Like all other committe chairs, Hensarling gets his committee chairmanship based on his years of seniority NOT on years of study of economics or tax policy or business acumen so I have to evaluate what he does, what he suggests and how he goes about his work by referring to his politics. And I arrive at this conclusion that Tea Party folks are focused on reducing government in order to lower taxes by re-reviewing all activities and programs to determine whether or not they benefit THEMSELVES, not considering why we have these programs, whether they accomplish any good or whether they are worthwhile in terms of MONEY. This can be admirable but it also makes for some unintended consequences. Me thinks he don’t know Sh*t about any of this; only that he thinks government is best that has no money to DO anything, regardless of the history of the program or the philosophy which drives legislation such as the establishment of the Export/Import Bank. Doesn’t he know that China subsidizes its industry and that makes it harder for us to export globally to compete with such? the politics behind his actions says it all; thse are folks who don’t understand when they accuse folks of being part of the “tax-and-spend” crowd…how does he think government works? By donations? Taxes are the NECESSARY “evil”, how the process works and we use government to do for all of us together what we couldn’t do personally. How else can we compete on an uneven playing field? and as for his being the chairman, he is NOT an expert in anything. Being chairman is like being the manager at a five-and-dime, those who get the job only because they hung around long enough, after everyone else left. And he’ll mess around with TRIA like his party messed around with our debt limit and reduced our credit rating, to the extent that the private sector will take their marbles and go home. Who knows how businesses will react if there is no TRIA? IF we ever have another such event, without some sort of backstop, losses will not be covered and the taxpayer may end up holding the whole bag, instead of the excess.
Given the nature of the debate and the companies involved, it would seem a simple cost/benefit analysis could be done to determine the viability of the ExIm bank. It’s not rocket-science and should objectively determine how much of an economic impact this serves.
Generally speaking, it is prudent to question all spending programs based on their merits and cost on a regular basis, i.e., 1, 3, or 5 years. Not every program supports businesses, or legal citizens and taxpayers in the same manner, so it is prudent and justified to review their purpose and spend.
To do otherwise is to endorse the fact that “it has always worked this way, so let’s continue doing it,” which we all know is not a sustainable practice over the long-term. Evidence abounds of federal programs run amok with very little oversight or accountability that have morphed into wasteful spending that does not translate into identifiable benefits.
We must demand that this private “bank” that serves the specials interests like corporations BE ABOLISHED!
This “private bank” just like the fed MUST GO!
Mr. Integrity, I appreciate your comments as it is always worthwhile to question matters that involve subjective issues, i.e., what “should or should not” be done. What I have learned however is that folks don’t let facts get in the way of what they believe, no matter what the facts are. This is why I view certain activities that are undertaken solely because of political stance. Noelle in fact is a good example: what mechanism would be an appropriate replacement for the FED? Those who call for its disolution usually just cite jingoistic phrases and sound bytes, but do not necessarily advance a good argument. Rand Paul calls for the abolishing of the Fed but does he or anyone really understand the Fed’s role not just in the US but internationally, especially when the dollar is the currency standard of the global economy. And the same goes for abolishing the import/export bank, what would be the impact on the global economy if we just pulled the plug on it? I really just prefer to have a rational discussion about such things instead of just repeating what others say. Our political discourse has gotten barren and barbed when we should be thoughtful and careful before we make difficult decisions. This may not always be rocket-science but I don’t like rushing into things when folks substitute labels and attacks in response to requests for proposals. Business doesn’t act on impulse but we do when it comes to our common tool, our government. As Pogo said, ” we have met the enemy, and it is us!” Government is not some big masked entity that hovers over our lives, it is the folks who live in your neighborhood, folks who act in your behalf. Hensarling has his ox to gore and I was only attempting to make that clear. I don’t know that the IM/EX bank still operates as it was supposed to but I do know that we don’t produce the world’s steel anymore because we can’t compete. Maybe better oversight is needed but when you only have a hammer, everything is a nail. The all or nothing argument fails in my opinion.
