Why do some Dems carry water for big biz even as other Dems work to protect small biz?

[blm]

http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/445156.html

≥≥≥≥≥≥
At issue is the Small Business Innovation Research program, a 25-year-old federal grant program that has enabled more than 17,000 small businesses to develop cutting-edge products through grants from NASA, the Pentagon, the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies.

The program sets aside 2.5 percent of the participating agencies’ research and development dollars for businesses with 500 or fewer employees. Access to these funds is crucial to these businesses. Most are centered on early-stage innovation, developing products that venture capital investors consider too risky or too limited in marketability, since many of the products are destined for use by the military.

In short, the program’s funding is what keeps these businesses alive. And the investment has paid off: The program’s firms employ 1.5 million people, including 450,000 scientists and engineers, and have received 84,000 patents, far more than American universities over a similar time period. In New York, 3,073 companies have received $1 billion in grants since 1983.

But now the program is under attack. Led by big biotech firms and the National Venture Capital Association, the assault began in the House this year through a bill sponsored by Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-N. Y. The bill would obliterate the program’s original intent by giving venture capital firms, large biotech companies and universities access to the program’s relatively small pot of federal funds.

The House bill loosens the program’s strict formula for secondary funding. Instead of undergoing a peer review before being approved for additional funding, the bill creates a “persuasion” model, giving big companies and their lobbyists a huge advantage over their smaller competitors. If the House bill passes, the program will become a vehicle driven by relationships more than accomplishments.

The hopes of thousands of small businesses are riding on a Senate alternative spearheaded by Sen. John Kerry. Kerry’s bill, approved last month by the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and expected to pass easily in the Senate, would preserve many of the program’s safeguards while giving larger firms more controlled access to its funds.

Kerry’s bill won’t mollify both sides, but compromises rarely do. House member should re-examine their prior action on Velazquez’s ill-conceived bill and embrace Kerry’s sensible alternative. Small businesses face enough difficulties in the current economic climate without having to share their small piece of the federal pie with bigger, stronger competitors.


-----------------------


Jere Glover is executive director of the Small Business Technology Council.

[Lerkfish]

1. ermm....money?

[blm]

2. This is so blatant...carrying water for these firms at THIS time? A bill like Velazquez' could be

spun against entire Dem PARTY right before an election.

Geez...a bill that could sabotage an election.

[Lerkfish]

3. erm....money?

I gotta go back to that. Unfortunately lobbyists WORK because they SUCCEED in garnering influence. At times, its gotta be harder to see the voters with the lobbyists in the way, and that goes for both sides of the aisle.

it needs to be reformed, but until it is, we can assume that when a politican votes AGAINST his own political interests but FOR a large lobbyist, that money is involved.

[blm]

It's the right before an election aspect that concerns me. And it doesn't help that

Velazquez was responsible for the meme that Obama doesn't connect to Hispanic voters.

[Lerkfish]

7. I agree, it sucks backwater.

just sayin Its not that unusual, unfortunately.

[blm]

9. At any other time, I'd agree - but 5wks before election day to put up a pro big biz bill?

Not to mention that VENTURE CAPITALISTS would access the money that is supposed to go to small businesses.

[Lerkfish]

11. so, ok, then, what is YOUR theory as to why they're doing it?

since you don't agree its the money.

:shrug:

[blm]

12. heheh...no...I do agree money is a key part of it....

but, it's not like a certain wing of our party hasn't sabotaged elections in the past.

[pnwmom]

4. Millions of Democrats are employed by big businesses. n/t

[blm]

5. More are employed by small businesses. Velazquez' bill is written FOR big biz at the EXPENSE

of small businesses, and right before an election.

[pnwmom]

17. I'm not justifying it, just answering your question. Millions of Democrats

work for big businesses -- that's one reason why Dem politicians don't speak with one voice on this issue.

For example, in Seattle, Boeing and Microsoft employ huge numbers of people. But we have many small start-ups, too. Politicians have to work for everyone.

[blm]

18. Large manufacturing companies are one thing, of course.....

but, this Velazquez bill is crafted to help big biz and venture capital while knowingly HURTING small biz.

