Tag: small business administration

CBO Perpetuates Small Business Administration Myth

A new brief from the Congressional Budget Office discusses the role of small businesses in the economy and how they’re affected by federal policy. The CBO cites the Small Business Administration as one example of how federal policy favors small businesses over larger businesses:

Assistance from the Small Business Administration (SBA), through loan guarantees that enable small firms to borrow at more attractive terms (for example, lower interest rates and fees) than they might otherwise obtain.

That’s the popular perception of the SBA’s loan guarantee programs, but I would argue that it’s inaccurate for two reasons:

  1. The Government Accountability Office has calculated that SBA 7(a) loans only account for a little more than one percent of total small business loans outstanding. Veronique de Rugy and I looked at the top 15 industries that received SBA-backed loans from 2001-2010 and found that only 0.5 percent of the small businesses that comprise these industries received loans backed by the SBA. Thus, rather than helping small businesses compete against big businesses, SBA loan guarantees mainly help a tiny share of small businesses compete against other small businesses.
  2. The real winner from the SBA’s loan guarantees is the banking industry—particularly large banks. In 2009, the top 10 lenders (out of 2,600 total lenders) accounted for close to one-quarter of the SBA’s flagship 7(a) loan guarantee program’s volume. Wells Fargo & Co. alone accounted for 7.3 percent of the total 7(a) loan volume. Other large banks in the top ten include J.P. Morgan Chase, U.S. Bancorp, and PNC Financial Services Group. Although lawmakers portray the SBA’s loan programs as a boost for small businesses, the programs are actually a form of corporate welfare for some of America’s largest banks.

See this Cato essay for more on why the Small Business Administration should be abolished.

The Curious Case of Lloyd Chapman

Last week, I flayed the American Small Business League’s Lloyd Chapman for his absurd claim that legislation introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) would close the Small Business Administration (see here). As I expected, Chapman’s response is equally absurd.

In an ASBL press release, Chapman actually threatens to take me to court over my calling him a “conspiracy theorist”:

The next time you call me a conspiracy theorist, be ready to back it up with facts. You just might find yourself in court.

Good luck with that, Lloyd. In the meantime, let’s allow the court of public opinion to decide if the following claim you recently made is the stuff of a conspiracy theorist:

Clearly Republicans like Senator Burr, his supporters and groups such as the CATO Institute are directed like puppets by the defense and aerospace industry.

I can’t speak for Sen. Burr, but Chapman’s assertion that the Cato Institute is being “directed like puppets by the defense and aerospace industry” is ridiculous. Cato’s Downsizing Government website, which I co-edit, lays out the case for cutting the Department of Defense.

My Cato colleagues past and present have consistently advocated for a limited U.S. presence abroad:

Cato’s foreign policy vision is guided by the idea of our national defense and security strategy being appropriate for a constitutional republic, not an empire. Cato’s foreign policy scholars question the presumption that an interventionist foreign policy enhances the security of Americans in the post-Cold War world, and maintain instead that interventionism has consequences, including the formation of countervailing alliances, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and even terrorism. The use of U.S. military force should be limited to those occasions when the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk.

Does that strike the reader as anything the defense and aerospace industry would direct Cato to advocate? Clearly, Chapman is hopelessly lost in a fantasy world of his own creation.

Perhaps realizing that he embarrassed himself by threatening me with legal action, Chapman now says that he wants to take a different approach:

I am sure that Tad DeHaven and the staff at the CATO Institute have seen my press release in response to their attack on my credibility. I’d like to take this opportunity to try a different approach and appeal to their sense of patriotism, logic and reason.

He then proceeds to talk about all of the jobs that small businesses create and the fact that federal contracts set aside for small businesses sometimes end up instead benefiting large businesses. Uh, Lloyd, in my “attack” on you, I never said otherwise. I even noted that “Chapman is correct that government contracting is fraught with fraud and abuse.” In my testimony on the SBA before the Senate Small Business Committee, I discussed examples of fraud and abuse in government contracting, including federal contracts set aside for small businesses that ended up benefiting large companies like General Electric and Lockheed Martin.

As I noted in my “attack,” Chapman is focused on the contracting issue whereas I’m primarily focused on the SBA’s loan guarantee programs. I frankly don’t care what firms receive federal contracts so long as work is performed at the lowest cost to taxpayers. I’m more concerned with reducing the size and scope of government, which would mean lower taxes and fewer burdensome regulations for small businesses. Moreover, does Chapman not understand that those government contracts are paid for, in part, by other small businesses through taxes? I would argue that the strength of the small business community should be measured by the goods and services produced for private consumption, not government consumption.

Finally, if Chapman is so pro-small business/anti-big business, why isn’t he concerned with the SBA’s loan guarantee programs? I challenged Chapman on this issue:

I’m all for a serious discussion and debate on the SBA. The SBA’s loan guarantee programs benefit a relatively tiny number of small businesses at the expense of the vast majority of small businesses that do not receive government support. Moreover, the biggest winners from these loan guarantees are big banks who reap the profits but get to kick the bulk of any losses to the government. One would think a pro-small business/anti-big business guy like Chapman would be concerned by this. Instead, Chapman consistently resorts to wild exaggerations and conspiracy theories. As a result, I can’t take him seriously. It’s too bad policymakers do.

