Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog

Conservatives Want to Eliminate the Ex-Im Bank Which Creates Jobs While Costing the Taxpayer Nothing
Raymond Richman, 8/31/2014

Conservatives oppose renewal by the Congress of the Ex-Im Bank whose guaranteed loans have facilitated exports and created and preserved American jobs while costing the government and taxpayers nothing at all. There are plenty of government programs that ought to be cut. Why should the one selected be one that costs taxpayers nothing and does create jobs. At the same time, conservatives are silent about the World Bank, a world socialist bank which the U.S. created and financed at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and continues to do so to this day. This is ideology being promoted at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and U.S. workers. 

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank promoting a stronger economy and reduced government, traditional family values, and a strong America in the international arena. More often than not, its analyses and recommendations are sound in each of these areas. But one can quarrel with its opposition to Congressional renewal of the charter of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent government agency whose loans to importers of US. goods, loans made usually by U.S. commercial banks, are guaranteed by the government. There can be no doubt of our need to close the U.S. trade gap which has caused extensive dis-employment in the U.S., more than four million jobs over the past two decades in our estimate. Does the Heritage Foundation have a case in opposing the Ex-Im Bank?

The government does not, other than giving its guarantee, subsidize the loans the Ex-Im Bank guarantees. It does not in fact cost the government a dime, something really rare for any government enterprise. The Ex-Im Bank’s default rate is less than one-quarter of one percent and is covered many times over by its successful loans. Diane Katz, a Heritage Foundation Research Fellow writes, “Taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for the $140 billion in loans and other credit that is currently outstanding.” Yes, but it has not cost the government anything, which she does not mention.  

Heritage Foundation’s objection is that the Ex-Im bank is in competition with commercial banks and other lenders who do not enjoy the government’s guarantee of foreign investments that are sometimes risky. The Heritage Foundation’s objection is that the Ex-Im Bank unfairly competes with the private banks because of its ability to make loans on risky foreign loans at a lower interest rates than commercial banks would. Instead of recommending an end to the Ex-Im Bank, it could recommend guaranteeing the export loans of commercial banks in some way. Stimulating exports is a worthwhile objective, especially when it involves no government expenditure at all. What the Heritage Foundation recommends instead, shutting down the Ex-Im Bank without providing an alternative would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

The Heritage Foundation, if it wants to pick on a socialist bank, can find one in the World Bank, an entity that the U.S. created at the end of WWII. The U.S. government has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars supporting the World Bank which makes loans to foreign governments and enterprises whether or not they import from the U.S. What kind of a deal is that? What is the Heritage Foundation’s position on the World Bank, which has cost and continues to cost the U.S. treasury so much? So far, nothing but silence. Originally intended to support infrastructure loans to undeveloped countries, the World Bank has expanded into loans to fuel alcohol producing enterprises and other alternative energy enterprises. The World Bank has long ceased to justify its existence. Its president, always an American, gets paid $800,000 or more. Its employees earn high salaries free of taxes. And their fringe benefits include a golf course and country club. And what is the main focus of the World Bank at present? The irrational commitment to expensive alternative intermittent sources of energy, wind and solar. A greater waste is hard to imagine. Moreover, economic studies show that the U.S. and Canada (and Russia!) stand to benefit from global warming in increased crop yields as they have in the last eon of global warming. Global warming is no threat to us but global cooling is and whether we experience global warming orf cooling is overwhelmingly depends on the sun’s activity. Man-made global warming makes only a small contribution to global warming, which may be desirable if the world begins to cool. 

We are sympathetic to the Heritage Foundation’s opposition to big government. We are sympathetic to its opposition to government enterprises. But its opposition to the Ex-Im Bank is wrong at least until a better alternative is in place to finance exports. There are many government expenditures and tax expenditures that should be eliminated. Heritage foundation should name them rather than eliminating an agency that costs the government and taxpayers nothing and creates jobs.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:

Comment by Jesse, 9/3/2014:

To be fair to the Heritage Foundation, they are not that positive about the World Bank either.  See for instance:

But the broader point is well taken.

  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Sep 2021
    May 2021
    Apr 2021
    Feb 2021
    Jan 2021
    Dec 2020
    Nov 2020
    Oct 2020
    Jul 2020
    Jun 2020
    May 2020
    Apr 2020
    Mar 2020
    Dec 2019
    Nov 2019
    Oct 2019
    Sep 2019
    Aug 2019
    Jun 2019
    May 2019
    Apr 2019
    Mar 2019
    Feb 2019
    Jan 2019
    Dec 2018
    Nov 2018
    Aug 2018
    Jul 2018
    Jun 2018
    May 2018
    Apr 2018
    Mar 2018
    Feb 2018
    Dec 2017
    Nov 2017
    Oct 2017
    Sep 2017
    Aug 2017
    Jul 2017
    Jun 2017
    May 2017
    Apr 2017
    Mar 2017
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015
    Jun 2015
    May 2015
    Apr 2015
    Mar 2015
    Feb 2015
    Jan 2015
    Dec 2014
    Nov 2014
    Oct 2014
    Sep 2014
    Aug 2014

    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term

    Environmental Regulation
    Last 100 Years
    Real Estate Taxation

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]