people and launch a new marketing campaign for his business if he gets a loan, says that he isn’t in favor of bigger government but that direct federal assistance is necessary when the free market fails. "If [the government] doesn’t lend money, then it will pay for unemployment compensation, which is money you will never get back," he says.



Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: