Author: Crystal Fontaine

The signs of economic recession are everywhere. Recently, a small town in mid-Missouri with a population of approximately 5,000 people experienced the distressing effects of the economic slump as a local factory laid off 400 workers – a whopping eight percent of the town’s population. Economies of every size are all realizing the effects of the economic downturn.

According to the United States Small Business Administration, there were 27.2 million businesses in the United States in the year of 2007. Of those, small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9%. These small firms pay nearly 45% of the total U.S payroll and employee about half of all the private sector. Over the last decade, small businesses alone have generated 60-80% of net new jobs annually. Although big business, such as GM, shows the more “noticeable” effects of the recession, we cannot forget the little guys, who may be struggling just as much.

In November, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), purposed the small business-focused Senate Bill 3699, which seeks to improve the HUBZone program. Snowe’s efforts may very well go a long way to providing one of the cornerstones of America’s future.

HUBZone Background

HUBZone is a program created under the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 97’that falls under the sponsorship of the U.S Small Business Administration, promoting economic development in historically underutilized business zones. The program attempts to do this by enhancing employment and capital investment by providing Federal contracting preferences to small business in economically distraught areas. The HUBZone areas are defined as a qualified census tract, a qualified “non-metropolitan” with a median income of less than 80% of the state median, or property within the margins of federally recognized Indian Reservations. In order to be eligible, a business must be positioned in a HUBZone, the business must be owned and controlled by one or more U.S citizens, and no less than 35% of the employees must reside in the HUBZone.

Under Snowe’s legislation, numerous concerns with the program are given light. For instance, there is no real assurance that only qualified firms are apart of the program. This is attributable to not acquiring certain documentation and conducting site visits more regularly during certification process. The legislation provides a list of improvement suggestions, including the development and implementation of direction for establishing if an application is qualified, establishing a time period for completing recertification, building measures to measure efficiency that take into account contracts being calculated under several socioeconomic subcategories, economic characteristics, et cetera. In addition, the Comptroller General must present a report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small Business in the House no later than two years after the implementation of the bill.

As quoted by Warren Buffett, “In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield”. Over a year ago, many of us did not anticipate that we would be facing an economic crisis with the scope we are working through. Today, we are facing an economic crisis of which the likes have never been seen. As we work through the urgent, macro reforms currently on the table, we, as Snowe suggests, must improve on what we currently have and find ways to help our small business communities. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

The latest political fad and tax-payer dollars are like thunder thighs and miniskirts; they should just not be allowed to mix.

Olympia Snowe’s recent bill is another attempt by Washington to follow the trends and “go green.” The bill, S.3682, proposes that grants ranging from $25 thousand to $1 million be dispersed to small businesses that show a desire to produce green products. The kinds of products being produced aren’t specified, but as long as it says green, Congress says go.

Snowe is no stranger to energy bills. She paired up with Senator John Kerry in early 2008 to promote another bill encouraging small businesses to be more energy efficient. According to senate.gov, Snowe even stated in an interview that she was ashamed and surprised by the Bush administration’s lack of interest in the energy crisis.

Though the bill sounds good on the surface, the fact that it simply sounds good is exactly the point. It’s pleasing to the ear, but essentially does nothing. Going green is a fad, and with little fool-proof research done on green products, Washington should not be throwing tax-payer money at something so new.

The main problem however, is the bill itself. There are two stages in the proposed bill. Stage one offers grants ranging from $25 thousand to $250 thousand. Phase two ups the grants to a range of $250 thousand to $1 million. In order to reach phase two however, you have to pass phase one. Bureaucrats, (which are in no short supply in Washington) will decide if the business has used the phase one funding effectively and deserves to move on to phase two and receive more money. The arbitrariness of how this will be decided is also problematic. What standards will be used to measure the effectiveness of stage one?

The problem with this plan is that the bill is striving to give incentive to already existing businesses to turn to selling more energy efficient products. Certainly, most honest businessmen would tell Snowe that even $250 thousand dollars isn’t nearly enough to retool an entire company into an eco-friendly utopia. The $1 million might be doable, but this doesn’t come until phase two. Now if you don’t have enough money to turn your business around using the phase one grant, then chances are, you won’t be approved for the larger grant that comes with phase two. As a result, the taxpayer’s money will be going out for phase one, but will end there.

Ultimately, this bill is yet another sad attempt to try and make it seem like Congress is doing something about the current energy crisis. If something is going to be done, it has to be carried out on a much larger scale. Giving a few select businesses insufficient funds is going to do nothing but waste the taxpayer’s hard-earned money. If Congress wants to make our country more energy independent, how about not following the latest green fad, and start putting the taxpayer’s money toward something more along the lines of serious research into alternative fuel? Then our money won’t be going toward a fad, but a long-term commitment to bettering our nation’s future.

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite the fact that it can be fun to find you’ve won $5,000,000 inheritance from your now deceased uncle in Nigeria or are offered to buy a 2008 oil tanker, there is currently a bill on the table that would make such emails a civil crime. According to Gartner, Inc., an IT industry research and advisory company, “between August 2006 and August 2007, roughly 3,500,000 United States computer users were victims of phishing scams, and suffered losses totaling $3,200,000,000.” Spam is something we all hate to love, but despite the fact that it can be…fun… several US senators are trying to make such acts worthy of a conviction and hefty crime.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), backed by Bill Nelson and the convicted felon/Congressmen Ted Stevens, are proposing S.2661, a bill that would allow the FCC to determine and enforce whether or not you’ve been “phishing”. Senator Snowe estimates that 59,000,000 phishing emails are sent per day with nearly 1/6 actually being opened by the recipients. Under section 3 of the bill, “Phishing; Related Deceptive Practices” the enforcement outlines up to $2,000,000 in penalties if a person is found knowingly identifying false or misleading information. The bill seems to weigh especially heavy if a person is found misrepresenting a government division, despite the fact that non profits, business, and other entities are covered. In addition, the jail time for such a conviction can last up to 5 years – a long enough time to make people think twice as to whether or not it’s truly worth the risk to offer Viagra at cost. Even though it’s always nice to see you can make free long distance calls to your aunt in China or that Mike Smith (a long time friend of everybody’s) has found a new job for you and only requires your birthdate and social security number in return, your inbox may not be quite as full a year or so from now.

Author: Jared Fallon

Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) has a proposal on the table aiming to “prohibit text message spam”. Smith gave his bill the name the “Do-Not-Text Act of 2008” – a rather strange title for a proposal that aims at cutting down the nuisance frequently mirrored in your inbox. The bill’s enforcement is accomplished by amending the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, which allows The Department of Justice to fine up to $11,000 per violation, as overseen by the FCC.  Smith also seeks to amend the Communications Act of 1934, using the Act as grounds for prior authorization for sending “service commercial messages”. The seven page bill currently has 3 cosponsors, including Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Olympia Snowe – the latter currently proposing similar legislation to make sending spam over email a civil crime punishable up to $2,000,000. Smith’s bill is currently in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and certainly is worth reviewing.

For those following Senator Smith’s GOP track record, despite the fact that he received 70% of the primary vote when re-running for office in 2008, he was rumored supporting Senator Obama in the presidential race. Accusations were first made after Smith tied his campaign to several of Obama’s ads in the attempt to reach young voters in Oregon. Regardless, Smith’s track record shows an overall trend of being more issue-oriented, as evidenced by this proposal being endorsed by 1 republican and 2 democrats.