The People Who Say Chicago's Rev Meeks Is Wrong Inaccurately State Why He Is Wrong On Government Contracting For "Minorities"

The Grio: Chicago mayoral campaign of Rev James Meeks stung by affirmative action scandal

"The word 'minority' from our standpoint should mean African-American. I don't think women, Asians and Hispanics should be able to use that title," he said. "That's why our numbers cannot improve -- because we use women, Asians and Hispanics who are not people of color, who are not people who have been discriminated against." Later in the day, he tried to backtrack, saying that white women should be excluded: "I don't believe white women should be considered in that count ....You have white women in the category. They receive contracts. Then, white men receive contracts. Where does that leave everybody else?" he said.

On Thursday, Meeks tried to clarify himself yet again in a written statement, asserting that "all minority -and women-owned businesses" deserve their "fair share" of city contracts. He also pointed to "systemic corruption" in the form of white-owned "fronts" posing as minorities and women who defraud the city program, making blacks the "most under-represented among city contractors."

Rev Meeks is referencing a base of $1 billion in contract opportunities let from the City of Chicago.

The majority of the coverage has congealed around the transactional debate on "who is a victim of discrimination" and thus qualified to their fair share of the $1 billion in this "progressive", Democratic controlled city.

Few people make note that all signs point to the future in which "government spending is not a growth market to build upon".

• All Business - Chicago: "Its Belt Tightening Time In Chicago"
• Chicago Breaking News: Preckwinkle Warns Of Budget Cuts In Cook County
• Chicago Now: Chicago Public Schools: Another Wave Of Layoffs And Budget Cuts 

The next mayor of Chicago will cut more money out of the budget than he/she will be increasing the amount of money spent for the sake of contract opportunities.  The insertion of this issue as a point of contention should draw scrutiny upon Rev Meeks and those who lined up on various sides of the issue with their written and spoken commentary.

I am not surprised to hear these words from a man who a few years ago promoted the notion that Black kids threatening to enroll in the small, wealthy White suburb of Winnetka IL as the strategy for improving the educational quality of the City of Chicago.  The city of Chicago run by "favorable people" in nearly every seat of power.  Huffington Post praises Rev Meeks' stunt.  They can't see that the "Black children of Chicago" are not being "failed" by the "White folks of Winnetka" who fund their small school system to the tune of $15,000 per student per year.  Instead they are failed by their own leadership who continuously fail to leverage the key institutions that they have control over to sufficiently develop the constituents that pass through the front doors.

The Inability To Preside Over Organic Growth

Price Waterhouse Coopers values the City of Chicago's GDP at $574 billion.
The $1 billion in government contracts represent 0.17% of the total GDP generated within the city limits.
(Source: Wikipedia - List Of City GDP)

This begs the question - Why did so many media operatives and "Protectors Of The Black Agenda" so quick to get sucked into the TRANSACTIONAL debate instead of stepping back and seeking to quantify the base upon which they are debating?

When the Wal-Mart Corporation sought to enter into the perennially economically depressed Southside they had to go against the political establishment and the organized labor overlay by reaching out directly to the rank & file to have them push back against these entrenched forces.  Despite all of the years of applied economic theories and the entrenchment of power - the economic standing of the "minority" part of the city which Rev Meeks is seeking "government contracts" for remain in a state of anemic economic growth.

Where are the transparent analysts who have a greater passion in seeing organic growth take place in this part of the city than they are exhibiting pride in the "portraits that hang on the wall" in city hall and the state legislative buildings?   Why is it that no one else rejected the supposition made by Rev Meeks regarding the $1 billion in municipal government versus the need to grow the $574 billion GDP eco-system of the entire city?

It seems clear that people are more inclined to do battle over the "red meat" that certain individuals throw in front of them than they are to "put the chum thrower on trial" and question why he has not grown the base so that all who come might have a larger market to compete within.