The silence from Chapman on this matter is deafening. In addition to resorting to wild exaggerations and conspiracy theories, we can now add the threat of legal action. Until Chapman dispenses with the antics, policymakers should stop taking him seriously.

This Week in Government Failure

Over at Downsizing the Federal Government, we focused on the following issues this past week:

Follow Downsizing the Federal Government on Twitter (@DownsizeTheFeds) and connect with us on Facebook.

Polls Show Voters Don’t Support Corporate Welfare

Two polls of likely voters released by Rasmussen Reports today indicate that the federal government’s corporate welfare programs should be prime targets for spending cuts.

The first poll found little support for the Small Business Administration’s lending programs:

  • A majority (58 percent) of likely voters said that the federal government shouldn’t guarantee loans issued by private lenders to small businesses. 23 percent said the government should back small business loans and 19 percent were unsure.
  • A majority (59 percent) of likely voters said that reducing government regulations and taxes would be more helpful to small businesses than the government providing loans to small businesses that can’t obtain financing on their own. 22 percent said the government loans were better and 18 percent were unsure.
  • Entrepreneurs particularly believed that reducing government regulations and taxes is preferable to government lending programs. 76 percent of entrepreneurs felt that way and 61 percent opposed government loans to small businesses that couldn’t obtain financing.

(See this new Cato essay on why the Small Business Administration should be terminated.)

Similarly, the second poll found little support for various federal corporate welfare programs:

  • Only 15 percent of likely voters said the federal government should continue to provide funding for foreign countries to buy military weapons from U.S. companies. 70 percent were opposed and the rest were undecided.
  • Only 29 percent of likely voters said the government should continue to provide loans and loan guarantees to help finance export sales for large corporations. 46 percent were opposed and the rest were undecided. (See Sallie James’ new Cato paper on why the Export-Import Bank should be terminated.)
  • Only 37 percent of likely voters said the federal government should continue providing farm subsidies. A plurality (46 percent) said farm subsidies should be abolished and 17 percent weren’t sure. (See this Cato essay for more on farm subsidies.)

Spending Our Way Into More Debt

Huge deficit spending, a supposed stimulus bill, and financial bailouts by the Bush administration failed to stave off a deep recession. President Obama continued his predecessor’s policies with an even bigger stimulus, which helped push the deficit over the unimaginable trillion dollar mark. Prosperity hasn’t returned, but the president is persistent in his interventionist beliefs. In his speech yesterday, he told the country that we must “spend our way out of this recession.”

While a dedicated segment of the intelligentsia continues to believe in simplistic Kindergarten Keynesianism, average Americans are increasingly leery. Businesses and entrepreneurs are hesitant to invest and hire because of the uncertainty surrounding the President’s agenda for higher taxes, higher energy costs, health care mandates, and greater regulation. The economy will eventually recover despite the government’s intervention, but as the debt mounts, today’s profligacy will more likely do long-term damage to the nation’s prosperity.

Some leaders in Congress want a new round of stimulus spending of $150 billion or more. The following are some of the ways that money might be spent from the president’s speech:

  • Extend unemployment insurance. When you subsidize something you get more it, so increasing unemployment benefits will push up the unemployment rate, as Alan Reynolds notes.”
  • “Cash for Caulkers.” This would be like Cash for Clunkers except people would get tax credits to make their homes more energy efficient. Any program modeled off “the dumbest government program ever” should be put back on the shelf. 

  • More Small Business Administration lending. A little noticed SBA program created by the stimulus bill offered banks an “unprecedented” 100 percent guarantee on loans to small businesses. The program has an anticipated default rate of 60 percent. Small businesses need lower taxes and fewer regulations, not a government program that perpetuates more moral hazard.

  • More aid to state and local governments. State and local government should be using the recession to implement reforms that will prevent them from going on another unsustainable spending spree when the economy recovers. Also, we need fewer state and local government employees – not more – as they’re becoming an increasing burden on taxpayers.

The president said his administration was “forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it to others to solve.” Mr. President, nobody has forced you to do anything. You’ve chosen to embrace – and expand upon – the big spending policies that were a hallmark of your predecessor’s administration.

Government of Continual Failure

The Washington Post is full of so many stories about government failure these days, it’s hard to keep up.

Today, on page A19 we learn about a Small Business Administration subsidy program that has a 60-percent default rate. On the same page, we learn that the U.S. Postal Service will lose $7 billion this year.

Flipping over to page A20, we learn that former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik is a liar, a tax cheat, and thoroughly corrupt.

Then flip back to A15, and columnist Steve Pearlstein rightly lambastes the latest stimulus scheme from Congress: ”This $10 billion boondoggle is nothing more than a giveaway to the real estate industrial complex.”

Finally, on A14, we’ve got government-owned Fannie Mae losing a colossal $19 billion this year and asking the Treasury for another $15 billion taxpayer hand-out.

