There are myriad examples of the Ex-Im Bank’s largesse, its penchant for poorly thought-through investments, and its knack for subsidizing foreign competitors at the expense of American employers. Solyndra offers one potent example; where a floundering green energy company received millions in taxpayer-backed funds thanks to its political connections. Amonix and Abound Solar are similar, albeit less well-known variations on the theme. The common thread: millions of dollars are doled out to companies on the ropes as a result of the Ex-Im Bank’s structural incompetence or complete recklessness.

But incompetence or recklessness is not the whole story. All too often, outright favoritism can be blamed for the Ex-Im Bank’s dubious investment strategy. In this regard, there is no better illustration than the Bank’s relationship with Boeing.

Boeing is the single greatest net recipient of financial support from the Ex-Im Bank. In fact, the airline manufacturer receives more funding from the Export-Import Bank than all other recipients combined. It’s a repetitive plot with many of the same actors appearing time and again. It follows as such: a foreign airline can’t afford to buy new planes; in many cases private lenders want nothing to do with certain carriers some of whom have declared bankruptcy and are bankrolled by foreign governments; the Ex-Im Bank steps in; they offer loans guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers at below-market rates with favorable terms American companies cannot receive with the provision that the funds can only be used to purchase Boeing planes; the foreign company then purchases new Boeing planes at a discount; as a result U.S.-based airlines without the matching funds or favorable terms are forced to suffer from a competitive disadvantage. For proof, one need only look at last year’s Bank budget. In FY2012, 82 percent of the bank’s loan guarantees went to Boeing – a total of $12.2 billion dollars. It is estimated that the Ex-Im Bank costs the U.S. airline industry an estimated $684 million and up to 7,500 jobs.

How does a government organization get away with being so closely intertwined financially with one of the biggest, most successful companies in the country? Simple: Washington cronyism. Outside of Boeing’s enormous lobbying effort, the company has personal relationships with several members of Ex-Im Bank’s investment board, not to mention close relationships with the Obama Administration. It’s an inevitable, yet contemptuous outcome. Despite having revenue approaching $82 billion per year, Boeing still stands at the front of the line when its times to receive government handouts.

Taking all of this into account, the U.S. Congress is now pressing the Bank to embrace reforms that it laid out nearly a year ago. With the intention of forcing transparency and accountability into their lending practices, Congress demanded that the organization adopt a new set of economic impact procedures to evaluate the costs and benefits of each loan. Additionally, the Bank was advised to reduce or eliminate support for wide-body aircraft. These are just a few of the reforms within the legislation.

So far, “Boeing’s Bank” has yet to abide by a single reform. It has ignored Congress’ demands for transparency and continued funding foreign airlines. If anything, the Bank has become even more irresponsible with its money.

Senator Lee and Representative Amash’s legislation is thus a logical next step. The Export-Import Bank cannot reform itself and threatens American jobs while serving as an affront to the free market. Any true believer in honest competition and a thriving private sector would agree that the Export-Import Bank must be ended.

Stephen DeMaura is president of Americans for Job Security.

The Ex-Im Bank is quick to promote itself as a boon to the U.S. economy, but a brief look at several investments made by the organization reveals the hypocrisy of this self-created narrative and the inherent risk to taxpayers.  Consider the case of Miasolé, a so-called California-based solar panel manufacturing company.

Late last year, the struggling Miasolé was purchased by a Chinese company called Hanergy – a solar panel manufacturing company that competes directly with American solar firms.  While Hanergy kept Miasolé’s old manufacturing plant in California, the vast majority of the company’s business was moved to China.  This did not come as any surprise to anyone familiar with the matter, as Hanergy’s operations relied on the consistently cheaper manufacturing costs available outside of the U.S.  What did surprise people was that just a couple months after the buyout Miasolé (i.e. Hanergy) received nearly $10 million of U.S. taxpayer-backed funds from the Export-Import Bank.

