Posted on 12/29/2005 6:31:50 AM PST by libertarianPA
WASHINGTON - In a program to help businesses after Sept. 11, a high percentage of government-backed loans went to recipients who appeared to be unqualified — some of them unaware they were receiving terrorism-recovery money, investigators report.
The Small Business Administration's inspector general said Wednesday that agency officials were at fault for telling lenders in the program that their determinations would not be questioned.
The inspector general concluded that only nine loan recipients in the 59 cases sampled appeared to be qualified for disaster loans.
Lenders who handed out billions of dollars in loans failed — 85 percent of the time — to document that recipients were actually hurt by the terrorism attacks and therefore eligible for the aid under the law, the report found.
The investigative report substantiates key findings of an Associated Press story in September that found similar problems with the SBA's Supplementary Terrorist Activity Relief (STAR) program.
The AP found that terrorism recovery loans went to a South Dakota radio station, a Virgin Islands perfume shop, a Utah dog boutique and more than 100 Dunkin' Donuts and Subway sandwich shops in various locations.
Meanwhile, small businesses near Ground Zero in New York couldn't get the assistance they desperately sought.
SBA Administrator Hector Barreto put the best face on the findings, saying the audit did not find that loan recipients were unqualified for the program, although he did note that lender documentation could have been better.
His statement, however, was contradicted by the chairwoman of the Senate committee that oversees the SBA program.
"These initial findings are troubling and the committee ... will continue with its own investigation of the STAR program to get at the truth and inform Congress for the future," said Sen. Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine.
Snowe, who heads the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, said if abuses are discovered, "many questions must be answered by the parties involved, beginning with: How and why was this allowed to happen?"
The inspector general's report said the program ran into trouble after lenders initially did not participate because requirements were unclear.
SBA officials then embarked on a vigorous marketing campaign, and lenders interpreted their remarks to mean "that every small business could claim it was somehow impacted by the attacks, and therefore, eligible to receive a STAR loan," the report said.
"We believe these communications were intended to, and did, send a message to lenders that the Agency would not question lender eligibility determinations," the inspector general reported.
The report found:
_Only two of 42 borrowers interviewed were aware they had obtained a STAR loan.
_In cases where eligibility could not be established, 25 of 34 borrowers interviewed said they were not adversely affected by the terrorist attacks.
_Thirty-six of 42 borrowers questioned said they were not asked, or could not recall if they were asked, about the impact of the attacks on their businesses.
I would guess, though, that the corruption in 9/11 relief is a pittance compared to the corruption in Katrina relief (which in turn is a pittance compared to corruption in tsunami relief).
I recently talked with an SBA rep. about a loan due to Katrina. The young guy didn't know a whole lot and couldn't answer questions about the paperwork or even how the principle/interest was broken down for the duration of payments. Most of his answers began with, "I think it works this way...". To make it even more interesting, I had a total loss of about $50K and they offered me $92K. I'm glad I only have to go through the motions to stay eligible for other relief and don't need to jump into a contract that has so many strings and so little hard information.
The reason I don't give to charities is because the government already forces me to take care of everyone anyway. My response to people who ask if I donated to this fund or that cause is always, "I gave at the office."
But if the day ever came where government would stop this baffling behavior of welfare and social security, I would contribute to privately funded charities. They're way more accountable than the government could ever hope to be. More of the money would get to the people who actually need it.
It certainly couldn't be any worse. Why we don't move in that direction is completely stunning to me.
Yes, you are right in your thinking. That certainly is another reason why I never give to charities, in addition to those stated. If you look at you total federal and SS taxes for the year, you know 100% of your FICA is for charity. Then, of the federal income, you can figure 67% of that is for domestic charity . . .
FACT--for FY 2006, roughly 67% of all federal spending goes to Superfuction "Human Resources", which is nearly all social welfare in one form or another. Add on to that another 5% or so for global welfare, and you have to ask yourself why in the world does anybody give to any charity, considering how much money they trash down the drain for charity that you are forced to give.
This means that somebody having taxable income of $75,000 is giving about $15,000 (more, counting FICA) to forced charitable "giving" (stealing, wealth transfer, whatever).
SBA has hired so many temp people who don't know much. They have also let a number of people go too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.