« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Vote Down the Export-Import Bank

We had an opportunity to draw a sharp contrast with Democrats over the all important issues of crony capitalism and market distortions simply by doing nothing.  How so?  Well, the Export-Import Bank reauthorization deadline is May 31.  By simply abstaining from the reauthorization – something that can be done with control of just one-half of one-third of government – this bastion of corporate welfare would be relegated to the ash heap of history.

Unfortunately, Eric Cantor decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and agree to reauthorize the bank.  Worse, the bank’s lending cap will be expanded.  The funny thing is that they are calling it a compromise.  The compromise went something like this: Originally, Democrats wanted the loan cap raised from $100 billion to $140 billion.  Cantor, instead of opposing the underlying reauthorization, agreed to raise the cap to $113 billion.  So they came to an agreement to gradually raise the loan cap to $140 billion by 2014!

In a preposterous effort aimed at improving transparency, the bill contains a provision that would require the bank to solicit public comment on any transaction more than $100 million.  This will ostensibly give companies an opportunity to voice opposition to loans granted to their competitors, while supporting those that benefit their needs.  This is what happens when government is used as a tool to manipulate private enterprise.

GOP proponents of the bank claim that the interest on the loans could bring in profits to taxpayers.  But the problem is that they are using the same illusory accounting methods that have been employed to ameliorate the costs of the bailouts to Freddie/Fannie and TARP.  In fact, just three months ago House Republicans passed a law to subject all Freddie/Fannie loan guarantees to the “fair value” accounting method that is used in the private sector.  Under current law, Congress only factors in the cost of the loan itself when formulating the annual budget.  Perforce, if the money is paid back with interest, there is no cost to the government.  However, as we have learned so painfully, the loans are, all too often, never paid back.  Taxpayers have been called on to bailout a modicum of failed loan guarantees.  In the private sector, they use “fair value” accounting in calculating the costs of credit programs.  Fair value accounts for the costs of the market risk the lender incurs by issuing a loan, in addition to the actual borrowing costs.

So why are these same people supporting deceptive accounting methods for the Export-Import Bank?

GOP leaders are so confident that this travesty will pass the Republican House that they plan to fast-track it and bring up the reauthorization bill (H.R. 2072) under suspension later this afternoon.  A suspension vote needs a 2/3ds majority to pass (290 votes, instead of 218).

This will be a seminal vote that will separate out those members who support the free-market vs. those who support government-run commerce.  The entire purpose of this “bank” is to use taxpayer funds to subsidize businesses that sell products to foreign markets.  These are businesses that are too weak to obtain loans in the private market, and require taxpayer bailout funds to make them competitive.  To the extent that the bank helps create jobs, it merely moves them from one sector to another.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, government should not be in the business of picking winners and loser in the market.  The Heritage Foundation has aptly branded the bank as “the Fannie Mae for exporters.”  For a full summary of the anti-free-market policies that are inherent in the Ex-Im Bank, please read more from Brian Darling here.

Call your members of the House and request that they vote no on HR 2072.  Instead of winding down the “bank,” as even its supporters have promised, this bill will expand its reach.  We only need 146 no votes to defeat this bill.  Find out if your member is part of the Solyndra economy or the open economy.

COMMENTS

  • edintexas

    This Congressional session has proven Cantor to be a real problem for Republicans. Inserting a House Republican PAC into the Indiana Senate Primary by advertising for Democrats to vote for his preferred candidate (and the back stabbing SO*’s candidate lost, at that), deep-sixing conservative positions, like this one,through “compromise” with the Democrats, etc.

    He needs to be primaried (with a strong Conservative candidate) next time around.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    They seem to be clones of a sort when it comes to small government.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      That effort is better spent identifying and funding primary opponents.

      • Locked and Loaded

        nt

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          I’m not the one who’s so terribly angry at him.

          • acat

            Her opinion is that it’d be next to impossible to oust him.

            Stranger things have happened, Thune punted Daschle, Flanagan defeated Rostenkowski*, Scott Brown won in Massachusetts … but .. call it unlikely.

            Mew

            * Arguably, Rosty defeated himself.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            We also beat the sitting Speaker of the House in what was it? Oh yes, 1994. :)

          • acat

            Cantor’s sell-by date has clearly passed, but .. given some of the other targets, I just don’t see him as a priority-problem.

            Mew

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            A solid candidate’s worth making time for.

            A Radtke? Not so much.

          • Locked and Loaded

            And I will avoid any interactions with you after this.You are obviously harboring a grudge.

            http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2012/05/04/top-ten-reasons-to-end-the-export-import-bank/#comment-4626

            You went straight to the “Immediate” end of Godwin’s scale when you tried to paint me as a Nazi enabler. Then you veered in any direction you could to pridefully try to put your lunacy behind you. You got called out, and you just can’t take it.

            You accused me of loose and lazy thinking, yet I, an Okie, know Floyd Bayne is running for Congress against Eric Cantor, and you, a resident of Northern Virginia, do not. If you live in VA-7 and do not know this, it is all the more ridiculous.

            This whole thing with you brings me to believe you are either an Establishment wannabe (not wanting to hold Cantor’s feet to the fire, as other RS’ers are) or you are giving little effort to the RedState brand of activism outside your techie element. I most always read Tech at Night, and find it very informative.

  • patriotfactchecker

    With all due respect, Daniel, where do you get your facts? Do you not know that exim bank charges risk-based fees for the guarantees and loans that it makes?

    And how do you call it a subsidy when loans and loan guarantees are paid back with interest on top of fees, and the taxpayer doesn’t pay a cent?

    And you criticize the bank for following the accounting methods set by congress in laws…. if they change to another method then I guess the bank would change the fee structure to stay profitable and continue returning money to the treasury.

    And how do you reach the conclusion that companies that need export financing are too weak to get loans without exim bank financing? The reason they usually need help for their foreign buyers is because the commercial banks don’t want to make loans in foreign countries, but other country’s banks will do so… putting them at a disadvantage.

    And how is it that exim picks winners and losers? It’s sounds great, but if you read their law you can see they have only a few reasons to say no to an application…. so if a company wants to be a winner they just have to apply. Companies pick exim, not the other way around.

    Thanks for reading …

    • http://madisonproject.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      Yes, the problem with the accounting method is not the fault of those like you who work for the bank; it’s the fault of Congress. But that’s the point. Congress just passed a bill to subject loan grantees for Freddie/Fannie to fair-market accounting – the method used in the private sector. Yet, these same individuals are not addressing this point when reauthorizing the bank.

      Instead of saying that it turns a profit in order to obtain support for reauthorization, they should subject the loans to fair-value accounting like they did with the housing entities. According to CBO, the current law discounts expected loan performance using the interest rates on risk-free Treasury debt instead of a more realistic rate that matches the riskiness of the loan itself.

      I’m not understanding the argument about the loans not being too risky. That is the argument put forth by supporters of reauthorization. They say they can’t obtain loans in the private sector.

      And why should we wade into the private sector? This is picking winners and losers. In an effort to focus solely on exports to foreign venders, we are ostensibly creating a private bank for Boeing so foreign air carriers can purchase subsidized aircraft – a discount that is not enjoyed by domestic air carriers. Now Congress wants to create a program to fix that problem, so carriers like Delta also benefit from the bank. This is the circuitous cycle of government involvement in the private sector.

      What we say is don’t over-regulate Boeing by blocking construction of their plants, but don’t grant tendentious favors to them either. By providing a low tax and regulatory climate, they will enjoy a higher degree of competitiveness with their foreign competition.