For an organization that bills itself as a friend to American industry, the Ex-Im Bank’s decision to directly fund a competing Chinese company was questionable to say the least.  What’s worse is the way that the bank tried to justify its actions after the fact.  Having been caught with their hand in the taxpayers’ cookie jar, a Bank spokesman tried to explain that ownership of a company receiving taxpayer funds doesn’t actually matter, “The ownership of the company is not relevant to the decision to approve financing.”  This must have come as a shock to Chairman Hochberg who last year made the claim that the Ex-Im Bank contributes to growth in American exports by “providing export finance for American companies selling into foreign markets where financing isn’t readily available.”

Miasolé is just the tip of the iceberg; however, when it comes to the Ex-Im Bank’s penchant for poor investments.  The largest and thus most egregious example of this practice involves U.S. airline manufacturing and Boeing.

During fiscal year 2012, the Ex-Im Bank funneled 82.7 percent of its taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to Boeing.  That is the equivalent of $12.2 billion dollars of taxpayer-guaranteed subsidies going directly to just one company. Much like it’s investment in Miasolé, the Ex-Im Bank’s choice to subsidize Boeing led to an array of negative and unforeseen complications that, in the end, effectively blocked several U.S. airlines from competing in the international market.  Such was the case when the Ex-Im Bank gave a $3 billion dollar loan guarantee to Air India to purchase Boeing planes.

Air India’s favorable loan terms from the Ex-Im Bank allowed the company to purchase Boeing airplanes at a steeply discounted price – much cheaper than any non-subsidized American airline ever could. With its expanded fleet, Air India was then able to offer additional routes, flying new planes to popular destinations worldwide.  For those American carriers that did not receive similar treatment, competing in the same markets as Air India immediately became unprofitable. As a result, domestic airlines were forced to cut jobs and international routes as they suffered from an unfair system.  It was estimated that the Ex-Im Bank, through loans similar to the one mentioned above, cost the U.S. airline industry up to 7,500 jobs and $684 million a year.

Today, Hochberg will go before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs as he has been re-nominated by President Obama.  Here’s hoping a few Senators ask the Ex-Im Bank Chairman and President why he is financing foreign-owned companies while claiming to support American ones.  Next, someone should raise with Hochberg why he is causing job losses in the airline industry by pricing out American companies.  Then, someone should ask why almost all of the Bank’s taxpayer backed guarantees are issued to help a single company. If the head of Ex-Im Bank can’t adequately answer these basic questions and others, his confirmation should be put on hold.

Stephen DeMaura is the President of Americans for Job Security

In a 2012 editorial, Joseph Mason – Moyse/LBA Chair of Banking at LSU’s Ourso School of Business and a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School – asserted:

“Operating under a higher tax rate automatically puts U.S. based firms at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign counterparts.  Developments in technology and greater global integration have opened international boundaries.  Companies today have fewer deterrents from relocating their operations to areas that provide the most economically conducive environment, putting and inestimable pressure on nations to create commerce-friendly conditions.”

The effect of harsh business climates is already culminating at the state level.  In February 2013, Forbes reported:

“Half of the top ten exit states also appear in the top ten tax burdened states (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin and Maine).  Three of those that didn’t make the top ten don’t fall far behind:  Illinois ranks 11^th; West Virginia ranks 19^th; and Michigan ranks 18^th.”

Where are these workers and businesses going once they exit states like New York, New Jersey and Maine?  To Texas, Arizona, South Carolina, Utah and other states with lower corporate tax rates and less restrictive regulatory policies.  For example, between 2008 and 2011, Texas – which has one of the least burdensome tax codes in the nation – added an astounding 165,000 jobs.  By January 2013, the state’s unemployment rate had fallen to 6.4 percent – significantly lower than that of New York, New Jersey and Maine which rested at 8.4 percent, 9.3 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively.

On the federal level, the United States lost 46 Fortune Global 500 company headquarters between 2000 and 2011.  Japan lost 39 in that same time frame and in 2012 sought to turn the page by reforming and lowering the corporate tax code.

