Early this year, right after Rep. Parker Griffith (D, AL-05) voted AGAINST the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he told me he voted that way because he was concerned about the negative effect the newly clarified law might have on some small businesses.

The impetus for the bill was wage discrimination suffered by Ms. Ledbetter over many years of employment at Goodyear.  That's a huge company with thousands of employees.  The bill that came to a vote did not differentiate between large corporations and small businesses that might have only 10 or 15 employees.  A business person with two or three stores could be faced with huge legal costs because of a piece of legislation targeted at big corporations.

We often hear this "it would hurt small business" excuse from politicians whenever they don't want to do something.  Raise the minimum wage?  It would hurt small business.  Extend unemployment benefits to part time workers?  It would hurt small business.  Reform the health care system so everyone could get health insurance?  Heck no!  There's an infinitesimal chance that might hurt a small business somewhere.

Congressman Griffith has apparently forgotten about his "concern" for small businesses now, because he has introduced HR3558, a bill that really would hurt small businesses.  Lloyd Chapman, President of the American Small Business League, writes:

Small business advocates are describing an opposing bill, the "Small Business Fair Competition Act" (H.R. 3558), as a "colossal loophole for big business." H.R. 3558 was introduced in the House of Representatives by freshman Congressman Parker Griffith (D - AL) on Monday, September 14, 2009. Several corporate giants such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and British Aerospace (BAE) maintain campuses in Congressman Griffith's district and are currently receiving federal small business contracts. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/...txt.pdf)

If H.R. 3558 were to become law, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, British Aerospace and hundreds of other Fortune 500 firms and their subsidiaries would be able to continue receiving federal small business contracts indefinitely. Opponents of H.R. 3558 estimate that millions of middle class firms would be forced out of business or negatively impacted if the bill were to become law.

This statement is the essence of Griffith's bill:

In the case of a solicitation for bids or proposals by the Government for a proposed contract award, if the goods or services to be provided or performed under the proposed contract are substantially the same as the goods or services being provided or performed under a current contract, then the incumbent contractor is eligible to re-compete for the proposed contract as a small business if the incumbent contractor represents in good faith that it is a small business in accordance with this section.

Yes, I'd say that's a loophole -- one that let's companies hold onto the advantages of being a "small business" long after they have become a "big business."  I don't demand that my representatives be geniuses (although it wouldn't hurt) but it really pisses me off when they're this inconsistent.  No fair using the small business excuse to vote against something you imagine might be unpopular with big donors and then turn around and introduce a bill that stiffs small businesses.  I have to call bullshit on this.