Idaho Congressman Bill Sali attempts to defend his large cache of "no" votes in an opinion in the Idaho Statesman today. While his rhetoric may play to his fellow extremist supporters, most Idahoans will see through his attempts to scare his constituency with threats of a looming "big government."
In the opinion, Sali lists a few of the bills that he felt compelled to vote against.
I was elected to Congress to do what's right, not what's easy. It would be easy to sit back and vote for the all the neat-sounding legislation that comes to us. But that's how bad legislation gets passed. Just slap a compelling name on it and dare congressmen to vote no. Who can vote against the Small Business Lending Improvements Act? Or the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act? Or the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act?
You can if you read beyond the cutesy title. The Small Business Lending Improvements Act actually is a significant expansion of government. More than that, the bill calls on the Small Business Administration to pick the "winners and losers" in the private sector, providing grants based on arbitrary and pre-determined government quotas and not on real needs.
Let's focus on the Small Business Lending Improvements Act which passed the House 380 - 45 and on Sali's misleading attempt to defend his "no" with such scary terms as "significant expansion of government" and "pre-determined government quotas."
Reading the summary of the bill we don't find any "quotas" to be used in authorizing SBA loans. What it does do, through its rural outreach program, is make it easier for small businesses in rural areas to obtain loans by providing an 85 percent guaranty for loans of $250,000 or less made by lenders to those small businesses.
It also makes permanent the Community Express Program, a pilot program developed by NCRC and the U.S. Small Business Administration, that pairs SBA-guaranteed loans with technical assistance. It helps those located in low or moderate income areas or women, veterans, members of the reserves and members of Indian tribes to obtain loans of $250,000 or less.
Another thing the bill does is provide loans to small businesses that provide medical, dental, or psychiatric services which are located in a health professional shortage area and directs the SBA to guarantee 90 percent of these loans, and reduces the borrower and lender fees.
It also includes a program to help small businesses whose majority ownership is held by veterans or members of the reserves and directs the SBA to guarantee 90 percent of such loans, and eliminates the borrower and lender fees.
Read the whole bill for yourself; it never once mentions quotas. It does however, base some of the programs on need, something Sali favors in his opinion. And don't forget, while Sali calls them grants, we're talking about SBA loans here. These are not government give-aways.
Congressman Sali, Idahoans in the 1st District can see right through your attempts to scare them into thinking that when you voted against the Small Business Lending Improvements Act you were protecting them from "big government" and "quotas."
I wonder if Sali is reading this stuff to begin with. And how many times did Mr. Small Government vote to fund state-run liquor stores in the Legislature? Hrm ...
Posted by: faustus37 | May 16, 2007 at 02:06 PM
Eh, probably not reading it himself. Maybe some 1st District voters are though and that's really who matters.
Don't know the number on the state run liquor store votes. But Mr. Small Government talks about looking after small businesses who he says can't afford to pay an increased minimum wage without going under, and that said minimum wage increase would create havoc in the economy.
Then he turns around and votes against helping start-ups owned by veterans and rural folks get access to SBA loans; the same kind of businesses that would probably employ several folks and add to the economy. It's just ludicrous.
Posted by: MountainGoat | May 16, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Here's another gem from Sali. Apparently there's not enough room to shoot. Owyhee County is one of the largest counties in the country but he wants all of it for shooters. Sali is spearheading an effort to preserve our freedom to plink tanks or harrass raptors.
http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-may1607-sali_rifle_ban.76a3d76b.html
The lack of enforcement in the existing zone was profiled here:
http://www.boiseguardian.com/2007/04/01/welcome_to_idaho.html
Posted by: Sisyphus | May 16, 2007 at 05:17 PM
Regarding the presence or absence of "quotas", we know from his deliberations in reaching a decision on how to vote on Prop. 2 that Congressman Sali spends months studying each bill, so I'll trust his analysis over yours, you Anti-Sali Socialist, you!
Posted by: Bill Sali Fan | May 16, 2007 at 06:22 PM
BS Fan, that's hilarious.
Posted by: MountainGoat | May 16, 2007 at 07:24 PM
I think that the "quotas" that Sali is referring to are those effectively set up by the Community Express Program.
To the extent that that Program is funded, these are, ultimately, quotas---in the sense that of all the money appropriated for loans under the Small Business Act, a certain percentage will effectively be reserved for women, Indians, vets, and those economically and socially disadvantaged.
Sali has been misleading in past op-eds. However, as far as this part of this op-ed, I don't think it's fair to say that using the term "quotas" is unreasonable.