Today’s high federal corporate tax rate impairs our ability to attract foreign investment, distorts financial and economic decision-making by U.S. firms and spawns inefficient government programs and policies.  Moreover, it contributes to lower wages and fewer jobs for the American workforce.

Studies have shown that workers bear up to 75 percent of the burden on the corporate income tax, and if the rate were reduced to 25 percent, the average family of four could realize an additional income of $2,484 annually.  And in regards to the unemployment rate, reducing our corporate tax rate to that of our competitors could create as many as 2.2 million jobs.

In an April 1 letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees, 21 CEOs from some of the country’s largest companies wrote:

“Coupled with our complicated tax system, this rate makes American businesses less competitive and makes the U.S. a less attractive place for investment, ultimately harming businesses, investors, workers and consumers….  We know that some choices may be difficult and understand that base-broadeners, such as eliminating tax expenditures, may be necessary to achieve the significant reduction in the statutory rate that is required for the U.S. to better compete globally.”

All parties involved understand the road to corporate tax reform is not an easy one, but America’s tax code has remained static for over a quarter-century.  In allowing our tax system to become antiquated, overly complex and burdensome, America’s economic position in the world has weakened.

While this anniversary is not celebratory, it does offer the opportunity to magnify the challenges U.S. job creators and workers face in a nation that boasts the globe’s highest corporate tax rate.  The time for reform is now.  We must simplify the corporate tax code, eliminate loopholes and lower the rate so American businesses can innovate and thrive in the global marketplace.

Some of this growth is attributable to as much as a 10 percent market advantage the federal government has given e-commerce over its brick-and-mortar counterparts. This is not a market driven advantage, but simply a federal government-inferred subsidy.

Due to an out-of-date Supreme Court ruling, online retailers without an actual brick-and-mortar store don’t need to collect sales taxes.  Don’t be mistaken: online sales are not tax-free.  In most places, consumers are responsible for calculating and remitting them themselves; states are merely barred from utilizing their means of effectively collecting it – unless Congress acts.

A strong piece of legislation has been put forth in the House and Senate- the Marketplace Fairness Act – that empowers states to have online retailers collect sales taxes like brick-and-mortar stores, if those states choose to do so.  Many on the right agree something needs to be done.

The late William Buckley, Founder of National Review, stated:

“If the advantage of tax-free Internet commerce marginally closes out local industry, reforms are required.”

Governor of Indiana Mike Pence also argued:

“I don’t think Congress should be in the business of picking winners and losers.  Inaction by Congress today results in a system today that does pick winners and losers.”

There is a growing consensus that congressional action is needed, so the debate that has emerged is centered around what approach to take.

The Marketplace Fairness Act correctly uses what’s called a “destination-based” sourcing rule.  In other words, customers will pay the sales tax that is due where they live.  In contrast, an “origin-based“ sourcing rule, to which some “taxpayer advocacy organizations” have lent their support, would ask customers to pay the sales tax that is due in the online retailer’s state of operation.

The origin-based sourcing rule, however, is flawed at its core, as it fundamentally fails to protect the actual taxpayer.

According to the Washington State Department of Revenue:  “Businesses making retail sales in Washington collect sales tax from their customer” [emphasis added].   Like in all states, Washington charges sales tax on the consumer, not the business – retailers simply collect the taxes on behalf of their patrons.

In this way, an origin-based sourcing rule gets it backwards and endorses taxation without representation, giving out-of-state consumers no political recourse in a state to which they pay sales tax.  There’s a sure temptation there for lawmakers.

If legislatures can force individuals who aren’t able to vote them out of office to fund better or new services for their constituents, there’s a pretty good chance we’ll see tax increases for online products purchased by out-of-state consumers. If you live in a Red State, which presumably many here do, then under the alternative “origin-based” approach, you would pay sales tax to a Blue State (think: NY, CA, IL, WA).

A destination-based sourcing rule, on the other hand, would empower taxpayers, ensuring they will only pay sales taxes in a state where they have a political voice and the opportunity to benefit from the services those taxes fund.

