2002 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing taxpayer
support for the Export-Import Reauthorization
Act for every 1 day, much less for a
month violates basic economic, constitutional,
and moral principles. Therefore, Congress
should reject S. 2019.
2002 Ron Paul 17:2
The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes
money from American taxpayers to subsidize
exports by American companies. Of course, it
is not just any company that receives
Eximbank support — rather, the majority of
Eximbank funding benefits large, politically
powerful corporations.
2002 Ron Paul 17:3
Proponents of continued American support
for the Eximbank claim that the bank “creates
jobs” and promotes economic growth. However,
this claim rests on a version of what the
great economist Henry Hazlitt called “the broken
window” fallacy. When a hoodlum throws
a rock through a store window, it can be said
he has contributed to the economy, as the
store owner will have to spend money having
the window fixed. The benefits to those who
repaired the window are visible for all to see,
therefore it is easy to see the broken window
as economically beneficial. However, the
“benefits” of the broken window are revealed
as an illusion when one takes into account
what is not seen; the businesses and workers
who would have benefited had the store
owner not spent money repairing a window,
but rather had been free to spend his money
as he chose.
2002 Ron Paul 17:4
Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are
visible to all; what is not seen is the products
that would have been built, the businesses
that would have been started, and the jobs
that would have been created had the funds
used for the Eximbank been left in the hands
of consumers.
2002 Ron Paul 17:5
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting
Eximbank with supporting “free trade,”
and claim that opponents are “projectionists”
and “isolationists.” Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense,
Eximbank has nothing to do with free
trade. True free trade involves the peaceful,
voluntary exchange of goods across borders,
not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports
of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is
not free trade, but rather managed trade,
where winners and lowers are determined by
how well they please government bureaucrats
instead of how well they please consumers.
2002 Ron Paul 17:6
Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the
market by diverting resources from the private
sector, where they could be put to the use
most highly valued by individual consumers,
into the public sector, where their use will be
determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful
special interests. By distorting the market
and preventing resources from achieving their
highest valued use. Eximbank actually costs
Americans jobs and reduces America’s standard
of living!
2002 Ron Paul 17:7
The case for Eximbank is further weakened
considering that small businesses receive only
12–15 percent of Eximbank funds; the vast
majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations.
These corporations can certainly afford
to support their own exports without relying
on the American taxpayer. It is not only
bad economics to force working Americans,
small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize
the exports of the large corporations; it
is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from
the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the
most indefensible aspect of the welfare state,
yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr.
Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how
members who criticize welfare for the poor on
moral and constitutional grounds see no problem
with the even more objectionable programs
that provide welfare for the rich.
2002 Ron Paul 17:8
The moral case against Eximbank is
strengthened when one considers that the
government which benefits most from
Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact,
Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures
with firms owned by the Chinese government!
Whatever one’s position on trading with China,
I would hope all of us would agree that it is
wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any
way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is
not an isolated case: Colombia, Yemen, and
even the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized
trade courtesy of the Eximbank!
2002 Ron Paul 17:9
There is simply no constitutional justification
for the expenditure of funds on programs such
as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution
would be horrified to think the federal
government was taking hard-earned money
from the American people in order to benefit
the politically powerful.
2002 Ron Paul 17:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Eximbank distorts
the market by allowing government bureaucrats
to make economic decisions in
place of individual consumers. Eximbank also
violates basic principles of morality, by forcing
working Americans to subsidize the trade of
wealthy companies that could easily afford to
subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing
brutal governments like Red China
and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the
limitations on congressional power to take the
property of individual citizens and use them to
benefit powerful special interests. It is for
these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject
S. 2019.