Like all other committe chairs, Hensarling gets his committee chairmanship based on his years of seniority NOT on years of study of economics or tax policy or business acumen so I have to evaluate what he does, what he suggests and how he goes about his work by referring to his politics. And I arrive at this conclusion that Tea Party folks are focused on reducing government in order to lower taxes by re-reviewing all activities and programs to determine whether or not they benefit THEMSELVES, not considering why we have these programs, whether they accomplish any good or whether they are worthwhile in terms of MONEY. This can be admirable but it also makes for some unintended consequences. Me thinks he don’t know Sh*t about any of this; only that he thinks government is best that has no money to DO anything, regardless of the history of the program or the philosophy which drives legislation such as the establishment of the Export/Import Bank. Doesn’t he know that China subsidizes its industry and that makes it harder for us to export globally to compete with such? the politics behind his actions says it all; thse are folks who don’t understand when they accuse folks of being part of the “tax-and-spend” crowd…how does he think government works? By donations? Taxes are the NECESSARY “evil”, how the process works and we use government to do for all of us together what we couldn’t do personally. How else can we compete on an uneven playing field? and as for his being the chairman, he is NOT an expert in anything. Being chairman is like being the manager at a five-and-dime, those who get the job only because they hung around long enough, after everyone else left. And he’ll mess around with TRIA like his party messed around with our debt limit and reduced our credit rating, to the extent that the private sector will take their marbles and go home. Who knows how businesses will react if there is no TRIA? IF we ever have another such event, without some sort of backstop, losses will not be covered and the taxpayer may end up holding the whole bag, instead of the excess.
Given the nature of the debate and the companies involved, it would seem a simple cost/benefit analysis could be done to determine the viability of the ExIm bank. It’s not rocket-science and should objectively determine how much of an economic impact this serves.
Generally speaking, it is prudent to question all spending programs based on their merits and cost on a regular basis, i.e., 1, 3, or 5 years. Not every program supports businesses, or legal citizens and taxpayers in the same manner, so it is prudent and justified to review their purpose and spend.
To do otherwise is to endorse the fact that “it has always worked this way, so let’s continue doing it,” which we all know is not a sustainable practice over the long-term. Evidence abounds of federal programs run amok with very little oversight or accountability that have morphed into wasteful spending that does not translate into identifiable benefits.
We must demand that this private “bank” that serves the specials interests like corporations BE ABOLISHED!
This “private bank” just like the fed MUST GO!
Mr. Integrity, I appreciate your comments as it is always worthwhile to question matters that involve subjective issues, i.e., what “should or should not” be done. What I have learned however is that folks don’t let facts get in the way of what they believe, no matter what the facts are. This is why I view certain activities that are undertaken solely because of political stance. Noelle in fact is a good example: what mechanism would be an appropriate replacement for the FED? Those who call for its disolution usually just cite jingoistic phrases and sound bytes, but do not necessarily advance a good argument. Rand Paul calls for the abolishing of the Fed but does he or anyone really understand the Fed’s role not just in the US but internationally, especially when the dollar is the currency standard of the global economy. And the same goes for abolishing the import/export bank, what would be the impact on the global economy if we just pulled the plug on it? I really just prefer to have a rational discussion about such things instead of just repeating what others say. Our political discourse has gotten barren and barbed when we should be thoughtful and careful before we make difficult decisions. This may not always be rocket-science but I don’t like rushing into things when folks substitute labels and attacks in response to requests for proposals. Business doesn’t act on impulse but we do when it comes to our common tool, our government. As Pogo said, ” we have met the enemy, and it is us!” Government is not some big masked entity that hovers over our lives, it is the folks who live in your neighborhood, folks who act in your behalf. Hensarling has his ox to gore and I was only attempting to make that clear. I don’t know that the IM/EX bank still operates as it was supposed to but I do know that we don’t produce the world’s steel anymore because we can’t compete. Maybe better oversight is needed but when you only have a hammer, everything is a nail. The all or nothing argument fails in my opinion.
“…favoring multinational companies at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.” Sounds like your job Mr. Hensarling.