By any measure, Obama’s record on federal, small business contracting has been abysmal.  The recent, National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) Small Business Economic Trends Report confirms that “for small business owners, 2009 ended with a thud.”

Many factors have contributed to the disaster in small business contracting.   A rush to push the $787 billion Stimulus funding quickly gave federal contracting officers no real options other than to dump the additional federal money onto existing federal contracts that are held by the largest companies.  There just was not enough time to conduct procurements to encourage the participation of small businesses.  So, small businesses received very little of any of the new federal business or the loans anticipated from the $787 billion Stimulus spending, even though President Obama and Democrats in Congress stated that awards to small businesses were the primary goal.

Worse yet, Obama decided to delay the long-overdue need to increase the number of federal contracting officers that are in critical short supply.  Ten years ago, each federal contracting officer was responsible for an average of  $300 thousand dollars of federal contracts.   Today, each federal contracting officer is responsible for $50 million dollars in federal contracts.   Put bluntly, contracting officers have been stretched thinly and no longer have the time needed to open procurements to small businesses.

Many contend that it is simpler and faster to add funding to an existing federal contract  or to bundle many disparate governmental needs into huge omnibus contracts that often top $1 billion in size.   This may be a bad policy and a poor return for taxpayer dollars, but it is the most expedient process for a federal procurement officer that is required by Congress to get the billions of dollars of new federal money committed quickly.

The Obama Administration has further rigged the deck, for construction contracts,  by forcing small businesses to seek Union participation prior to bidding on federal construction and infrastructure jobs.  This move, might be great for the Unions, but it destroys innovation and further burdens small businesses with foolhardy regulatory burdens.

The American Small Business League’s decision to bring suit against the government represents one of the few times that a trade organization has mustered the courage to tell the truth about what’s really happening in federal procurements.   The fact is, the government has been doing a poor job in contracting for years, but under the Obama Administration, small businesses have been hit especially hard.

Moreover, the Obama Administration knew the Stimulus funding would exacerbate the problems in government contracting  (lack of federal contracting officers, excessive regulatory processes, arbitrary and unpredictable oversight from a multitude of sources).  Yet, until the announcement of the ASBL, most industry and trade groups have done lots of complaining, but few have followed through with action.

I experienced this strange phenomenon, firsthand, while serving as the Administrator of General Services Administration (GSA), the government agency responsible for most issuing many of the federal contracts in the government.   High profile trade organizations would bring impassioned real-world evidence of the debilitating impact of excessive regulatory regimes imposed upon its member companies trying to compete for government contracts.  Yet curiously, when, as the head of GSA, I acted and swiftly attempted to create a more rational and predictable oversight and regulatory regime to govern federal contracts, these very same industry groups and corporations became very quiet.

I learned that the leaders of the vast majority of the different trade organizations dealing with federal government contracting have difficulty taking their claims public, and it seems they become too frightened to say in public what they scream in private.

The dirty, little, DC secret is that many of the leaders of the different Washington-based trade organizations are anxious to court favorable opinion and gain access to government leaders (who themselves seem to demand, above all else, praise and fawning).

Nor are you likely to hear the honest and unfiltered truth from a Congressional hearing.  Trade reps understand that lawmakers, like other government bureaucrats, can quickly turn on anyone that might have the gumption to declare that the emperor has no clothes and use facts and figures to prove that the system is not working.   Alas, with the Obama Administration, fear and intimidation seem to have reached new heights and seems to have grown excessively thuggish.

So, the recent announcement by the American Small Business League is important.  Finally, a trade group has stepped forward with the unfiltered truth that most folks connected to government contracting already know: that the Obama Administration, despite all the lofty rhetoric has failed completely with small businesses.

Many federal government contractors have their eyes are on the American Small Business League, the  little engine that might bring real change.  Long-suffering, small businesses have a champion, willing to tell the truth and let the chips fall, willing to confront the Obama Administration and demand action.

Lloyd Chapman, at the American Small Business League, does not appear interested in playing the Washington game, nor does he seem too interested in courting government favor that might lead to an appointment in the Obama Administration.  Chapman seems like the real deal, an honest man, singularly focused on solving a difficult problem.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chapman should expect the usual M.O. from Democrats: immediate retaliation and attempts to discredit him and his organization for daring to expose the truth about how small businesses are being crushed by the Obama Administration.

Take out your sling and find yourself a hard, little pebble Mr. Chapman: Goliath approaches.

I was born in 1958, at the cusp of one of the biggest change in our country’s ideology– the civil rights movement.  But, six years later, desegregation had still not infiltrated all aspects of our national society and in Louisiana, it had had almost no effect at all.

As  a six year old, desegregation had little impact, until the day that Bobby Kennedy came to our house and, sitting at our kitchen table, convinced my dad to “try once more” and apply to have me attend an all-white, private school in New Orleans.  That day changed my life.

Despite the hardships, the racial slurs, the ethnic isolation, I have never regretted my dad’s decision, for it gave me  a superior education, a toughness, a confidence, despite name-calling, in my own worth as an individual, and a few good friends.