[pnwmom]

19. I agree with you on the Valazquez bill. I was answering the more general

question in your subject line.


But those research funds should be going only to small businesses. I don't understand what Valazquez is doing with this.

[blm]

20. That's the problem...her bill makes NO SENSE for any Democrat, especially in an election year

and...

just so you know....I always take your posts straight forward, so I would never think you were acting the apologist for big biz. In my view you were just going straight to the bottom line as you see it, as you normally do.

I tend to do the same. ;)

[pnwmom]

22. Thanks, blm.

And I'm interested in this stupid bill, now that you've informed me about it. Many of my relatives are involved in science and engineering related jobs, and I think it's very important to fund the small scale projects.

[blm]

31. It's easy to get lost in the news of the day, but, I see it as something that could blow up

quickly to be used AGAINST our party before election day.

I truly appreciate you noticing the issue.

[Two Americas]

24. very reactionary

You are again saying that the interests of the Boeing employees is the same as the interests of the owners of Boeing, and that by representing the interests of the owners - the very few - that the Dem politicians are also supporting the interests of the workers - the many. That is the traditional anti-labor conservative point of view.

[blm]

26. yes, but in the case of this poster, it's not really how it was meant.

Overall, though, I agree with you.

[Two Americas]

28. that could be

I believe you. But conflating the interests of management and those of labor as though they were one and the same - that needs to be challenged.

Many Democrats may work for large corporations, but that does not mean that the interests of the corporation are same as the interests of the workers.

[blm]

30. I know....for years I tried to explain why the artists, secretaries and songwriters on Warner's

label who make donations to Dems get lumped into the same category of political donor as agenda-driven AOL/TimeWarner/CNN executives.

[Two Americas]

23. so what?

You are assuming that the interests of the workers are identical to those of the owners. That view is oppositional to the traditional pro labor position of the Democratic party.

[Romulox]

6. Corporations pay money to get politicians to vote their way. It is not complicated.

The idea that the bribes "our guys" take don't influence their behavior is infantile.

[blm]

8. My concern is it's just 5wks before election and a pro big biz bill like this smears entire Dem

party at the exact same time when we should be looking like the SOLUTION to the pro big biz GOPs.

[Romulox]

10. This is an opportunity to differentiate Dems and Repubs in the mind of the electorate

The myth that it is the public is the one voting against their economic interests will be put to the test in the next couple of days.

[tavalon]

15. Trust me when I say that shouldn't be your only or your biggest concern

The economy is still going to crash and crash hard, it's the Wall Street Piggies who are going to come out okay, not you and not me.

[blm]

16. Of course that's a huge concern already...the sabotage of another election is the concern

that has a greater chance of going unnoticed at this time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Politicians are middlemen for the rich and powerful.

I read an article, not longing ago, saying that, instead of trying to influence the middlemen we should go straight to the real bosses with our demands and negotiate with them.

[tavalon]

14. You dance with the ones that brung ya!

That's an old Molly Ivins favorite saying. Big business pays for the best government money can buy. From the looks of the last 8 years, the government they buy may look bufoonish, but when the chips are down, their government does mighty fine by them.

[norepubsin08]

21. Fuck all of that

all private business is evil. Nationalize it all. Haven't you noticed that when you leave it to the greedy private fuckers, they don't give a shit for anyone except themselves. It's all about making money..more, more, more of it!!! One prime example of the failure of private business is the recent hurricane. The private utility companies said that they will not be able to get the lights back on for a month or probably longer. The reason why? Because of overtime...these greedy fuckers don't want to pay overtime...they would rather have you sit in the dark and let your food spoil.

All of this mess can be traced to the root: Reaganomics. I get mine and screw you. He is the one who made it popular to be selfish and not care about the common good. Well folks, the privatization chickens are coming home to roost!

[juno jones]

25. K&R!

Thank you blm.

[CabalPowered]

27. K & R!

This is very disturbing, the SBIR program is a very effective incubatory program. Bush and company have slowly been eating at it through rule changes but this would be disastrous.

[blm]

29. Absolutely, it's been a target of BushInc for years, anyway...but, coming from a Dem

this is disastrous as it makes Dem party look complicit.

Thank you for noticing this issue.