Category Archives: Trade

Don’t Tie Ex-Im Renewal to Government Shutdown

It appears Congress will decide the Export-Import Bank’s short-term fate this week. There are several bills with different reauthorization terms, and Rep. Justin Amash and Sen. Mike Lee even have a bill that would shutter the bank altogether. None of the bills have made it out of the House Financial Services Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who opposes the bank. What will likely happen instead is that Ex-Im reauthorization will be included in a Continuing Resolution (CR), which Congress must pass by September 30 to avoid a government shutdown.

The current battle isn’t whether Ex-Im will be reauthorized, it is how long the reauthorization will last. There are two likely options. Ex-Im opponents would prefer a reauthorization through early 2015. Ex-Im opposition is bipartisan, but the GOP has been more vocal about it, and most political observers are expecting Republicans to gain seats this November. Depending on how the numbers play out, when the new Congress convenes in January, it might be possible for Congressional Republicans to either let Ex-Im’s charter expire, or pass a bill similar to Amash and Lee’s to actively kill the bank, even if they can’t get much Democratic support.

Ex-Im’s defenders would rather keep the shutdown card in their hand; Ex-Im opponents will not risk a shutdown over a program equivalent to less than one percent of the federal budget. That’s why they want Ex-Im’s reauthorization to be the same length of any Continuing Resolution that gets passed, however long that might be. Even though that would be a shorter-term reauthorization, they can continue to renew Ex-Im with each CR that must pass going forward, knowing that it will succeed.

We’ll find out in the next few days which side wins. In the meantime, enjoy the odd spectacle of left-wing populists advocating special favors for the same big businesses they usually rail against, and the GOP’s free-market wing, popularly perceived as stooges for big business, calling for an end to corporate welfare (Salon had a bit to say on that here).

Ex-Im Update

Congress comes back from its annual August recess next week. One of the top items on its agenda is deciding the Export-Import Bank’s fate. Ex-Im subsidizes financing for U.S. exporters and their foreign customers. As I outlined here, Ex-Im subsidizes certain businesses at others’ expense. It is a pro-business policy, when what the economy needs are pro-market policies. Ex-Im will also be forced to shut its doors unless Congress reauthorizes its charter by the end of September, making for a golden reform opportunity for corporate welfare opponents.

The merits of the issue are clear enough, but politics is getting in the way. A bill to reauthorizes Ex-Im’s charter would likely pass the Senate, but would have trouble getting through the House. This would ordinarily mean that Ex-Im opponents would succeed in shuttering the agency, since Ex-Im’s expiration is automatic without reauthorization. That means Ex-Im supporters will probably pursue other means, such as tucking Ex-Im’s reauthorization into a must-pass appropriations bill. Ex-Im opponents would have no choice but to swallow that poison pill, or risk another politically costly government shutdown.

If the appropriations bill scenario is what comes to pass, reformers will likely gain some kind of concession, such as a very short reauthorization period. Ex-Im reauthorizations are typically good for four or five years; this reauthorization could last just a few months, forcing Congress to revisit Ex-Im as soon as January or February. This would remove Ex-Im as an election issue for reformers, but still leave them with a genuine chance of victory once the next Congress convenes. It would also give campaigning pro-Ex-Im incumbents a chance to tell voters they can bring home the bacon—especially in Washington State, which receives more than 40 percent of Ex-Im’s total financing, despite housing only 2 percent of the U.S. population.

There are a lot of possible fates for the Export-Import Bank. Whatever happens this month, reformers will have a good chance to end one of the federal government’s largest corporate welfare programs. Readers interested in more detail on the politics of the Ex-Im fight should read John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman’s piece in today’s Politico. For the merits of the issue, see my recent Ex-Im paper.

The Ex-Im Bank’s Unilateral Disarmament Fallacy

One of the weakest arguments against free trade is the “unilateral disarmament” fallacy–that a country should refuse to liberalize its trade policies until other countries liberalize theirs. If your opponent uses it, you almost automatically win the debate. The Export-Import Bank’s defenders must be getting desperate, because they are now having to resort to the unilateral disarmament fallacy. Here’s a letter to the editor I sent to the Cleveland Plains-Dealer setting the record straight:

Editor, Cleveland Plains-Dealer:

George Landrith’s argument that the U.S. should subsidize certain businesses because other countries subsidize some of their businesses is equivalent to saying the U.S. government should stop ripping off its citizens only when foreign governments stop ripping off their own citizens (“Why keep the Ex-Im Bank? Unilateral economic disarmament is as unsound as unilateral defensive disarmament,” August 10).