Posted by: Anon. | May 16, 2007 at 09:07 PM
Hilarious? Hilarious!?! What's really hilarious is that all y'all socialists don't realize that everyone in the 1st District except for the six or seven of you agrees with Congressman Sali. If not, how do you explain the huge margin of his victory in the last election?
Posted by: Bill Sali Fan | May 17, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Well Anon., in the language as I read it, the CEP doesn't reserve a certain $ amount or number of loans for those groups to the exclusion of others who might apply for a SBA loan -- which is what most people think of when they hear quota -- the program is simply available to those groups. BTW the program is also available to *all* businesses in low to moderate income areas, not just those who are in the disadvantaged groups.
I'm sure you're correct that this program is what Sali considers quotas; it is misleading to use that term, however.
BS Fan, you crack me up.
Posted by: MountainGoat | May 17, 2007 at 07:09 AM
These are the same "quotas" that Republicans like to claim are set up within anything that targets to help minorities. If it doesn't allow their big donors to reap big dollars, then they vote against it. Small businesses are fence voters and those don't fund re-elections.
Mr. Silly is just a curmudgeon, satisfying idiots like Adam in order to try to guarantee a re-election.
2008 will be a grand year, I'm thinking.
Posted by: BinkyBoy | May 17, 2007 at 07:34 AM
Although a more accurate term would be "preferences," it's nevertheless within the realm of debate whether the Community Express Program establishes "quotas" or not. That question can really only be answered after we see the regulations and procedures under which the permanent program is actually administered.
My point, though, is still that if "quotas" is misleading, it's so barely misleading in comparison to so many other arguments Sali has made that I'm unclear why this one was singled out.
If we're not prepared to tolerate even that minimal level of spin in political argument, we're asking for the enforced end of rhetoric.
Posted by: Anon. | May 17, 2007 at 07:52 AM
I disagree with the premise of the argument, Anon. It's not even accurate to say "preference." If a business owned by a veteran and a business owned by a regular joe both applied for a small business loan, a "quota" or "preference" would imply that the veteran got the loan whereas the regular joe didn't.
In this example, depending on their circumstances, they both may qualify for SBA loans. One doesn't exclude the other, which is what a "quota" or "preference" implies.
Posted by: MountainGoat | May 17, 2007 at 08:06 AM
Getting rid of state-run liquor stores and privatizing the industry will create at least a $10 million/year industry in the state literally overnight, while at the same time saving taxpayers around $15 million/year. I'll post the link of my full discourse at the end.
Strictly speaking, if Sali ever voted to fund the ISLD, he voted for socialism. Let's see him defend that little gem. (Of course, so did everyone else in the Legislature, but now you know.)
"Owyhee County is one of the largest counties in the country but he (Sali) wants all of it for shooters." And they want to build a nuke plant there, too? Uh oh ...
Booze link:
http://www.43rdstateblues.com/?q=node/3277
Posted by: faustus37 | May 17, 2007 at 03:23 PM
Well, I'll have a hard time keeping up this argument, as I personally believe that the quota---or whatever you want to call it---ought to be there. This is affirmative action, and I'm in favor of it.
Still, it's there, in the bill as it was passed in the House. We're looking at Section 103 of the bill, the section intended to make the Community Express Program permanent.
This section authorizes a program of making loans, up to $250,000 per loan, to businesses. If your business is located in a low- or moderate-income area, then sure---any business could qualify for a loan. But in *every other kind of area*, you do not qualify for a CEP loan unless your business is owned mostly by women, vets, Indians, or "socially or economically disadvantaged individuals." If it's not, you do not qualify.
That's a preference, and, depending on how the program is actually administered, arguably a quota. Again, I'm all for it, but I do not think it's illegitimate to call it out as a quota.
Thanks for the thoughtful, careful discussion. I really appreciate the blog.
Posted by: Anon. | May 17, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Okay Anon, I think we're just going to end up going 'round and 'round over this. I appreciate your arguments, however...
For many here in Idaho "quota" has a very negative connotation usually in the context of: Two people apply for a job, one guy who's more qualified gets passed over in favor of the minority applicant.
That definition of "quota" with its negative connotation just does not apply in this case. No one who qualifies for a SBA loan would be denied a SBA loan because someone else participated in the CEP.
In this bill the CEP is an *additional* program to the SBA loan program which comes with it's own *additional* funding -- an additional program for those who qualify but not restricting or limiting access or taking away funding from the other SBA programs.
When Sali uses the term "quota" it's red meat for his supporters who would define "quota" as in the example above. I'm simply calling attention to the fact that using "quota" in that context is not appropriate.
Posted by: MountainGoat | May 17, 2007 at 07:17 PM