The Export-Import Bank: Do not resuscitate
Word of investigations targeting abuses to which the U.S. Export-Import Bank is all too susceptible strengthens the case against its reauthorization.
The bank, which provides loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance for U.S. exports, “has suspended or removed four officials in recent months amid investigations into allegations of graft and kickbacks, as well as attempts to steer federal contracts to favored companies,” The Hill newspaper reports. Set to expire Sept. 30 unless Congress acts, Ex-Im puts government in a business it has no business being in — distorting international trade via taxpayer-subsidized financing that benefits some of America's biggest, best connected corporations, including Boeing, Ford and General Electric. And with about 98 percent of U.S. exports not receiving the bank's aid, Ex-Im is far from necessary — and neither is taxpayers' obligation to make good if bank borrowers default.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., say they'll introduce a bill soon in the Democrat-controlled Senate for reauthorization, which the Obama administration supports. But in the GOP-controlled House, where the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and more than 800 other business groups are demanding a reauthorization vote, there's no bill yet. Majority Leader-elect Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, oppose reauthorization.
The Export-Import Bank is a winner-picking government purveyor of corporate wealthfare. Congress should treat it as such by letting it die.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Another carbon credit scheme
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states