Export-Import Bank

Why Washington State's Congressional Delegation Votes for the Export-Import Bank


The Export-Import Bank, denounced by Sen. Barack Obama in 2008 as "little more than a fund for corporate welfare," gives loan guarantees and other forms of supra-market financing to foreign countries and companies that buy American exports. Well, products made by the handful of companies that get this sweetheart backing.

One of the single-biggest beneficiaries of Ex-Im backing is Boeing, a struggling little airplane-making outfit with a market value north of $90 billion. According to Reason columnist and Mercatus Center policy scholar Veronique de Rugy, between 2007 and 2014, companies with operations in Washington state accounted for 44 percent of total disbursements of Ex-Im largesse. By which she means Boeing.

The Ex-Im Bank—which President Barack Obama supports—is a pure example of concentrated benefits and distributed costs. Writes de Rugy:

The truth of the matter is that the Ex-Im Bank yields negligible benefits for the vast majority of state exports, aside from one big outlier. These charts make it clear that the Ex-Im Bank primarily exists to benefit Boeing at the expense of everyone else in the country.

You might wonder why lawmakers would refuse to acknowledge this reality. For one, politicians are pressured by an army of lobbyists representing powerful companies who are committed to protect their perks even if it hurts everyone else. But politicians are not exactly shrinking violets, here. They like being able to point to the small businesses and American jobs that they "support" through the Ex-Im Bank.

What is much harder is to point to the millions of victims of the Ex-Im Bank. Taxpayers, for instance, bear a massive $140 billion exposure so that giant corporations like Boeing and General Electric can make a little more profit each year. Should the bank's portfolio go south, normal people like [us] will be on the hook.

Read the whole column at the Washington Examiner.

When Rep. Kevin McCarthy came in as House Majority Leader in June (after Eric Cantor was sent packing in his primary), his first big, bold statement was to say House Republicans would act to kill the Export-Import Bank, which comes up for reauthorization at the end of September. With few exceptions, GOP members are already starting to dodge that stand, instead talking about how they'll only vote for its renewal if stringent new reforms are put in place. At the Lincoln Labs Reboot conference in San Francisco, I spoke with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican who hails from eastern Washington. When I asked point blank whether she would vote to kill the bank, she said she was waiting on what reforms might be included in the reauthorization. "There's some questions that need to be answered," she told me. "I'll see what that looks like when it comes." In other words, put her down for a yes.

McMorris Rodgers, who voted to reauthorize in 2012, is hardly alone in her position. In 2012, all Democratic senators voted in favor of the bank, along with 27 Republicans (19 Republicans voted against it). In the House, 183 Democrats and 147 Republicans voted in favor of it, with just 93 Republicans and zero Democrats voting against. All eight members of the Washington state delegation (four Ds and four Rs) voted in favor, as did both Democratic senators.

From a small-goverment perspective, there is no reform that can "fix" issues with the bank's operations, since it shouldn't exist in the first place. It absolutely helps pick winners and losers in the marketplace by backing the purchase of some companies but not others and, more important, puts taxpayers on the hook for up to $140 billion in loan guarantees. Which of course cost nothing—until they cost a lot.

Watch Reason's "3 Reasons to KILL the Export-Import Bank FOREVER!," featuring a special appearance by Art Vandelay:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

20 responses to “Why Washington State's Congressional Delegation Votes for the Export-Import Bank

  1. Next you’re going to tell me there are few if any legitimate small government Conservatives in Congress.

    1. Well at least Rand can snub other Republicans during the primary debates over this….

      Oh crap i just reminded myself that Republican primary debates are imminent.

  2. We subsidize export of Boeing’s product to offset Europe’s subsidies of Airbus’ products.

    Subsidies are evil. Forcing US taxpayers to underwrite Boeing’s exports is evil. Far less evil would be to carpet bomb Airbus’s facilities.

    1. Or you know, just let the Euro’s get the Pyrrhic victory of having the biggest airplane manufacturer (at the cost of subsidizing it forever).

      1. Where’s the fun in that?

    2. …and we could put the money “saved” towards high-speed rail projects!

      Let’s start with a route from, say, Cali to Nevada!

  3. McMorris-Rogers was my rep when I lived in WA. She’s never met a federal program that benefited a WA constituency she didn’t love. But everything else in the federal budget she’s totally open to consider cutting. Maybe. Someday.

    1. Sen. Murray is also a major pork queen. So much so that she has openly run on her ability to drag federal dollars back to WA state. Boeing should erect a statue of her at corporate HQ.

      1. Corporate HQ is in Chicagoland now…

  4. Does anyone else think that Nick looks like Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men?

    1. Kind of a hybridized version of that and Sad Frog.

      1. Okay, I actually laughed out loud at that.

  5. they’ll only vote for its renewal if stringent new reforms are put in place.

    So basically what they’re saying is that they will vote to kill this monstrosity to make a public show, only if they can sneak the same cronyism into other unrelated legislation?

  6. We’re never going to get rid of policies and laws that harm the majority of people only to benefit a few until the majority of people decide to make it happen.

    Which means that it will never happen. Because most people are not even smart enough to be taught the difference between cronyism and free markets, and also not smart enough to know that you cannot have the same people who are causing the problems, who are directly benefiting from it, to be in charge of fixing it.

    1. Yes. Hence I am a fatalist.

  7. Little known fact:

    Some years ago Boing’s head quarters moved to Chicago.

    Look for reps there to also support the Imp-Ex Bank.

    Also probably explains why Obama is such a big fan.

  8. There’s a reason Ex-Im is called “Boeing’s Bank.”

  9. Nice Seinfeld reference.

    1. NTTAWWT

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.