Both parties do it, it has become yet another political sacred cow, up there with baseball, motherhood and apple pie. Not since the flag burning debates of the 80's, or the two days after 9/11 when everyone agreed terrorists shouldn't blow up thousands of Americans (before the Democrats decided they had been too judgmental), have I seen both parties in such agreement.

Both parties are just gaga over "small business".

If you listen to the candidates, you would think that the entire economy was based on convenience stores, gas stations, body shops and Amway. Nine out of every eight jobs is form small business. Ten out of every five dollars of taxes come form small business. Why, that guy down the street who owns the card shop where everything is covered in dust and one customer comes in a day? He alone is responsible for 10% of the GDP!

Now, I don't mean to mock small business, small business does have a role in the economy. What I want to do is dispel the impression that somehow small business (like farmers) is especially important and deserves special political attention.

First, let us just ask a question, if small business is so good, so great, so super super special that they should be the sole focus of politicians, what happens when they do succeed? When a small business makes money and stops being a small business any longer? Are they suddenly not worthy of attention? Should we then tax them out of existence? Because that seems to be the message of most politicians lavishing praise on small business. They love small business but hate "Big Business".

So, in other words, they love small businesses, so long as they continue to struggle to survive.

Nor are their numbers completely honest. When they blather on about the job creating powers of small business, they ignore three simple facts. First, a lot of those jobs created by small business are created for friends and family of the sole proprietor. There are many small businesses which employ people outside the family, but there are a lot that don't. So the number of jobs is a bit exaggerated, unless you have a relative with a small business. Second, they ignore completely the quality of jobs. It is ironic, as these are the same people who wrongly malign service jobs as "burger flipping", but they ignore the fact that many small business cannot match the wages or benefits of large firms. Finally, they ignore a very crucial point about job creation. The reason small businesses "create" so many jobs is because so many are in a constant state of starting and failing. I don't have good numbers at hand, but a while ago the estimate was two out of three small businesses fail. That being the case, they may create a lot of jobs, but those jobs exist only for a few months. Not exactly something you want as the cornerstone fot he economy.

To listen to politicians, with their obsessive focus on the "middle class" and "small business" you would think the economy could exist without any wealthy and without large firms. Of course, in this updated version of the Jeffersonian citizen farmer idiocy*,  no one explains how businesses will be created or expanded without capital formation (which requires that someone be rich before he invests) or how large products such a battleships, airplanes, automobiles or space shuttles will get built, but why let details like that destroy a lovely dream?

As I said, there is nothing wrong with small business. Small businesses are where big businesses start out. Small businesses do provide jobs and revenues, and some succeed and get big. My question is why politicians feel the need to play favorites at all? They feel the need to single out special groups, farmers, the middle class, small business, veterans, and give them special rights, special favors, special attention. Why?

The fact is, when the government gives special attention to one, it does a disservice to everyone else. Why should farmers or small business or even the vast middle class, get something that is denied to others? What makes them deserving of special rights? Is not our state founded on the principle that all men are created equal? So why do I get special rights thanks to my income? Or the fact that I grow food? Or because my firm is not yet as large as Exxon? Should not rights be attached to the individual, independent of his condition, and equal to the rights of everyone else?

What makes this most pathetic is that Republicans join in the pandering. the party that rightly says no one should get special rights because of race or sexual orientation turns around and says farmers should be treated differently. Or businesses with a certain level of capital. And people wonder why the Republican rank and file is less than enthusiastic.

Perhaps if our party wasn't pursuing policies that sound like the Democrats we could generate a bit more enthusiasm.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


* Jefferson was right in thinking that restricting participation to property holders would be a check on radicalism, but he was wrong, in two regards, and in one of those foolish as well. He was wrong in thinking a property-holding voter calls could exist exclusively after some degree of urbanization. If it did, there would be a general insurrection at some future date, as the disenfranchised, having no stake int he government, would try to exert the only power they had by violent revolt. That is why a more broad franchise would have become necessary had we gone with general property requirements. However, the foolish part comes form his other mistake, his absurd belief that farming as a profession somehow conferred nobility one individuals. Farmers may often be nice people, but choice of profession in no way grants someone moral insight. There are good farmers and evil farmers, their career has nothign to do with it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I realize I have written before that Republicans must pursue a moderate conservatism, as the public has been indoctrinated to accept government intervention and so would not endorse fully conservative principles. And I still stand by that. However, we can pick and choose where we exercise moderation. And I think, in general, we would see little opposition were we to talk about scaling back farm subsidies (especially when we show how they are exploited by ADM and many FINOs [farmers in name only]). Were we to do it slowly, maintaining some benefits that go to actual farmers who earn a living through their farms, we may even be able to do so without a massive insurrection in farm country.

And as far as small business benefits are concerned, the easy approach is to actually play it the other way. Rather than phasing out small business benefits, argue that all benefits should be equal for corporations, sole proprietorships, all businesses. So, instead of simply phasing out small business benefits, we would institute a program to remove all single firm, or single sector laws. No more tax breaks or subsidies for specific firms or industries. Either a benefit goes to all businesses, or none. As a consequence, all small business only benefits would also be removed, but I think the focus on big firms would make that less noticeable and the whole approach would enjoy rather broad popular support.

So, though I do recognize that we cannot be completely consistent, and cannot, right now, treat all people and all firms exactly the same, we can take some common sense steps toward that goal right now, and in doing so, we set the stage for the later steps which may eventually let us reach our goal.

POSTSCRIPT II

I mention the flag burning debates, as, while handful of extremists and a few "principled' liberals stood by the flag burners, the bulk of both parties voiced opposition to burning flags. Granted they differed on whether or not it should be criminal, but all prefaced their statements with "I oppose burning the flag..." The same way liberals now preface cut and run sentiments with "I supported invading Afghanistan,. but...", regardless of whether or not they really did. (They seem to forget how many were calling Afghanistan "the new Vietnam" until the next "quagmire" appeared in Iraq, at which point Afghanistan suddenly gained massive support, since they had Iraq in which to surrender.)

POSTSCRIPT III

Also, as an amateur economist, I realize my statement that small business are important as the foundation of big firms ignores the fact that under certain conditions small firms are more efficient than large firms. I didn't mean to imply an equally wrong "big business" bias. Neither big nor small business is better in all cases. Which is yet another reason the government should not get involved. Choosing to favor one or the other will always lead to inefficiencies. Better to let the market weed out the weaker competitors and leave the best.