The Export-Import Bank’s special favors make U.S. businesses less competitive by rewarding political connections over customer service, and have led to 74 corruption allegations during the last five years. If other countries want such problems, fine. But the U.S. can, and should, do better by closing the Ex-Im Bank this fall, regardless of what other countries do.

Ryan Young
Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Author of the study, “Ten Reasons to Abolish the Export-Import Bank.”

Ten Reasons to Abolish the Export-Import Bank

A new CEI study released today compiles ten reasons to abolish the Export-Import Bank. The bank subsidizes companies that export goods abroad, and foreign companies that buy those goods. Whatever the intentions behind the bank, the result is one of the federal government’s largest corporate welfare programs. Ex-Im did $37 billion of business in 2013, and has a total portfolio of nearly $140 billion.

Fortunately, unlike most other agencies, Congress has to reauthorize Ex-Im periodically or it must shut its doors. The next reauthorization vote must happen by September 30, or Ex-Im will cease to exist. The political battle over reauthorizing a previously obscure agency has become a flashpoint issue in the 2014 election. A few of the reasons the paper lists in favor of closing Ex-Im:

  • Ex-Im favors some businesses and hurts others, often benefitting foreign firms rather than domestic ones. It has favored foreign airlines, such as Air India, Korean Air, and Ryannair, over domestic airlines, such as Delta Airlines.
  • As many as 74 instances of fraud and bribery allegations involving Ex-Im employees have been made public over the last five years. For an agency with only 400 employees, this is a serious problem.
  • Ex-Im also favors big businesses over small businesses. Ex-Im touts that the vast majority of its lending activities go to smaller businesses. But more than 80 percent of the bank’s financing, measured in dollars, goes to big firms.

For more, read the paper here. If you prefer a shorter version, here are a short op-ed and a podcast.

CEI Podcast for July 15, 2014: Time to Close the Export-Import Bank

ex-im logoCEI Fellow Ryan Young is author of the new CEI study, “Ten Reasons to Abolish the Export-Import Bank.” Click here to listen.

Ex-Im’s Invitation to Corruption

When government has a lot of money and power, it is natural for people to curry its favor. It is just as natural for those wielding money and power to use it for personal gain. The Export-Import Bank has just provided the latest real-world example of this human frailty. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that four Ex-Im employees have been removed or suspended in recent months, “amid investigations into allegations of gifts and kickbacks.”

The article names one employee, Johnny Gutierrez, who accepted cash payments from an executive of Impex Associates, a construction equipment manufacturer that has received Ex-Im financing on multiple occasions. The other cases involve two “allegations of improperly awarding contracts to help run the agency,” and another employee who accepted gifts from an Ex-Im suitor. A spokesman responded to the allegations by noting that “the Export-Import Bank takes extremely seriously its commitment to taxpayers and its mission to support U.S. jobs.”

These are not isolated incidents. Over at the Daily Signal, Diane Katz notes that 74 potential cases of fraud have occurred since April 2009, just five years ago. For an agency with only 400 employees, this is a very serious problem.

These corruption allegations offer another reason to end the Export-Import Bank. Fortunately, the Bank’s charter expires on September 30. If Congress doesn’t vote to extend that charter, the Bank will automatically cease to exist, and the Treasury Department will wind down Ex-Im’s $140 billion portfolio.

With Ex-Im gone, companies would spend a little less time wooing government officials, and more time actually creating value for consumers. Getting rid of Ex-Im wouldn’t just help the economy, it would remove one of Washington’s numerous opportunities for corruption.

Ex-Im Reauthorization Fight: Release the Reagan

ronald raygun
The Export-Import Bank is up for reauthorization in September. If the vote fails in Congress, the Bank and its $140 billion portfolio will cease to exist. In an effort to appeal to free-market types who oppose Ex-Im, the Aerospace Industries Association is invoking Ronald Reagan. A page two ad in yesterday’s Politico and an accompanying fact sheet sent to every member’s office on Capitol Hill prominently feature Reagan’s image and include quotes of the Gipper praising Ex-Im.

