I say end it.. or at least shrink it.. but we honestly should be looking at programs that are real money losers first..
The central fact about the Ex-Im Bank is that, in the $3.5 trillion federal budget, it is a pygmy. It has about 400 employees. In 2013, its operating budget — its overhead — totaled $90 million, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). But these expenses were fully paid by fees and interest from Ex-Im’s private customers. There was no direct drain on taxpayers. Indeed, the bank turned a profit in 2013 and paid $1.1 billion to the Treasury.
to spend 90 billion to get 1,1 billion isn't much of a real gain..
and if it is "self sustaining".. why does it need tax money?
The Obama administration and the business lobby defend the Export-Import Bank of the United States by claiming it “makes a profit” for taxpayers. But this “profit” is an accounting fiction, a top federal budget agency recently found.
Before 1990, the federal government completely obscured the costs of loan-guarantee programs, such as student-loan subsidies and Ex-Im guarantees. Under the pre-1990 rules, when Wells Fargo loaned money to Air China to buy some Boeing jets, and Ex-Im guaranteed the loan, that guarantee would be budgeted as costing zero dollars -- unless and until Air China defaulted and Ex-Im had to pay Wells Fargo.
in other words,.. Wells Fargo gets most of the profit and the US taxpayers gets all of the risk..
When you use fair-value accounting, you see that Ex-Im costs taxpayers $200 million a year, the CBO found last week. That cost comes overwhelmingly from the agency’s long-term loan guarantees, which mostly go to subsidize Boeing jets.
That “budgetary illusion” is the central argument for Ex-Im’s existence. Because once you point out that taxpayers are paying to subsidize Ex-Im’s patrons — Wall Street banks, foreign state-owned companies and giant U.S. corporations like Boeing and General Electric — the agency becomes difficult to defend.
It’s Robin Hood in reverse.
There are plenty of other holes in Ex-Im's claims to profitability. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were profitable until they weren't -- then taxpayers bailed them out. If foreign airlines started running into trouble, Ex-Im would be exposed to a swath of failures.
http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/export-import-bank-costs-taxpayers-2-billion-a-decade/
and it seems the establishment politicians and lobbyist make a tidy "profit" off of their clients..
and they pay well.. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000100