Tag Archives: Export-Import Bank

The Right’s Unilateral Disarmers

For several years now, some on the political right have portrayed the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Exim) as an exemplar of inappropriate federal government involvement in activities that should be left to the private sector. Worse, Exim is portrayed as engaging in “crony capitalism” – loosely defined as picking winners and losers on the basis of political connections, and favoring the former with taxpayer largesse.

Despite the evidence to the contrary – including the fact that taxpayers have not had to pay a cent on the billions in loans and credit guarantees Exim has extended to support American businesses providing goods and services to foreign customers – this mantra has become something of an idée fixe in certain circles. Increasingly, it poses a danger to the Export-Import Bank, its ability to provide such a service in the future, and to the competitiveness of U.S. exporters with foreign rivals that enjoy similar, if not vastly greater, support from their governments’ Exim counterparts. 

That prospect appears to have grown significantly after Rep. Kevin McCarthy announced shortly after his election as House Majority Leader that he would oppose the Export-Import Bank’s reauthorization. Were he actually to use his office to prevent consideration of the legislation necessary to allow the bank to do more than administer its existing loan and credit portfolio, Leader McCarthy would be engaged in something Republicans have generally eschewed – and properly castigated Democrats for doing with some regularity: unilateral disarmament.

That’s right. As long as no corresponding action is taken by China, Japan, the Europeans, or others with whom our exporters go head-to-head to make their sales, the United States will have denied itself unilaterally an often-decisive factor in such transactions: certain access to credit on favorable terms. And, while the Exim’s critics claim that an agreement can be forged whereby other governments’ export lending facilities will be shuttered, no such accord is in prospect.

Alternatively, we are told the private sector can pick up the slack. Unfortunately, publicly traded banks and other underwriters are simply unable or unwilling to offer terms that are competitive with those offered by foreign governments’ export facilitation operations. Export credit bridges real gaps in commercial finance, from developing emerging markets to financial market disruptions.

Even companies like Boeing that have relatively deep pockets depend on Exim to support foreign airline purchases of its high-quality planes when competing against heavily subsidized Airbus and emerging aircraft manufacturing concerns in China and Brazil. Most of the thousands of other American exporters that benefit from Exim’s services also lack such means. They would likely see their opportunities for overseas sales vanish as foreign competitors use government loan guarantees and credits to close deals, despite offering what are often inferior products.

Consequently, the upshot of the sort of Republican-led unilateral disarmament now in prospect with respect to Exim Bank is that the United States will lose export opportunities and jobs. In some cases, American companies that have a successful business model, provided they are able to compete internationally on a level-playing field, will become unviable.

Of particular concern is the likelihood that among the casualties will be the already-beleaguered U.S. defense industrial base. For example, what is left of the skilled workforce, engineers, design teams, machine tools, etc., needed to produce state-of-the-art fighter aircraft, transports, and satellites now resides substantially in our commercial aerospace sector. And if the industry’s commercial operations cease to be able to sell their products to overseas customers, as a practical matter, we are going to find ourselves even less capable of reconstituting our military production lines when, not if, they are needed.

That would amount to unilateral disarmament, not just in the figurative sense, but in the literal one.

As long as transactions supported by the U.S. Export-Import Bank are made on the merits and with the same record of fiduciary responsibility that has protected the taxpayer’s equities to date, and so long as other nations provide comparable support to their exporters, our country needs Exim. And Republicans should eschew the sort of unilateral disarmament that would eliminate it.

Who’s for dismantling the defense industrial base?

A perfect storm is brewing – one that threatens to devastate what is left of America’s military and its associated industrial base.  This would be a bad idea under the best of circumstances.  Events in Egypt and elsewhere around the world make clear that at present and for the foreseeable future, such a prospect invites calamity.

On the one hand, draconian defense spending cuts mandated by the so-called “sequestration” mechanism and deferred until the third and fourth quarters of Fiscal Year 2013 are just beginning to be felt.  They will shortly become even more dramatically experienced, not just by the military, but by businesses and employees across the country, as critical defense capabilities are hollowed out.  The ripple effect of deferring or canceling weapon systems and other modernization programs, reducing training, sacrificing readiness and terminating research and development will translate into tens of billions of dollars not spent by workers in the economy.

Worse is yet to come.  The Pentagon’s 2014 budget request is $52 billion over the 2011 limits, meaning that if the sequester remains on the books, destructive across-the-board cuts of over $50 billion will be required yet again this fall.

Various measures that might mitigate the impact of such cuts include: closure of more bases and facilities; downsizing and restructuring of the Defense Department’s civilian workforce; and scaling back military compensation, benefits and health care.  There is little evidence of the political will necessary to make such changes, meaning that additional slashing of the Pentagon’s already-depleted discretionary spending accounts will likely eventuate.

Another factor compounds the effect of these reductions on our vital defense industrial base:  National security-related manufacturing concerns are hard hit by the world’s highest corporate tax rate – a combined average federal and state rate of 39.2%.  In addition, by some estimates, major government regulations have cut the total value of shipments from U.S. manufacturers by up to $500 billion and lowered factory exports by 17%.  Projections suggest that output from American manufacturers will be further cut for these reasons by 6% over the next decade.

One of the few options available to help mitigate the cumulative effects of these factors in hollowing out our defense industries has been through exports.  Financing of some such sales – particularly in the commercial aerospace sector – has been guaranteed through the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im). The Bank provides underwriting guarantees to help foreign customers of U.S. companies get the financing they need from commercial lenders to buy American products.  This has been achieved for many years at no cost to the taxpayer.  Indeed, in 2012, Ex-Im provided a return on investment of $1.1 billion to the Treasury after covering its expenses.

Incredibly, some otherwise-sensible U.S. senators have embraced a gambit that would effectively foreclose this contribution made to ensure that our exporters can compete head-to-head with foreign enterprises that enjoy comparable and, in some cases, far-larger export-financing support. Led by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), they would halt the Export-Import Bank’s ability to approve hundreds of pending transactions, providing credit guarantees to 3,400 companies across the United States.  As many as 255,000 jobs could be affected, 88% of which are associated with small businesses.

This would be the impact of senators blocking the confirmation of Fred Hochberg to a second four-year term as president of the Ex-Im Bank Board.  Mr. Hochberg was overwhelmingly approved on June 6 by the Senate Banking Committee with a resounding bipartisan 20-2 vote.  By preventing the full Senate from doing the same, however, the Bank’s critics hope to deny the board the quorum it needs to conduct business.

Such cuts to Export-Import Bank loan guarantees, coming on top of sequestration-mandated reductions, will be ruinous for the defense industrial base. The Center for Security Policy has assessed the impact of the prospective Ex-Im cuts on each of the fifty states, in addition to $50 billion cuts per year associated with sequestration (see www.forthecommondefense.org). If foreign customers cannot find credit without backing from the Ex-Im Bank, those losses will grow significantly.  As an example, Texas could lose over $6.7 billion in defense spending in the next round of sequestration cuts, and an additional $4.6 billion in lost export sales.  Even a smaller state like Georgia is projected to lose over $951 million in sequestration cuts, and over $780 million in lost export sales.

Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of America securing “peace through strength” was built on the principle of a strong economy, as he eloquently stated in his first inaugural address: “It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work – work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. This Administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy.”

The Ex-Im bank’s success in providing opportunity for America’s manufacturers has put Reagan’s principles into practice.  Fred Hochberg should get a Senate vote on a second term and the Export-Import Bank should be permitted, thereby, to continue its contribution to America’s future prosperity.