Affirmative Action Takes a New Form.
Ed Morrissey links to a story today that demonstrates just how out of hand our government preferences have gotten:
Once the color barrier has been broken, minority contractors seeking government work may need to overcome the Bush barrier.
That’s the message U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson seemed to send during an April 28 talk in Dallas.
Jackson, a former president and CEO of the Dallas Housing Authority, was among the featured speakers at a forum sponsored by the Real Estate Executive Council, a national minority real estate consortium.
After discussing the huge strides the agency has made in doing business with minority-owned companies, Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.
“He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years,” Jackson said of the prospective contractor. “He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something … he said, ‘I have a problem with your president.’
“I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘I don’t like President Bush.’ I thought to myself, ‘Brother, you have a disconnect — the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn’t be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don’t tell the secretary.’
“He didn’t get the contract,” Jackson continued. “Why should I reward someone who doesn’t like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don’t get the contract. That’s the way I believe.”
Captain Ed is exactly right in calling this behavior “appalling” and in calling for his resignation. Jackson ought to step down tomorrow. Our Federal government exists to represent all citizens equally as the Constitution insists and Jackson has clearly breached the trust he held with all of us.
The same ought to stand for any goverment contract. What Ed misses is that Jackson was proudly touting his agency’s “huge strides” in prefering some companies over others based solely on the pedigree of the owner. If our government truly stands to serve all of us equally, then it ought to do so and there should be no preference given whatsoever, except for the preference toward giving contracts to the business who can prove the needed service in the best way at the best price. Any other preference, partisan or otherwise, is unwelcome in a nation that believes, first and foremost, that “all men are created equal”.
No related posts.
Category: Political Pontifications
I agree that the action was appalling, and certainly doesn't help. Given Jackson's thought process and willingness to bleat loudly about it, i.e. his wondering if the contract money will go to political contributions, he's worse then useless and should be banished to the hinterlands.
On the other hand, I don't think that there needs to be a quota for Moron-Americans. What kind of half-wit, especially a PR or advertising guy, wins a contract from any organization and then feels the burning desire to turn around and bad-mouth the CEO? It would certainly give me pause, make me wonder about the person's judgement and professional demeanor, and wonder whether my money is going to be burned off on a drug crazed orgy of lampshade dancing and pie-eyed baying at the moon.
That struck me as funny too, Mack.
But I think it's part and parcel of our society today. It seems we mostly understand (well, with today's PC and lefty-enforced caveats) the whole "free speech means I can say any old thing I want…" but we haven't quite perfected the "…but that doesn't mean I should say every stupid thing that pops into my brain".
My guess is that your money is going to be eaten up in the same old way – bureaucratic pocket-lining. These days, if you want to get rich, get a government contract.
I think the Dixie Chick Doctrine (the DCD)has pretty much come fully into play here: "I should be able to say anything that pops into my brain with no recourse, no penalty, no criticism and no consequence. Any criticism, critique, rebuttal or economic consequence inflicted by any individual, group or association of individuals is de facto censorship and an abridgement of my First Amendment rights."
The DCD also firmly established the primacy of the First Amendment, except for that freedom of religion thing; the freedom of religion is also an abridgement of their First Amendment rights and their implied and imputed right to be free from having their sensibilities offended.