The federal government is a mess. Policymakers have no idea what the effects will be when they spend billions on scheme after scheme. Most of them don’t read the legislation, they don’t understand economics, and they never admit mistakes when their schemes almost inevitably fail. Fully 40 percent of the vast federal budget will be debt-fueled this year, but few policymakers seem to care. And public corruption seems never-ending. 

Isn’t it time to give libertarianism a chance?

The Subway Business Administration

Yesterday, President Obama announced a government initiative to help small businesses, largely through the Small Business Administration (SBA). But more on that in a bit…

A February 24th Wall Street Journal article discussed the fact that defaults of SBA-backed loans to franchisees at 500 franchises went up 52% in fiscal year 2008. Loan losses went up 167%. Sure, the economy isn’t doing too hot right now. What grabs my attention is the fact that taxpayers are backing loans to business operations like Subway, Domino’s Pizza, and Planet Beach tanning salons. Is capitalism in this country so incapable, recession or not, that the government needs to ensure an adequate supply of credit to sandwich shops? Tanning salons? A recent headline on MSNBC.com reads, “In many cities, tanning salons exceed Starbucks.”

The Journal reported that in the last eight years 42% of SBA-backed loans to Cornwell Quality Tools Co. franchisees went into default. Yet, Cornwell’s CEO says that it opened 127 new franchisees last year and indicated that “relatively few used SBA lending to enter the business,” according to the article. Proponents of the SBA argue that the agency is needed to help businesses that are unable to obtain credit or financing through traditional channels. What this story shows is there’s obviously a very good reason why these businesses couldn’t obtain private financing. It also shows that, in the case of Cornwell, there’s no “need” to have taxpayers backing loans to its franchisees when so many are opening up without such help.

Is it even true that small businesses are generally so unable to obtain credit that the government must fill the void? According to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Between October 2006 and March 2008, SBA determined that 31 of the 97 lenders reviewed had failed to consistently document that borrowers met the credit elsewhere requirement or personal resources test.” In other words, a third of the borrows didn’t prove they couldn’t obtain money elsewhere. Moreover, the GAO says, “we found that lenders evaluate a borrower’s ability to obtain credit elsewhere on reasonable terms against their own conventional lending policies.” That litmus test hardly provides proof that deserving small businesses are being left out in the cold. The reality is that the SBA-backs loans to small businesses that could have obtained credit through private means – or shouldn’t have been loaned money in the first place.

Cato adjunct scholar, Dr. Veronique de Rugy, has found that “no more than 1 percent of [all] small business loans each year are SBA loans. The private sector finances most loans without government guarantee and, hence, the SBA is largely irrelevant in the capital market.” Moreover, because SBA financed loans have below market rates, small businesses who aren’t subsidized by the government are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Table 3 of de Rugy’s study for Regulation magazine (download article here and go to pdf page 7), lays bare the SBA’s irrelevance, and the competitive disadvantage the vast majority of small businesses face because of the agency’s subsidies.

The table shows the top 25 industries receiving SBA 7(a) loans for fy2002. At the top of the list are full-service restaurants, with limited-service eating places in second, and automotive repair and maintenance in third. The SBA loan ratio (SBA loans divided by total number of small business establishments in the industry) for the top three, are 1.5%, 1.2%, and 0.6%. The ratio for the top 25 industries was 0.3%; the ratio for all industries was 0.2%. I’m not a math whiz, but less than 1% isn’t very much.

Let’s circle back to the President’s announcement…

First, the President said the U.S. Treasury “will begin making direct purchases of securities backed by [Small Business Administration] loans to get the credit market moving again, and it will stand ready to purchase new securities to ensure that community banks and credit unions feel confident in extending new loans to local businesses.” That idea sounds kind of familiar to me. Oh, right.

Second, the President said “These purchases, combined with higher loan guarantees and reduced fees, will help provide lenders with the confidence that they need to extend credit, knowing they both have a backstop against their risk and a source of liquidity.” According to the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Obama’s plan, aimed at helping troubled small businesses, will increase that guarantee to as much as 90% of a loan. The plan also will temporarily eliminate many of the loan fees that help pay for the program and cover potential defaults.”

It’s this second part that should be particularly galling to regular taxpayers and the vast majority of small businesses dealing with subsidized competitors. The President mentions some temporary tax breaks, but as Raymond Keating, chief economist at the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, told the Journal, “the Obama administration would accomplish much more in terms of boosting confidence and getting the economy moving by, at the very least, moving away from imposing higher personal income, capital gains, dividend and estate taxes on investors and business owners.” Additionally, a small business owner writing in Slate, in a piece entitled “Why Small Business Hates the Taxman,” says that what rankles a lot of small businesses is “the sheer hassle of compliance with the tax laws and the complete loss of control you feel when dealing with the government.”

Instead, the administration’s idea of helping small businesses is perpetuating the same moral hazzards that has the government already bailing out reckless private interests to the tune of trillions of dollars in current and future taxpayer dollars. This is change we can believe in? Unbelievable.