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.
Since its founding in 2011, the right-wing advocacy group Secure America Now has made a name for itself by publishing biased, wildly inaccurate “push polls” and running over-the-top ads criticizing the Obama administration’s security policies. “This might be the only ad you'll ever see that complains aloud, 'He shut down the black sites!’” quipped one commentator about an ad the group ran in 2012. The organization recently produced a remake of the infamous Lyndon Johnson ad “Daisy,” which wildly accuses the Obama administration of “failing” to stop “the jihadist government of Iran” from getting “a nuclear bomb.” Noting the many factual errors in a website linked to the video, one observer noted, “It’s not surprising, then, that this group would revive an attack ad that sought to portray a presidential contender as dangerously eager for confrontation to attack a president for being too soft.”
Commentary magazine editor John Podhoretz, son of the trailblazing neoconservative ideologue Norman Podhoretz, has been a strident critic of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, charging the president with “setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos” and calling him an implacable “antagonist” of Israel. He has also been a staunch critic of Hillary Clinton, once penning a book urging right-wing activists to mobilize against her. However, has recently joined other neoconservatives in taking a more conciliatory approach towards Clinton, praising her for supporting “more aggressive efforts” on Syria and Russia than Obama and separating herself from what he terms “the administration’s disdainful treatment of Israel.”
Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who oversaw reconstruction efforts in Iraq for less than a month before being replaced by George W. Bush loyalist Paul Bremer, has broken sharply with his successor over how to respond to the latest ISIS offensive in Iraq. While Bremer has called for boots on the ground, Garner said recently, “The Iranians should solve this problem, not us.” Instead, Garner advocates sending arms to Iraqi Kurdistan, where he served during the first Gulf War and later invested in oil interests.
United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a bipartisan pressure group that targets corporations that allegedly do business with Tehran in violation of sanctions. A defamation suit filed by the target of one such attack has prompted scrutiny of UANI’s political connections. In a surprise move described by the New York Times as “highly unusual,” the U.S. Justice Department recently intervened to block subpoenas for UANI’s donor list, claiming that it could contain information the U.S. government considered sensitive. Although “American intelligence agencies are prohibited from secretly working with organizations to influence American public opinion and media,” noted the Times, “the court filings indicated close ties between the American government and a group that has proved adept at pressuring the government and corporations to isolate Iran economically.” The news prompted one investigative reporter to uncover ties between UANI’s CEO, Mark Wallace, and billionaire investor Thomas S. Kaplan, both of whom have heavily invested in precious metals mining ventures, which they say could prove extremely profitable in unstable geopolitical environments like the one UANI seems intent on encouraging in the Middle East.
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
August, 18 2014
Recent polling reveals a degree of public support for the recent U.S. intervention in Iraq, though a majority of respondents also worried that the U.S. would go "too far" in responding to the threat posed by ISIS.
August, 12 2014
Political settlements in Iraq and Syria—preferably ones that depose Nouri al-Maliki and Bashar al-Assad, respectively—would go much further toward stopping ISIS than airstrikes.
August, 12 2014
Despite repeated insistences that it urged Israel to reduce civilian casualties, the U.S. government has systematically played down Israeli abuses and recited Israeli government talking points about the latest war in Gaza.
August, 09 2014
Inside the Beltway, President Obama’s decision to launch a limited military action in northern Iraq has garnered qualified support from across the political spectrum.
July, 27 2014
The extremist group ISIS has used a Saudi tactic—monopolizing oil revenues—to fund its brutal execution of a Saudi goal: the repression of the Middle East’s Shiites.
July, 23 2014
The latest conflict between Israel and Hamas brings to bear the vast technological superiority of Israeli’s U.S.-backed and U.S.-supplied military.
July, 22 2014
The influence of the International Criminal Court has grown steadily over the years, but the organization remains hampered by opposition from the United States, China, and Russia, as well as by charges that it chiefly prosecutes African leaders at the expense of human rights abusers elsewhere.