It also means that individuals who choose to live in sales-tax-free states, like Alaska, New Hampshire, Delaware, Montana and Oregon, will not be asked to begin paying sales taxes on purchases they make online.  After all, the Internet sales tax reform debate began out of a need to level the playing field.  Forcing Delaware citizens to pay more for online purchases to pay for services in New York City only tilts the government-mandated market advantage to the other side.

Conservatives have long championed taxpayer-rights initiatives.  The Marketplace Fairness Act’s destination-based sourcing rule is a taxpayer-centric model that protects citizens, empowers consumers and ultimately levels the playing field so retailers – both brick-and-mortar and online shops – can operate in a free market.

Stephen DeMaura is the President of Americans for Job Security.

As noted by the New York Times following last night’s speech, the “State of the Union address largely focused on economic themes” – an admission which reveals that this administration fully recognizes this is now Obama’s economy and his legacy is (at least by some measure) tied to it’s growth… or continued decline.  Comprehensive tax reform that – as the President stated – “encourages job creation” could be this administration’s key to economic growth and a positive economic legacy for Obama.  But that requires more than a speech, it requires action.

Studies have found that by significantly reducing America’s corporate tax rate, which is currently the globe’s highest, could create nearly 600,000 jobs every year for the next decade.  Moreover, it would boost American competitiveness for decades to come.  Meaningful reforms would allow the U.S. to compete with other countries in attracting foreign investment from traditional trading partners in North America and Europe as well as in emerging economies of Latin America and Asia and secure our place as a 21st Century economic leader.

This would have a real impact on American workers – and not even just in terms of job creation.  If the U.S. corporate tax rate were reduced to 25 percent, the average family of four could realize additional income of nearly $2,500 annually.

While the President has delivered only verbal promises regarding comprehensive tax reform, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp has begun the policy development process for a comprehensive package that offers solutions for both individuals and corporations.

“We need to make the tax code simpler and fairer for families and small businesses,” said Camp on the House floor in January 2013.  “We need to pursue comprehensive and fundamental tax reform to make American businesses and workers more competitive in the global marketplace.”

The fact of the matter is that America’s corporate tax rates are the highest in the industrialized world and employers are facing double taxation compared to their foreign competitors.  While the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and Japan have all recently passed reforms, the United States has remained stagnant for the last 26 years.  The impacts are real.  The House Ways and Means Committee pointed out in a 2011 press release, “In 1960, U.S.-headquartered companies comprised 17 of the world’s largest 20 companies – that’s 85 percent.  By 2010, just six – or a mere 30 percent – U.S.-headquartered companies ranked among the top 20.”

Especially as Washington looks to create policies that push America out of this extended economic recession, we must close the loopholes in order to reduce the tax rate and (yes) cut down on government spending to make America competitive again for the 21st Century.

President Obama’s State of the Union remarks regarding comprehensive tax reform relay the right sentiment, but without meaningful action, our nation will continue to see an exodus of employers, a sagging job market and an ever-weakening standing in the global economy.

There is a broad and growing consensus that our tax system is plagued by excessively high rates on business and labor income, a complex maze of tax preferences, and an outdated approach to American businesses competing for customers abroad.

The solution, as Sen. Portman highlights, is commonsense. Lower tax rates.  Pay for it by getting rid of preferences, loopholes, crony capitalism and handouts.  And Make the code flatter and fairer.  This will help spur economic growth.

Today, three years into the weakest recovery on record, the American economy is still sputtering. Twenty million people are jobless or underemployed, and fewer jobs were created last year than the year before. Median family income is at its lowest level since 1995.

Taking a larger tax slice out of a shrinking economic pie is not the way to spur job creation or erase the government’s trillion-dollar deficits. The solution is to grow the pie — to unleash the forces of economic growth and job creation. And there is no better way to do that than through structural spending reforms to boost confidence in America’s long-term fiscal solvency, paired with reform of our tax code to promote growth, investment, and entrepreneurship.

