ShareThis Page
Meet the Export-Import Bank Republican ignorami, purveyors of crock |

Meet the Export-Import Bank Republican ignorami, purveyors of crock

| Wednesday, October 28, 2015 9:00 p.m

Economics ignorami that they are, a majority of House Republicans joined all but one Democrat on Wednesday to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, that bastion of corruption and corporate wealthfare. The vote was 313-118.

Among those in dire need of remedial history and finance tutorials are Pennsylvania’s Mike Kelly, Tim Murphy and Bill Shuster. Of the local congressional delegation, only Keith Rothfus had the guts to stand up to this market-perverting molestation of the public purse by America’s largest corporations.

The innocent sounding pitch for the Export-Import Bank is that it “facilitates” trade, boosting more American-made products. But the reality, as the Heritage Foundation and others long have argued, is that it uses tax dollars to provide loans to help big businesses that clearly have the wherewithal to secure private financing.

And as Don Boudreaux, one of our resident economists, reminds, Ex-Im satisfies “not the demands of consumers spending their own money but, instead, the demands of politicians and bureaucrats spending other people’s money.”

In a word, the Export-Import Bank — its renewal fate now in the hands of what could be an equally ignorant Senate — is a crock, an 81-year-old contrivance of capitalists crony, not free-market. And members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, who support such an artifice deserve their constituents’ scorn.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.