The fact sheet notes that Reagan increased the cap on Ex-Im’s lending portfolio by 14 percent from 1981-86, from $8.8 billion to $12 billion. Then again—Reagan cut Ex-Im in 1983 and again in 1988. And over Reagan’s entire time in office, Ex-Im’s cap actually shrank in real terms. You can check the numbers yourself with the Minneapolis Fed’s handy inflation calculator.

And as Veronique de Rugy ably points out here and here, Reagan was no fan of the Export-Import Bank, and said so publicly (see also video evidence).

The fact sheet also contains this gem of a quote:

“Why does a small group of fringe political organizations oppose the U.S. Export-Import Bank? Because they favor the interests of foreign nations over American businesses.”

Where to begin? One, the argument from consensus is a well-known logical fallacy. I don’t know how many people favor or oppose Ex-Im, but I do know it’s based on bad economics and is one of the government’s largest corporate welfare programs.

Two, I was unaware until reading this fact sheet that as an Ex-Im opponent, I “favor the interests of foreign nations over American businesses.” That charge is actually true of Ex-Im itself. When the Bank guarantees loans to foreign airlines for buying Boeing planes, they are literally subsidizing domestic airlines’ direct foreign competitors.

As a general rule, it is better to analyze arguments rather than motives. But roughly 40 percent of Ex-Im’s activities benefit a single company, Boeing, that is a major part of America’s aerospace industry. Even though they surely know the arguments are overwhelmingly against Ex-Im, one understands why they’re fighting so hard to preserve their privilege. One also understands why they are using such shoddy arguments—those are the only kind they have.

If Ex-Im beneficiaries want government handouts—and clearly they do—it would be far more efficient for the government to simply give them cash. Such a policy wouldn’t distort financial markets and international business decisions. The problem is that a naked cash grab would strike voters and most everyone else as unseemly. As the economist Gordon Tullock pointed out, this is precisely is why rent-seekers and politicians create cover stories such as the Export-Import Bank. The trouble is that these cover stories cause real harm to others, from capital-needy startups to established companies like Delta Airlines. The Ex-Im fight could use more honesty on what it’s really about.

Images of Ronald Reagan and appeals to patriotism are cynical ways to lure conservatives into supporting the Export-Import Bank. But Reagan didn’t actually support the Bank, and its mercantilist economics were debunked centuries ago by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. It’s time to move on.

CEI Podcast for April 17, 2014: Brexit Strategy

brexit-logo
Have a listen here.

Iain Murray, CEI’s Vice President for Strategy, along with Freedom Association Director Rory Broomfield, won second place in the Institute for Economic Affairs’ Brexit Competition. The goal of the competition is to devise a strategy for Britain’s exit from the European Union.

This Gas Is Dow’s Gas

My colleague Marlo Lewis is a talented musician. I recently had the pleasure of helping Marlo record a parody of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land,” with the lyrics changed to poke fun at a bit of rent-seeking by Dow Chemical. The video is below (click here if the embed doesn’t work). Here is a blurb about the video in The Hill, and here is another in SNL.

The Founding Free Traders

Here’s a letter I sent to the Racine Journal Times, my hometown paper:

Alderman Dan Sharkozy’s July 11 op-ed argues that the founding fathers built trade protectionism into the Constitution. He is mistaken. The Constitution, by banning trade restrictions between the states, created what was at the time the world’s largest free trade zone. This was on purpose.

Imagine if the only outside products that Racine’s consumers were allowed to buy must come from Kenosha. Or if companies like S.C. Johnson were allowed to export to Kenosha, or nowhere at all. Even Pat Buchanan would have to admit that these trade barriers would be less than helpful to Racine’s economy. Our forebears were similarly forbidden from importing or exporting most goods from anywhere but Britain; hence a certain revolution we just celebrated on July 4.

Adam Smith, who unlike Pat Buchanan was an economist, wrote of our natural “tendency to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.” The desire to forcibly stop people from doing so because they speak different languages or look different from each other comes from a morality that one can only hope remains foreign.

Ryan Young

Fellow in Regulatory Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.

Racine native, Walden III alumnus