While nearly every other developed nation has decreased the complexity of their codes and reduced their marginal tax rates, the U.S. rate has remained stagnant while becoming more complex and as a result, fallen far behind.  Our excessive spending and ridiculous tax code has put American workers, small businesses, and job creators at a disadvantage.  Sen. Portman explains:

Excessive tax rates on business income decrease the incentive to build and invest in the United States and put American workers at a competitive disadvantage. As the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation has reported, high corporate tax burdens are “most harmful to growth.” Yet as our major trading partners have slashed their rates to attract jobs, the U.S. corporate rate last year became the highest among our 33 major industrialized competitors. One study in the Journal of Public Economics showed that a 10-point rate cut could increase economic growth by 1-2 percentage points — which translates to about a million new jobs per year.

Take the time to inform your Member of Congress. Read the entire article and share it with people who may be interested.

According to the New York Times on January 3, 2013:

The state’s Health Department found in an analysis it prepared early last year that the much-debated drilling technology known as hydrofracking could be conducted safely in New York, according to a copy obtained by the New York Times from an expert who did not believe it should be kept secret…. 

 The natural gas industry has aggressively sought to drill in the Marcellus Shale, a deep repository that runs through West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York.  The assessment obtained by The Times finds that fracking can be done safely within the regulatory system that the state has been developing for several years.

According to a 2011 U.S. Geological Survey, “The Marcellus Shale contains about 84 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas and 3.4 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas liquids.”   Through fracking, these resources can be harvested, which could boost New York’s economy and help relieve the United States of its heavy reliance on Middle Eastern oil.

While New York regulations currently bar developers from using the fracking technique, its neighbor to the south, Pennsylvania, has capitalized on the opportunity.  According to energy expert Daniel Yergin, “Shale gas has created hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last five years in the United States.  It’s brought $1 billion of revenue into the state government of Pennsylvania.”

Despite Pennsylvania’s success, Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is considered a 2016 presidential contender and thereby heavily influenced by the left-leaning Democratic base, has dragged his heals on the approval of fracking and closely guarded positive safety studies, like this one, from the public.

The New York Times explains:

The analysis and other health assessments have been closely guarded by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and his administration as the governor weighs whether to approve fracking.  Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, has long delayed making a decision [about whether to approve fracking], unnerved in part by strident opposition on his party’s left….  [T]he drilling industry, and landowners who have leased their land in [New York’s] Southern Tier, have grown increasingly frustrated with delays by the Cuomo administration to announce a final plan.  State regulators have now been studying the issue of fracking for about four years. 

Meanwhile, New York is currently facing a $2 billion budget deficit and 8.3 percent unemployment rate.  As seen in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and other shale oil states, fracking can have a transformative impact on employment and the economy.

In regards to safety, when you drill for facts, experts continue to find that fracking can be done safely.  Once again, we cannot let politics stand in the way of good regulatory policy.

Union workers have largely been left unscathed, however – even if that meant other working families have to make even greater sacrifices.  The Allied Pilots Association (APA) has quickly become a hallmark of the unrealistic power grabs that are being attempted by union bosses.

As American Airlines worked to salvage the company and restructure after filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, APA rejected a concessionary contract offered by the company which included pay raises and a 13.5 percent stake in the company (valued at $187,500 per pilot), in August 2012.

Rather than engaging in productive discussions that move toward a compromise between the company and the union bosses, Association members have been systematically calling in sick, moving airplanes slowly down the tarmac, and grounding flights without proper reasoning.  Their actions have raised questions about the reliability of the airline and are directly hurting consumers.

In September 2012, ABC News explained American Airlines’ flights were on time just 64 percent of the time on September 20 (a randomly selected day chosen for the story) and pilots called in sick 20 percent more than normal – a decision that “impacts the availability of reserve pilots, which can ultimately lead to cancellations.”

To further the publicity stunt, pilots are set to hold a strike vote this week.  Because pilots are currently barred from striking as part of their current arrangement with the National Mediation Board, this vote is merely symbolic and fails to move any closer to an agreement.