My presence elicited mixed reactions.  There was confusion —”she’s a really “light-skinned” Negro.   There was relief — “she sure doesn’t sound like a Negro.”  There was even surprise — “she sure is smart, who would have known?”

My dad assured me that these were the kinds of comments made by people who had pre-existing prejudices handed down through generations of ignorance and isolation; that these opinions would change over time.  My dad had had quite a bit of experience in this area.  And my dad was right.

Or so I thought.

Imagine my surprise, over forty years later, when serving in public office, to be attacked, to hear these same kinds of racial slurs–web pages discussing my hair and its texture, bloggers debating whether I was actually Black, or “Black enough”,  given my accent,  and comments such as ” Lurita Doan can’t be African American… She’s obviously Caucasian!” appeared fequently.

Of course, at the time of Rep. Henry Waxman’s attacks on me, there was a very contentious, presidential race, and certainly,  many on the Left had a heavy investment in the “Black” candidate, Barack Obama.  So personal attacks against a Black conservative by Waxman and other Democratic leaders were, perhaps, the inevitable, partisan attempts to discredit anyone viewed as a threat.

But are Harry Reid’s racial slurs so very different from Congressman Waxman’s efforts and show-trials where he especially singled out Black women in leadership position in the Bush Administration. going well past honest policy debates, into personal attacks and character assassinations?

Democrats have always wanted to be seen as the political party for Blacks–and any participation by a Black woman in the opposing, Republican party, was viewed as a threat.

Reading about  Senator’s Harry Reid’s derogatory comments about our President, commenting on President Obama’s voice, accent and skin color, I realized that race issues had entered a new era in America.

Black Americans that deviated, in any way, from the strict conformity of an out-of-date stereotype are singled out for derision.  If you’re “light skinned” (like me and many other African-Americans),  spoke in educated tones, or, heavens-to-Betsy, were a conservative Republican, the racist attacks came swift and sure.

Rigid orthodoxy has been coupled with blinding hypocrisy.  When Senator Trent Lot made some inappropriate remarks on race, he was hounded from office.  And yet, when Senator Harry Reid voiced narrow-minded, inappropriate racial stereotypes, the response from the very same posse, that pursued Trent Lott with pitchforks and glee, is now far more conciliatory.

The unmistakable message here is that there are two very different standards.  Democrats are free to pursue, demean and slander Black Americans (especially those that are not willing to toe the ideological line that has been dictated by party elites).  At the same time, racist notions and indiscretions from Democrat Senators like Reid are to be forgotten.

Almost fifty years after Reverend Martin Luther King Jr’s triumph, celebrating the “content of our character“, rather than the “color of our skin”, it is clear that there is still room for improvement.  Let’s all encourage Senator Harry Reid to do better, refrain from making inappropriate, racial remarks and applaud his recent efforts to apologize to the President.

However,  if Reid is to truly come clean, he needs to put some effort into dismantling the hypocrisy of race-based attacks from the Democratic Party that Reid himself helped to construct.   An apology to President Obama is good first step.

But, if Reid really wants to get race issues behind him, he will now quickly follow up with a similar apology to folks like Clarence Thomas whom he was quick to demean and portray as a mental midget.  Reid’s rhetoric, five years ago,  seemed to suggest that Black Americans, such as Judge Thomas, that were unwilling to wear the Democratic straight jacket of conformity, were stupid, “embarrassing”, and unworthy of holding high positions in government.

But, Harry Reid is no Robert Kennedy.  I am afraid that anyone hoping to see some honest contrition from him and an admission of racial stereotyping is going to be disappointed.  More likely, Reid will reinforce the existing, de facto standard,  that racial comments from any Democrat are lamentable, while, at the same time, Reid and other Democrats will continue to be hyper-partisan.

Democrat leaders like Reid, Waxman, Pelosi are essentially stating that only Republicans (and especially conservatives) are guilty of racism or ever make inappropriate and demeaning remarks.  Meanwhile, Black Americans like Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, Condi Rice at the State Department , or even me while at GSA , are attacked as Uncle Toms and racial sell outs, who, because we hold contrarian ideas are not really Black at all.  This deep-seated hypocrisy is not just a double standard, it is an outrage.

More likely, as another election year approaches, Reid and his cohorts will reinforce the double-standard, and attack any Republican that even hints at race, while simultaneously condoning Democratic attempts to demean, to attack, and to disparage any Black American that escapes the Democratic straight jacket of fealty and orthodoxy.

Government bailout watch: Despite receiving $5.5 billion in stimulus funds, Government Services Administration’s backlog of deferred maintenance projects now totals $8.8 billion and the agency is proposing billions of dollars in new projects

As stimulus money doubles Wisconsin’s weatherization budget, a review finds weatherization work done on hundreds of low-income homes failed to meet federal standards; Inspectors found projects done in a way that could threaten the safety of residents or did not save enough energy

Stimulus funds pay to replace “unattractive” streetlights; The new lights “aren’t especially energy-efficient, and the old ones work”

Federal Reserve tries theater ads to improve its image

Las Vegas’ $4.1 million housing plan built on federal stimulus money stalled over squabbles about how to hand out the money and to whom

Illinois using eminent domain to obtain private property to build a bike path intended to be funded with federal stimulus dollars

IRS employees bought unauthorized first-class plane tickets

The art of obfuscation is central to California-style politics.  Think back on Speaker Pelosi’s byzantine explanation of why she called career CIA employees liars.  Incomprehensible, deliberately vague misdirection characterizes the California-style of politics.  Never be precise; never say what you mean, and certainly, never let facts interfere with the spin.

