The end of EXIM Bank

[realinvestment]

As an operator of a privately held manufacturing company, I have long term experience with EXIM Bank. It's loss will harm the exports of thousands of US firms, leading to the loss of good US jobs.

While the bank's charter expired on June 30, 2015, it had a 90 day wind down period, so the real impact to the US economy won't start to be felt until at least the last quarter of 2015, and it will probably accelerate through 2016.

The bank has been called corporate welfare and crony capitalism despite the fact that user fees have paid for all its operation. The primary function is to eliminate the non payment risk in foreign transactions through credit insurance. That insurance usually allows businesses to get loans on their foreign receivables and inventory, that banks normally wouldn't lend on. My experience so far is that private sector insurances aren't offering any reasonable alternatives, so the loss of this service makes it impossible for us to compete against the Asian and European firms who use their own government backed export banks.

While there are some valid points by conservatives, such as taxpayer exposure, it seems like reforms could be made that are really nothing more than minor adjustments. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't compromise. They can't discuss changes, it's either re-authorization in full, or cancellation.

 

[g5000]

The bank has been called corporate welfare and crony capitalism despite the fact that user fees have paid for all its operation.

Crony capitalism is when one company is given an unfair advantage by the government over its competitors, and that is exactly what Ex Im does.

 

[RodISHI]

As an operator of a privately held manufacturing company, I have long term experience with EXIM Bank. It's loss will harm the exports of thousands of US firms, leading to the loss of good US jobs.

While the bank's charter expired on June 30, 2015, it had a 90 day wind down period, so the real impact to the US economy won't start to be felt until at least the last quarter of 2015, and it will probably accelerate through 2016.

The bank has been called corporate welfare and crony capitalism despite the fact that user fees have paid for all its operation. The primary function is to eliminate the non payment risk in foreign transactions through credit insurance. That insurance usually allows businesses to get loans on their foreign receivables and inventory, that banks normally wouldn't lend on. My experience so far is that private sector insurances aren't offering any reasonable alternatives, so the loss of this service makes it impossible for us to compete against the Asian and European firms who use their own government backed export banks.

While there are some valid points by conservatives, such as taxpayer exposure, it seems like reforms could be made that are really nothing more than minor adjustments. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't compromise. They can't discuss changes, it's either re-authorization in full, or cancellation.

I recall reading through a lot of the information on this back in 2009. It appeared to me that it helped a lot of smaller operations and the funds generally were all paid back. I'd say this one is a lost to the economy unlike a lot of grant programs and other phony programs out there.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is not like the republican party gives two shits about our ability to compete. It just doesn't care.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The bank has been called corporate welfare and crony capitalism despite the fact that user fees have paid for all its operation.

Crony capitalism is when one company is given an unfair advantage by the government over its competitors, and that is exactly what Ex Im does.

Well, we do a lot of things from our mililtary to our infrastructure that does exactly this. I don't think it is a bad thing as long as it is regulated.

 

[realinvestment]

It is not like the republican party gives two shits about our ability to compete. It just doesn't care.

To be fair, lots of Republicans support EXIM Bank and almost all Democrats would approve it. In fact a re-authorization vote would get an overwhelming majority. The problem is that Tea Party members have control of a House Committee and have blocked any vote. So much for majority rule!