To tie this to the slowing of work in your field: we would have to look at the causes of that slow-down. I'm not even sure what field you are in, so I couldn't really pose a guess.
There was a real problem about a year ago with something very similar to what is happening in the WSJ editorial: Liquidity fears had caused a slow-down in the paper market and companies that needed very-short-term loans to operate were indeed having trouble securing them. The Bush administration, and with the support of the Obama campaign, acted to unstick the paper market by a huge injection of capital.
Similarly: some rather insolvent companies (Chrysler, AIG, etc) had trouble getting capital and, again, the government stepped in with the infamous "bail out".
Over the past 1/2 year, there has not been a marked problem with solvent companies getting capital that I am aware of. Neither has there been a real shortage of venture capital. What there has been is a shortage of corporate spending, and a trade imbalance.
Interestingly: what is being discussed goes right to the heart of that. It attempts to encourage foreign markets to spend (by investing in them), and to focus that spending on US products (to improve our trade balance).
In this case, the Im-Ex bank is attempting to help a Brazilian oil company secure money, for the purpose of spending said money. The Im-Ex bank expects to turn a profit with the repayment of the loan, and US companies that provide services and goods to said Brazilian oil company will see higher sales, and the US will see an increase in exports.
I agree, if there was a better place to put that money, then it should be put there.
The WSJ editorial makes the mistakes I pointed out before in response to your posts reiterating their position. It treats an investment as a gift. It ignores the benefit to the US economy. It falsely suggests that it is a lack of capital that is preventing domestic drilling. It (apparently without valid reason) ties Obama into this specific decision of the Im-Ex bank.
I'm sure there are others: but that's the short version.
As to retraining: I feel your pain. I'm in one of the fields where the options are "constantly retrain" or "be rendered irrelevant by out-of-date knowledge". I started doing things that, while still done, are low-wage earners now... and I keep some active skills in other fields just-in-case. I loose a lot of free time every week to simply making sure I'm positioned to still be able to find a job 5 years from now.
