I’ve been doing this for almost a decade now and, during that time, I’ve heard any number of reasons why nobody should pay attention to microbusinesses.

Most of those reasons are variations on a theme.

Microbusinesses are too small to matter.

There are a number of different ways to respond to that, most of which are also variations on a theme.

A grain of sand is too small to matter, too, until you find yourself in the middle of a windstorm in the Sahara.

Or perhaps a more appropriate metaphor for the relationship between microbusinesses and the U.S. economy is this, which I wrote back in 2001:

In the real universe, the smallest atom is the hydrogen atom. And yet, hydrogen is the fuel that powers suns.

Today, however, I was struck by a different, equally appropriate response to that statement.

Microbusinesses are too small to matter to whom?

Certainly, they are too small to matter to many of the academics who study the U.S. economy with a certain can’t-see-the-trees-for-the-forest flair.

On the other hand, microbusinesses matter quite a lot to the men and women who own and operate them — most of whom, incidentally, are also voters.

They matter because they provide a living or maybe just help make ends meet for millions of American families. Because of that, microbusinesses reduce the burden placed on taxpayer resources. They also offer their owners self-sufficiency and a certain amount of economic independence.

Microbusinesses give their owners a source of pride in their life’s work.

All of that should matter to the policy makers who appear to believe themselves to be, first and foremost, stewards of the U.S. economy.

They are that, of course. But they are also defenders of the pursuit of happiness.

They should try to remember that.