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.
Ray Takeyh is an Iran-hawk who has recently migrated from the Council on Foreign Relations to the neoconservative Hudson Institute. Takeyh has been a vociferous critic of the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts aimed at peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear dispute, framing a potential agreement as the “most advantageous path to nuclear arms” for Iran and arguing for a “revamped coercive strategy” against the country.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, notorious for reigning in the rights of workers in his home state, has staked out hawkish positions on foreign policy in advance of his expected run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. He has called for the United States to have a “strong presence” in the Middle East, has said he would not rule out U.S. “boots on the ground” in the fight against ISIS, and has said he would “absolutely” reject any nuclear deal with Iran if he becomes president. Walker has also spurred ridicule for saying the “most significant foreign policy decision” of his lifetime was Ronald Reagan’s decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981.
Stephen Hadley, a former national security advisor to President George W. Bush, has advocated a hardline towards Russia in the wake of the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Among his recommendations is for the CIA to covertly arm Ukrainian rebels. He said in November 2014: “If I were in my old job I would be thinking about lethal assistance—yes. But you know this is why you have a CIA, you know this is why you have covert action and I would be thinking—do we want to do it explicitly to send a message to Putin? Or do you want to do it covertly?”
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy recently published a letter signed by former officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations that has been framed as critical of the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran. However, the letter, which was also signed by prominent neoconservatives, has been described by one signatory as “very much in line with current U.S. policy.”
Gary Samore, a former adviser to the Obama administration who is now the president of the hawkish United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), recently signed onto an open letter published by the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy that several media outlets have framed as a warning from President Obama’s “ex-advisers” about the “Iran nuclear deal.” Samore, however, appears to disagree with this interpretation of the letter, saying in a recent CNN interview: “If you look through the substance of the letter, you'll see that the positions we take on the key unresolved issues are very much in line with current U.S. policy.”
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
June 30, 2015
A recent open letter by the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy about the Iran nuclear negotiations was signed by many figures who claim they support a nuclear deal with Iran, but whose past recommendations would have led to war with Iran.
June 29, 2015
The authors of an open letter published by the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy most likely knew that their statement was intended to set goals for the negotiations that are unattainable.
June 22, 2015
Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., has released a new book vilifying President Obama and his supposed treatment of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
June 20, 2015
Neocon stalwart Elliott Abrams prides himself on having a passion for democracy and human rights even as he has brazenly praised the tightening of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
June 18, 2015
Critics of the Iran nuclear negotiations fail to see that any potential agreement was always going to be a compromise and that what they claim are “concessions” are really the compromises necessary for a successful deal.
June 13, 2015
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Clifford May conveniently criticizes China for creating “facts on the ground” in the South China Sea while ignoring similar Israeli moves in the Occupied West Bank.
June 08, 2015
The neoconservative claim that George W. Bush “won” the Iraq War is ridiculous.