?PCness? Runs Amok at SBA (Ron Goforth Commentary)

It was reported in November by Reuters in Los Angeles that officials there have asked that manufacturers, suppliers and contractors stop using the terms “master” and “slave” on computer equipment, saying such terms are “unacceptable and offensive.” A form was reportedly sent to all Los Angeles city departments to identify equipment carrying the labels “master” and “slave” or “any other offensive terms.” I guess they had better be careful about labeling electrical connectors “male” or “female,” and woe be it to anyone dealing in pipe fittings.

“The essence of the American economic system of private enterprise is free competition. Only through full and free competition can free markets, free entry into business, and opportunities for the expression and growth of personal initiative and individual judgment be assured. The preservation and expansion of such competition is basic not only to economic well-being but to the security of this Nation.” (Public Law 85-536, Small Business Act, as amended, ? 2 (a)).

Under the Small Business Act we have the Small Business Administration and its programs for supporting the development of the subject small businesses. We also find the SBA’s 8(a) BD Program, a business development program “created to help small disadvantaged businesses compete in the American economy and access the federal procurement market.” And therefrom arises an interesting problem.

The European Union (which we thank for being there to provide some perspective) has on the books a law mandating that anyone working above stepladder heights must wear protective gear. In compliance, the insurers of the Moscow State Circus have said that they will no longer cover tightrope walkers unless they wear hard hats. The circus’s general manager is reported to have said of this situation, “… bureaucracy gone mad.” Here, here!

Within the mandates of the Small Business Act, the SBA 8(a) Business Development program emerged. The latter was created to “help small disadvantaged businesses compete in the American economy and access the federal procurement market” (see www.sba.gov/8abd/indexfaqs.html).

Who qualifies as socially or economically disadvantaged individuals who “unconditionally own or control a firm” to qualify it for 8(a) status? Black, Hispanic, Native, and Asian Pacific (more than 25 specific countries of origin are identified) Americans qualify. The countries range from India to Nauru and from Taiwan to China. While not as potentially contentious as the issue of federal legislation for reparations for modern-day descendents of slaves in Colonial America, this 8(a) thing sure looks like institutionalized social engineering.

Somewhat more than 70 percent of small-business set-asides in federal RFPs and RFQs, as listed in FedBizOps, are reserved for 8(a) and HUBzone companies.

As Peter Boyle, TV dad “Frank” on CBS’ “Everybody Loves Raymond” might say, “Holy Crap!” With somewhat more dignity, Mario Vargas Llosa wrote “Prosperity or egalitarianism — you have to choose. I favor freedom — you never achieve real equality anyway: You simply sacrifice prosperity for an illusion.” (The Independent on Sunday, London, May 5, 1991).

I confess to a considerable distrust of any egalitarianism borne of the acceptance of mediocrity. I deplore paying for inefficiencies and poor cost effectiveness in government contracting because of politicians and bureaucrats bowing to the dictates of “PC” and their continuing proclivity for indulging in social engineering.

So I make this plea: Please let businesses, small and otherwise, grow and prosper on the basis of merit. Remove the 8(a) restriction.

But then that sounds almost Libertarian, doesn’t it?

(R.R. “Ron” Goforth, Ph.D., is the president of Beta-Rubicon Inc. in Fayetteville, a firm that specializes in independent technology assessment and due diligence services. He may be reached at www.beta-rubicon.com.)