photo credit: The Doctr

Programmed cell death is pretty much what it says: the end of the life cycle for a cell.  Not due to damage or injury, but the natural end of a cell so another can take its place.  One of the shitty things about cancerous cells is that they have protection against programmed cell death, which combined with hyperactive growth and division makes them a nasty piece of work.

As I was reading the latest on our economic downward spiral it made me think of cancer.  Mostly because of our government’s reaction in propping up companies that are “too big to fail.”

Dead animals provide nutrients for soil.  Dead plants and animals are consumed for energy.  Nothing is really permanent, and even rocks are worn away by wind and water.  Making something permanent is impossible, and trying to is responsible for more then a few fuckups.   Business is no different, and even the companies that have been around for a while have been through significant changes.  Mergers, buy-outs, acquisitions, etc. have made many of the big companies completely different animals over the years.  No business model or strategy will work forever; and if a company isn’t able to adapt it needs to be allowed to die,  its remains consumed.  Permanency is impossible, but recycling works.

The problem with the bailout is the same problem with the congress.  Too many people have been living fat as parasites in a system that favored them.  Some would say that it was the parasitic overreaching with legislation like the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act of 2005 that caused this mess in the first place.  In effect, it made it harder for struggling people to let their bad debt die so they could rebuild.  Instead, the credit card companies wanted to go after the person’s house and alimony payments.  Society benefits from well-employed people growing and interacting financially with others.  Creditors found they made the most with people on the edge of collapse from a mountain of debt and fees.  They paid off politicians, bent, and just plain broke rules to squeeze as much as they could.

Not passing that act would have given some people a respite from foreclosure.   Not bailing out AIG would have put more pressure on banks to refinance loans that were no longer insured.  Not giving bad companies the unregulated capitol to buy up their competition wouldn’t create zombies that bring down good companies.  The government being led by those who created these problems reminds me of early, poorly thought-out conservation attempts, where people who worked tirelessly to save one animal found out that the newly revitalized critter was overtaking and destroying its environment.  Thankfully, we have mostly learned our lesson there.

The new stimulus act doesn’t look much better, even discounting all pet projects and delayed money.  If it works like it’s supposed to, it will create 4 million new jobs at $200,000 a pop (800 billion divided by the number of jobs).  Even if that were somehow, in some universe, the most cost affective way to create jobs, you have to wonder how much of that will make it into workers’ pockets.  There’s a lot of construction in there, so who gets to do the building?  There will probably be a multitude of factors, the main one being money.  So any company will have to account for political contributions as a cost to even get a foot in the door.  After that, it will probably be whoever is most creative with their books.  In the end, I seriously doubt workers will even see half of that.  Beyond all that though, creating 4 million jobs in country with 306 million people doesn’t seem like it will have the sweeping impact that most people seem to think, especially when the job creation is in only one or two sectors.

What happens to all those construction jobs a couple of years from now?  We will pretty much be in the same situation.  As far as I know, there is no plan for sustained maintenance of our infrastructure.  If there were, we would not need the massive infusion of cash.  Infrastructure is important; but if we are going to pay for it, it should be tied to a source of revenue that is constant.  This plan just throws money at the problem with no thought of what happens next.  Where will those 4 million workers go after the stimulus runs out?  Isn’t this just creating another problem with a huge number of people jumping into construction because that’s where the money is?  This doesn’t make sense to me, and the main problem is that there is no dialogue going on.  The simplistic way that congress debates these issues reminds me of a 4th grade book report more than an intelligent debate on a large-scale economic system.  In essence, congress is bent on the same parasitic course as the banking system: keep people on the edge of disaster and dependent on you.  That way you can do what you wish under the protection of the enormous disaster you created.

The best idea I’ve actually heard came from the Daily show guest Lawrence Lindsey.  His idea is to cut the payroll tax and increase the top limit.  This would immediately put money in the pockets of workers and businesses.   People walk away every payday with more money to pay bills and pay down all the bad debt in the system, because that’s supposed to be the problem—right?  All the bad debt in the economy?  Business would also get a break and have a little more money to work with, and more importantly it would decrease the cost of hiring new workers and keeping existing staff.  Would it work?  Maybe or maybe not, but it’s got a better shot then the opportunistic pile of crap that just got passed by the Senate.  At least it’s addressing the problem instead of growing more cancerous business, and lining more pockets.

"I'm here to stimulate you."

Yesterday, President Obama’s economic stimulus bill passed in the House of Representatives by a margin of 244 to 188.  Some of the right-of-center bloggers are pleased that none of the Republicans in the House voted in favor of this $825 billion boondoggle.  I agree that they did the right thing.  But I would argue that they did it for the wrong reasons.

As Mr. Peabody would say, “Sherman, set the Way Back machine to October of 2008.”  October of 2008 is when the proverbial shit hit the equally proverbial fan.  The lack of oversight in the financial markets, as well as the blatant fraud committed by financiers and lending establishments such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, led to an economic meltdown of gargantuan proportions. Wall Street and Main Street both were in a dire panic.  Stock brokers were raining from the skies.  Dogs and cats were living together and picking out china patterns.  Putting it simply, it was mass hysteria.

The financial institutions came to the Congress with their hands out asking for $700 billion to bail them out.  This was unprecedented, and many fiscally minded conservatives were shouting “No!” from the peanut gallery of public discourse.  Many voters wrote to their representatives expressing their misgivings surrounding such outlandish government spending.  The bailout didn’t pass… at first.  However, the bailout bill got a second draft and a second bite at the apple.  It ultimately did pass.  It passed quietly under the radar and against the will of the voting public.

Back in October Republicans approved the massive bank bailout despite the objections of their constituents.  However, yesterday they stood on principle to vote against the $825 billion stimulus package.  This incongruity can be easily explained.  The votes of many of these Republican representatives have nothing to do with principle and everything to do with politics.  Back in October, the bailout for the banking industry was proposed by President Bush.  The representatives who voted in its favor were simply towing the party line.  Yesterday, these representatives voted against the stimulus bill because it was proposed by Democrat President Obama.  Again, the House Republicans are towing the party line.

Voting against an $825 billion increase in Federal spending is the right thing to do, but then  so was voting against a $700 billion bank bailout. The problem with politics is politics.  That is to say, political ass-kissing and posturing is often a greater priority among elected officials than representing those who elected them in the first place.  A politician will only do the right thing if it gives him ammunition against his opponents. On the other hand, a politician will do the most idiotic or abominable thing to preserve political alliances and maintain good standing with his party’s leadership.