more political thoughts

I'm really frustrated over this stimulus bill. I don't agree with everything in it, but I think that, overall, it's a good thing. Is it a lot of money when we already have a huge deficit? Sure, but what is the alternative? The Republicans are basically suggesting we do nothing. They really haven't come forward with a viable alternative. They were all for the last stimulus bill, without oversight. What I get from that is that the first bill was A. ok because it was suggested by a Republican, or B. ok because it was really a good-ol-buddy glad-hand package that payed off campaign contributors. Either way, epic fail. So the Obama administration tried to make changes to the bill to garner bi-partisan support- they axed a bunch of good spending like funding for school construction (apparently better education for our kids is not a good thing, and construction jobs are not really jobs), and what kind of Republican support did it get- none! I would have preferred passing the original bill with full school construction funding, among other things. Not to mention the GOP opposed retrofitting government buildings to be more energy effecient. Come on guys, more effecient buildings means we pay less for energy in those buildings, and it creates jobs to do the work. Maybe the Republicans don't think blue-collar jobs are actuall jobs? Pathetic- what kind of jobs do they think their low-class, gun totin', hillbilly supporters work (sorry that's a mean stereotype, but I'm too frustrated to come up with a better description)? What kind of jobs are being cut the most? Blue-collar jobs!

The Republican party has two mantras that are, ultimately, failed. The first is that tax-cuts are they best way to solve any economic crisis. I won't complain to a tax-cut, but it just isn't always the answer. Just because you put a little more money back in the hands of the consumer, doesn't mean that they will spend it. Consumers are scared right now, if they get more money in their hands, they are going to save more than they have in the past. You would think that would help open the credit market, but it won't. Consumer savings accounts are in consumer banks and credit unions. Small businesses may see a small increase in credit, but nothing significant. The banks aren't going to be any more willing to lend as they just got burned and are trying to stay alive. Tax-cuts for businesses aren't going to help either- most businesses will use the extra money to shore up their longevity, not to mention that the amount put back into the businesses hands isn't going to be all that significant to a business.

The second failed mantra is that a completely free market is unfaillable. The concept of a totally free market is good on paper, but then again so is communism. The problem with the both is that they are corrupted by human nature- greed. Unless you can elliminate all greed, both communism and free market are doomed to fail. The reason our "free market" is still alive is because it ISN'T totally free. A completetly free market would have immense swings up and down and be totally unreliable (hell, we would have lost most of our farming industry decades ago if it hadn't been for price floors). In fact, this current recession is an example of that. We are in a huge down swing becasue of lack of regulation. A completely free market would be dominated by monopolies and stifle true innovation. One poiniant example of the free market failing is in the financial industry, with their CEO's and thier "golden parachutes". A true free market says that a good business leader prospers financially, and a poor one suffers- like being fired! Most industries oust the CEO if the company is tanking. This creates motive for the CEO to do well. In the financial industry, though, CEO's are not motivated thusly. CEO's sign on with a huge portion of their income in stock options. They are given the option to buy stocks at a later date, at the lower cost of what they were worth when the CEO started. This assumes that the stock price of the company will improve under the leadership of the CEO, creating motive to do well. Unfortunatley, if the stocks drop, the CEO is then given another stock option deal to purchase at the lower value. This effefctively erases the motivation of the stock option. The CEO has very little reason to do well. He/she stands to make money on increased stock value, still, but he/she would make more money by letting the stock plummet first which gambles that they can bring it back up. This is on top of the CEO's getting paid huge salaries and bonuses despite the comapany failing financially. Rather than cutting their own 6 figure income down, they lay people off. If that isn't greed, then what is? If the CEO is making above national average income (which is less than 6 figures), they should be required to cut their own pay down to that level prior to a single lay-off. Look at small business owners- if the company is struggling, their pay decreases. CEO's should be held to the same "free market" standard, but they aren't.

One other thing that pisses me off- Sean Hannity. A few days ago, on his radio show, he said, in response to the President Obama statement that we should lead the way as an example in nuclear disarmament, that we would be making us weak and make us more of a target. Come-on, if we dismantle 200 nuclear warheads as a show of faith, WE STILL HAVE ENOUGH NUCLEAR WAEPONRY TO DESTROY THE WORLD! How exactly doe that weaken us? And how can we be more of a target than we already are? And to Sean Hannity, who will never read this blog, quit whining about President Obama using words of fear when he talks about the recession! Your entire show, right now, is based off using words of fear! In fact your entire career is based of of using emotional (fear) language to incite emotional responses from people- that's why they listen! I only listen to bits and pieces of Sean Hannity's show, I don't listen every day, but I do like to hear differing points of view so that I see things from more sides than my own. It's just so infuriating when he makes such ignorant comments.