Cumbersome, incoherent  legislation is another example of obfuscation, California-style: thousands of pages of  gobble-de-gook, the Stimulus, at 1000 pages, the Energy bill at 1100 pages and the Healthcare bill version #1 at 1300 pages and the latest House healthcare bill at a whopping 1990 pages.

Pelosi seems to have assembled these monstrosities so that few in Congress can read the legislation in its entirety before she calls the vote.   Deceptive executive summaries, with left wing talking points, attached to these gargantuan documents are yet another form of obfuscation.

Stimulus funding is especially ripe with obfuscation.  For example, Speaker Pelosi is on record stating that she has not been involved in funding special interest projects out of San Francisco with the Stimulus.  One project, the San Francisco Marsh Rat, figured frequently in news stories. In fact, Pelosi’s public relations folks  claimed  these accusations are a “total fabrication” .

Despite what seems to be her decade-long involvement in the project, Pelosi, did not, technically, endorse earmarks for the Marsh rat since the creature in question is not a rat, but a mouse, the San Francisco Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.  Second, the Departments of Interior and Commerce  allocated the funding;  Pelosi only ensured the funding stayed in the legislation. Third, the funding cascades through multiple entities, so finding Nancy Pelosi’s fingerprints requires part bloodhound,  part Sherlock Holmes, and a willingness to wade through a maze of primary sources that obscure the facts.

Stimulus legislation, Amendment #98, Page 69, appropriates $50 million for Department of Interior to fund the “California Bay-Delta Restoration Act”  for  “coastal habitat restoration”.  The Department of Commerce is also funded in the Stimulus, and Recovery.gov,  reports that Commerce, via NOAA,  has allocated $167 Million in grants to various States for coastal  ”restoration” and research projects considered to be of importance or value.  The “San Francisco South Salt Pond Restoration ” received $7.5 million in funding, the “American Canyon Salt Pond Restoration in San Francisco” received $8.5 million, and yet another, the Elkhorn Slough Restoration received $3.9M.  These projects support habitation for the Harvest Mouse.

If you keep following the breadcrumbs, the San Francisco South Salt Pond Restoration Project has a division, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project that  supports the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse habitation project.  The final clue to the connection with Stimulus funding, comes from the Milpitas Post, a  non-profit newsletter from March 2009 that gleefully reports their good fortune in receiving a Stimulus grant.

So, thanks to California-style politics, and despite Speaker Pelosi’s obfuscations, millions of dollars of taxpayer money did fund pork projects such as the habitation of the San Francisco Harvest Marsh Mouse.

Another Californian, and close, Pelosi confidant, Henry Waxman, practices California-style politics of obfuscation and intimidation, whether conducting his witch-hunt hearings or whether promulgating faulty energy legislation that will do little to address the energy problems in this country.  Waxman’s strategy is to affirm a  statement loudly enough and often enough in the press, so eventually the misstatement is perceived as fact.

Waxman’s truth-through-repetition technique has been enormously successful.   For example, Waxman cultivates the perception that he is eager for oversight.  The reality seems more that Waxman is eager for others to have oversight, but when it comes to his own district in L.A., Waxman is the original Mr. NIMBY(Not In My Back Yard).

For example, a few years ago, the FBI wanted to expand their offices at 11000 Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles.  The General Services Administration supported this decision to expand and improve the GSA-owned building on Wilshire Blvd.  Problem was, Waxman didn’t want the FBI to expand their facilities in the middle of his district. Congressman Waxman’s  campaign and fundraising headquarters for his  PAC are also located on Wilshire Blvd. Probably, the idea of a bunch of FBI agents located in the vicinity of his harvesters of campaign donations was, to Mr. Waxman, totally unacceptable.

Mr. Waxman went into overdrive to kill the idea of so many FBI agents located so near his fundraising efforts.   When negotiations didn’t yield the desired results, Waxman  applied pressure on the GSA .  Mr. Waxman epitomizes the California-style of obfuscation and intimidation.  At the very time he is applying pressure to move the FBI out of his district, he is simultaneously posturing himself as a great crusader, supportive of oversight!

Waxman’s technique was successful.  Ultimately, the FBI decided to locate its new, expanded facility elsewhere in L.A., out of Waxman’s district, even though the move  quadruples the cost to the American taxpayer.

California-style politics relies on deception, on truth-by-repetition, on overwhelming the time and thought processes of opponents with volumes of incomprehensible data and labyrinthine legislation, which successfully hides the details of  the bill’s real intent.

America has produced exceptional leaders: Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents who inspired with clear, logical prose and speeches.  Those days seem long are gone.  The California-style politics obfuscates real intentions to mask unwholesome and despicable acts—and, sadly, its practitioners  get away with it.