The battle over the future of the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) has been a humbling experience for the Tea Party.
Jim Lobe, last updated: May 16, 2012
Inter Press Service
For leaders of the right-wing populist "Tea Party" who have bragged about their growing influence – if not domination – of the Republican Party, the past week's battle over the future of the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) has been a humbling experience.
It's also been a reminder of the power enjoyed by Big Business, the corporate empires with globe-straddling interests, in both major parties in Congress.
While bipartisanship is an increasingly rare commodity in Washington these days, the interests of U.S.-based multinational corporations is something both Democrats and Republicans can agree on.
Such giants as the Boeing Company, backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), not only coaxed a three-year extension for Ex-Im operations out of Congress supposedly preoccupied with reducing the federal deficit, they also got an increase in lending authority from 100 billion dollars last year to 140 billion dollars by 2014.
"The three-year extension and healthy increase in lending level sends the right message to our foreign competitors," said John Hardy, the president of the Coalition for Employment Through Exports (CEE), one of an alphabet soup of business associations that lobbied for the extension.
"American companies that export have the support of their government to level the playing field and help make those sales," he added.
Created in the early days of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal", Ex-Im has survived and prospered under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, and has been headed by individuals from across the political spectrum (see, for instance, Right Web Profile: Phillip Merrill). This despite occasional complaints on the right side of the political spectrum that its operations amounted to government interference in the free market, and, on the left, that it amounted to "corporate welfare", a phrase ironically adopted by then- Sen. Barack Obama to describe the bank when he was running for president in 2008.
As originally conceived, Ex-Im's mission has been to create jobs at home by financing sales of U.S. exports to buyers overseas. Over the years, it has become a model for similar institutions, called export credit agencies (ECAs), established by other export-hungry industrialised countries.
In recent decades, its single biggest beneficiary by far has been Boeing, the giant Chicago-based aerospace firm, which has long depended on Ex-Im's support in its competition with Europe's Aerobus Industries. Last year, the bank provided 11 billion dollars in financing for Boeing's foreign customers – nearly a third of its total financing of nearly 33 billion dollars in deals in 2011.
While much of the bank's opposition in the past has come from Democrats who have described it as a corporate giveaway, not a single Democratic lawmaker in either house opposed its extension this year. This is in major part because it was successfully depicted as a key jobs programme at a time when official unemployment exceeds eight percent and could jeopardise the re-election of Democrats, from President Barack Obama on down.
"With our trade deficit and job situations, exports keep both labour and liberals quiet," said Robert Borosage, founder and president of the progressive Campaign for America's Future.
But the re-authorisation, with higher lending limits, also fits perfectly with Obama's two-year-old "National Export Initiative" which calls for doubling U.S. exports from 1.57 trillion dollars in 2009 to more than three trillion dollars in 2015.
Opposition to the bank this year came from the right, particularly from the "Tea Party" Republicans, who won dozens of seats in Congress in the party's 2010 landslide, and their wealthy backers, including the Club for Growth, a coalition of 527 right-wing and libertarian organisations which raises money for like-minded candidates, and Heritage Action for America, the lobbying affiliate of the far-right Heritage Foundation.
Stressing Ex-Im's origins in the New Deal – whose many government programmes are viewed as "socialistic" or worse by Tea Party adherents and donors – right-wing critics have argued that it constitutes a destructive interference in the free market similar to the "bank bail-out" that followed the September 2008 financial meltdown on Wall Street.
By funding the bank, argued Sen. Jim DeMint, who is widely considered the de facto leader of the Tea Party in the Senate, "Washington sends competitors the signal that the easiest way to get ahead isn't to make better companies, but to lobby Congress for special taxpayer benefits."
"And so a vicious cycle emerges. Washington's attempt to centrally manage the economy only transfers wealth from taxpayers to corporations, it takes those corporations' eye off the ball, dulling our economy's competitive edge and slowly making America less and less competitive in the increasingly competitive global market," he wrote in the Washington Examiner in March.
But a month-long multi-million-dollar lobbying campaign mounted by Boeing and the big business associations apparently worked its magic, and, when the votes were counted in the more Tea-Party-heavy House, only 93 members – all Republicans – out of the total 435 members voted against re-authorisation. That was slightly more than a third of the 242 Republican House members.
"In the end, the vote appeared to show that old guard business groups still have muscle in the Tea Party era," the New York Times observed.
One week later, the Senate voted by a 78-20 margin to extend the Bank's charter through 2014. Of the dissenters, 19 were Republican, while the 20th was Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who normally votes with the Democratic caucus.
"It shows the limits of Tea Party power in the Republican caucus," Borosage told IPS. "For all the talk about how they control the caucus, when the business community talks, they seem to get rolled."
The reauthorisation was applauded by the business lobby, with U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue saying, "When other countries are providing their own exporters with an estimated one trillion dollars in export finance – often on terms more generous than Ex-Im can provide – failure to reauthorise Ex-Im would amount to unilateral disarmament and cost tens of thousands of American jobs."
