The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is aimed at protecting small businesses during this pandemic or any other natural disaster. But recently, the data released by SBA shows massive irregularities in the recipients’ data.
Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner are reportedly taking loans under this program. It is believed that this loan was not taken to keep any job, but was used in some other fashion.
The coronavirus has taken the life out of small businesses and many Americans have lost their jobs. This program was to ensure that these small businesses survive the pandemic and people can have their jobs back.
But the data shows that other than accommodating the small businesses, this program also helped some influential people. There are brewing controversies and people are demanding more transparency about this matter.
The idea behind this program was to lend money to businesses with a credit history. People who did not have a strong credit history were not granted loans.
People have already suffered a lot during this pandemic and this news is not easy for them to digest. The data, which was released in the public interest, redacted some of the names.
SBA has taken a defensive position in this matter and that raises more questions. They have come up with a statement that justifies their position and makes people believe that they are on the good side.
It can be seen that many small businesses suffered a lot from these irregularities. A hefty amount of half a million dollars was given to Kushner’s bungalow hotel, which could have been used otherwise.
Although Kushner’s bungalow hotel saved 155 jobs, this was not considered a small business to be saved. These kinds of irregularities are swaying people to believe that while the goal is to help small businesses, it is being misused to give financial relief to unqualified businesses.
The irregularities go beyond Kushner’s bungalow hotel though, and it raises the questions of authenticity. It is believed that over 100 loans were given to their companies where no business was being listed.
There was another problem as influential people use their subsidiaries to portray them as small businesses to take loans. This is another issue of authenticity for these programs and whether they are good for people in need or not.
If such programs continue to help the influential people, the people in need of these programs will be neglected in the future. It is about time that this matter be investigated and the findings be made public.
