Veteran Owned Small Businesses Shorted
Published by Bob Foster
Congress authorized the creation of a non-profit corporation (National Veterans Business Development Corp.) to help veterans start or grow small businesses–and provided $17 million taxpayer dollars to the corporation since 2001. Interestingly (but not surprisingly), only 15 percent of the funding has been spent on business resource centers that are supposed to provide business assistance services to veterans. This is what a recent report from the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee is telling us.
It gets better. The report found that the corporation wasted money on excessive compensation for executives, on expensive dinners for employees at high-priced restaurants in Washington, and on questionable charges on company-issued credit cards. The compensation for the top two executives in fiscal 2007 ate up 22 percent of the funding for that year–more than was spent on the business centers. Does any of this sound familiar?
Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, are now recommending that no more money go to the corporation. Instead, they want any future federal money, to assist veterans in small business, to go to the Small Business Administration’s Office of Veterans Business Development.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the way our government operates when they dabble in the private sector. I shudder to think what will happen if our government nationalizes our banking system.
Maybe our elected representatives would like (or not) to hear what we think about this waste of money, and how they need to better support small business–especially veteran-owned businesses–to get our economy back on track. What do you think?
Comments
9 Responses to “Veteran Owned Small Businesses Shorted”
My Book
Any business crisis can be managed before it becomes fatal . . . Be Your Own Turnaround Manager tells you how. Click here for more information.
Are the Bob Foster from Floral Park, ny?
Bill Robinson – Sorry, wrong guy.
This is such a shame! It actually should be a crime!! Maybe when the government decides to dabble in the private sector an approved budget should be cast first before any money is funded. Executive salaries should be treated like any other budgeted item? Who is put in charge of deciding how the money is spent or dispursed? Looks to me like thats where the problem lies but no big surprise, it’s how Washington has been run since day 1, it’s all about what the individuals who make up our “representation” can grab for themselves.
If Washington could be run like a small business is FORCED to, we would not be in the mess we are now.
Steve
Steve – Considering the recent Omnibus bill that just passed the House–with almost 9,000 earmarks–nothing that Congress does would surprise me. Passing spending bills without accountability is fine, until someone has to pay for it. Guess who that is going to be?
Bob Foster’s last blog post..U.S. Falling Behind in Innovation–Part I
While not being for earmarks generally, there appears to be some that are good and needed for development in some states. There perhaps are some pork that is bacon; it feeds and fills. Perhaps not all earmarks are bad?
I am, however, for accountability and responsibility on ALL fronts. Do earmarks generally have no accountability and those who receive them not responsible?
From what I gather the 9,000 earmarks are less than one percent of the budget. Is this so? I also understand that one percent of billions and trillions of dollars is still pretty fat!
AGAIN, I AM FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY! PERIOD!
Judith Ellis’s last blog post..Being a Smiler
Judith – Again you went right to the heart of the matter–ACCOUNTABILITY! The 9,000 earmarks tacked onto the Omnibus bill are probably, for the most part, valuable to the American people. However, if these are truly honest and valuable expenditures by our representatives, why are they secretly (semi) attached to some other spending bill?
I think it would be better if Congress made up a list of things our representatives wanted to buy for us (with our money of course) and made that list public. It wouldn’t have to be all at one time–there’s just too many items–but maybe quarterly we could look at what discretionary spending the Congress is up to. I think this would bring about much more accountability and responsibility.
Earmarks seem like such a sneaky way to spend money on the special interests of our representatives.
Bob Foster’s last blog post..U.S. Falling Behind in Innovation–Part I
“Earmarks seem like such a sneaky way to spend money on the special interests of our representatives.”
This is well understood and it does seem disingenuous indeed. I also love the idea of openly letting us know what is being done with OUR money. Loved this!
I could be wrong, but I thought the 9,000 earmarks are in the budget and not the stimulus package that was passed. From what I have read, there were no earmarks in the stimulus package. But this may be a matter of what’s an earmark to you is not one to me, if you know what I mean.
Judith Ellis’s last blog post..Being a Pundit, Newscaster and Analyst II
Judith – You are correct, the 9,000 earmarks are on the Omnibus bill that provides money to operate the government. As far as I know there were no earmarks on the stimulus package. Negotiations between the parties on what went into the stimulus package would not be considered earmarks.
Bob Foster’s last blog post..U.S. Falling Behind in Innovation–Part I
That is pathetic but I’m not at all surprised with all the Libs in Congress.