In addition to Boeing, other big recipients of Ex-Im's largesse include KBR (previously known as Kellogg Brown & Root and owned by Halliburton, Inc.), the global engineering, construction, and private military contracting company; General Electric; and Caterpillar, Inc.
Brigette Gabriel, a Lebanese-born anti-Islamic activist and founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America, is notorious for making fear-mongering claims about terrorism and Islam. She has called the Islamic faith “not compatible with Western civilization” and insisted that a practicing Muslim “cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States.” At a Heritage Foundation event earlier this year, Gabriel drew scrutiny after she verbally attacked a Muslim American law student, questioning whether the student was an American. More recently, capitalizing on right-wing hysteria over immigration and extremist groups in the Middle East, Gabriel alleged that ISIS members were crossing into the U.S. from Mexico, citing reports from unnamed “members of the Department of Homeland Security.”
As a director of the Project for the New American Century in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Gary Schmitt helped spread inaccurate information about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and promote the invasion of Iraq. Schmitt subsequently supported U.S. intervention in Syria, whose own civil war was directly linked to the fallout from Iraq. Schmitt has also been a vocal advocate of NATO expansion, which many observers think has contributed to the current tensions between the West and Russia. Schmitt has also advocated revoking U.S. security guarantees for Western European countries unless they increase their military budgets and adopt a more controversial approach to Russia.
AIPAC’s failed efforts to force U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and to scuttle U.S. nuclear negotiations with Iran, along with its increasing alienation from younger Jewish Americans on the Palestinian issue, have led many critics of the lobby to conclude that its formidable influence is slowly eroding. “Today, a growing number of American Jews, though still devoted to Israel, struggle with the lack of progress toward peace with the Palestinians. Many feel that AIPAC does not speak for them,” reported The New Yorker in a lengthy profile last August. On the other hand, the group was still able to push through emergency funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, prompting one GOP Senate aide to complain, “The worst part was having to vote for this at a time we are all so upset by the killing in Gaza. It's as if AIPAC knows how angry we are so the whole Senate has to take their test. They will make us cast a totally symbolic vote, just to show who's in charge.”
Despite the origins of the terrorist group ISIS in the fallout of the Iraq War, leading Iraq hawk Bill Kristol has no qualms about potential blowback from sending U.S. troops back to the country. “Intellectuals overthink things,” he said in August. “We got involved in Afghanistan to bring down the Soviet Union and probably helped create, indirectly, some of what came about in Afghanistan and ideas that led to 9/11. That’s life. Maybe we could have been cleverer in all these cases, but often, when you mess around in the real world, you have unintended effects and some of them are bad.” Seeming to forget his previous point, Kristol concluded by wondering, “What’s the harm of bombing [ISIS] at least for a few weeks and seeing what happens? I don’t think there’s much in the way of unanticipated side effects that could be bad there. We could kill a lot of very bad guys.”
The controversial anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller—notorious for her “pro-Israel” ads in subway systems referring to Muslims as “savages”—recently convened a small rally in New York in support of Israel’s latest war on Gaza. Attempting to link Hamas to ISIS and other far-flung terrorist groups, Geller said the rally was aimed in part at stopping “the enemedia”—Geller’s term for most media outlets—“from separating the threat to the Jews from the threat to everybody.” When a writer for the Huffington Post estimated the turnout of the rally at 150—as opposed to the “thousands” claimed by Geller—Geller responded, “Who is the Huffington Post shilling for—the Islamic State? Clearly, they'd like to see my severed head on a pole.”
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
September, 12 2014
President Barack Obama's proposal to attack ISIS will likely receive support from Congress, but experts question his choice of tactics and allies.
September, 12 2014
Despite earlier saying that an attack on Syria would require authorization by the UN Security Council, the Obama administration has suggested that it will bypass the UN in its campaign against ISIS.
September, 11 2014
Although political conditions and opposition from the U.S. and Israel have stymied efforts to create a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, disarmament activists remain optimistic that progress in nuclear negotiations with Iran will open the door for wider talks.
September, 11 2014
In a recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute, former Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States should be committing "substantial military forces" to address purported threats in at least 10 countries.
September, 08 2014
Recent revelations about United Against Nuclear Iran’s access to sensitive materials have spurred allegations that it’s actually a U.S. government front. It wouldn’t be the first.
September, 04 2014
As ISIS plunges Iraq into a new sectarian and humanitarian crisis, the U.S. media has ceded the discussion of solutions to proponents of the war that helped ISIS come about.
August, 29 2014
As AIPAC and other U.S. “pro-Israel” groups have drifted to the hawkish right, they’ve lost support from many reliably “pro-Israel” Democrats and liberal Zionists, widening the gap between the U.S. Jewish community and Israel’s right-wing government.