The reality is that the pilot feud is preventing American Airlines from providing consumers with as reliable a service as usual, forcing flyers to look towards other airlines and leaving the company with less money to reorganize and pay workers.  In continuing this dispute with empty actions and bully-like tactics, pilots are depleting the cash flow that funds their salaries – as well as the salaries of the airline’s other employees.

What the Association is failing to grasp is that their members’ jobs are dependent on a company that can move forward and navigate today’s economic recession.  If American Airlines is stuck on the runway due to the antics of a slow-moving union, pilots and all the airline’s employees will not only fail to receive a generous pay package, but could face the reality of pay cuts and even layoffs.

The economic reality is that the American middle class and American businesses have been buried over the last four years.  Big Labor must be truthful about our nation’s economy and realistic about what is best for their members and their employers.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the latest policy disaster to address greenhouse gas emissions.  Initially implemented in 2005, the EU ETS establishes a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide across the continent – effectively taxing emitters based on their CO2 emissions.  Heavy industries were hit first, but since then the policy has expanded each year to encompass as many sectors as Europe’s environmental lobby can conjure.  It just so happens that the aggressiveness of the policy and its extension coincides with the continent’s debt.  The most recent expansion, aimed at limiting airline emissions, is especially egregious.

In an effort to penalize air travelers and increase revenue, the EU ETS takes the unprecedented step of taxing every flight to Europe.  Passengers, regardless of where they’re flying from, have to pay taxes on the entirety of their air travel.  The effect on American travelers is acutely painful.

Senator John Thune of South Dakota estimates that as much as $3.1 billion in higher costs would be passed down to American consumers, while as many as 40,000 American jobs could be at stake between now and the year 2020 should the policy remain intact.  Senator Thune also recognizes that such a policy not only places an extraordinary burden on our domestic airline industry, but it also constitutes an affront to our nation’s sovereignty.  In response, he has sponsored legislation preventing the European Union from expanding its tax program to our shores.

It is up to Congress to pass Senator Thune’s bill– making sure that our citizens aren’t taken advantage of by foreign governments.  The U.S. House of Representatives took the first step this last fall by passing Representative John Mica’s European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011.  Similar to Senator Thune’s bill, the house version forbids the EU from taxing American air travelers.  Receiving bipartisan support, the bill was passed on to the Senate where it is now out of committee.  A vote in the U.S. Senate is likely to take place in the coming months.

In addition to American recalcitrance on the issue, a “coalition of the unwilling” has formed amongst many of the world’s most advanced non-European nations.  Leading the charge are China and India whose governments are defying the EU by preventing the release of any national airline emissions information.  Beijing has gone even further than India by proceeding to block the purchases of European aircraft by its carriers, triggering fears of an all-out trade war.

And it seems that the EU may be beginning to heed the warnings of foreign countries.  According to a recent Associated Press article, “European officials signaled Tuesday that they may recommend the suspension of the continent’s carbon emission fees for airlines to avert a trade war with major economic powers such as China and the United States.”  The article specifically notes that Airbus, a big European employer, is afraid of Chinese retaliation and is warning of “serious commercial consequences if ETS for airlines comes into force next year.”  As quickly as that article was published, EU representatives reiterated that they intended to carry out their misguided emissions trading scheme.

Now that the European Union has demonstrated their maybe some rethinking of its support for EU ETS, it is becoming more important than ever for the United States increase the pressure and unequivocally demonstrate opposition for the policy.  Doing so would perhaps put enough added pressure on the European Union to finally terminate the program once and for all.

Tens of thousands of American jobs are at stake, as well as the hard-earned dollars of American travelers who are already overburdened by taxes.  It is essential that President Obama takes action on this issue and support Congressional efforts to end this job-killing scheme advanced by foreign governments against American citizens.  If President Obama is not willing to stand up for American passengers to the EU there is no doubt that come January Mitt Romney would be.