| 摘要 | If you are wearing a tie, there’s a good chance it was made in China. The factory where that tie was made was probably subsidized by the Chinese government. But here’s what you probably never guessed: That subsidized Chinese factory may have been subsidized by you, the U.S. taxpayer.
And for that, thank the Export-Import Bank of the United States, a federal agency whose single biggest recipient is the communist-run government of China.
Congress this fall has a chance to end U.S. subsidies to China’s crony capitalists, but some Democrats don’t like that idea.
Ex-Im subsidizes U.S. exports through loans and loan guarantees to foreign buyers of U.S. goods. The top recipient of Ex-Im financing is the Chinese government, through state-owned banks, manufacturers, airlines, and other state-owned companies.
Air China received more Ex-Im financing than any other company in the world in the agency’s last year of full functioning, according to a study by Veronique de Rugy at the Mercatus Center. The other top recipients included Mexico’s state-owned oil company, China Southern Airlines, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and Vnesheconombank — the development arm of the Russian government, which has since been slapped with sanctions for complicity in Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine.
China is the top destination of U.S. Ex-Im financing, and an overwhelming majority of that money goes to state-owned enterprises.
For instance, the largest bank in the world, by some measures, is the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. It is owned by the government of China, and thus operated by the Communist Party. Its purpose to advance China’s industrial policy, and thus China’s global designs. The U.S. government regularly subsidizes ICBC through Ex-Im.
In 2014, ICBC’s aircraft leasing arm bought Boeing jets, and Ex-Im extended them a $300 million loan guarantee. In 2011, Ex-Im loaned $75.8 million directly to the same division of ICBC so that it could buy corporate jets. Obviously ICBC doesn’t need U.S. subsidies to buy some airplanes, but the subsidies make it cheaper. So U.S. taxpayers are simply helping the Chinese do their industrial policy on the cheap.
Repeatedly in recent years, our Export-Import Bank has subsidized China’s Export-Import Bank. For instance, in May 2015, as the U.S. agency was fighting for its life against a Tea Party effort to kill it, Ex-Im guaranteed a $23.2 million loan to the Export-Import Bank of China. The loan was made by China’s Ministry of Finance. Why did we guarantee a Chinese government loan to a Chinese state-owned bank? Because a company in Tennessee was selling factory equipment to China.
That’s right: China’s treasury was lending money to China’s own Export-Import Bank to help the Chinese build a textile factory, and so our Export-Import Bank was guaranteeing the loan.
Subsidizing China’s subsidization of Chinese clothes factories is not some misstep by Ex-Im. It lies at the heart of the agency’s mission. In its last full fiscal year, Ex-Im dedicated about $2 billion in financing to China, more than to any other country. About three-fourths of that went to state-owned companies.
Ex-Im has subsidized the state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation, a known nuclear weapons proliferator.
This is all in the name of promoting U.S. exports, but sometimes the “U.S. exporter” is itself a Chinese state-owned company. In one 2002 deal, China’s state-owned oil company Sinopec was exporting “project management, engineering, and construction services” to China National Offshore Oil Corporation, another state-owned company, and a Chinese bank was financing it all. Because the exporter of those services was a U.S.-based arm of Sinopec, U.S. Ex-Im guaranteed $200 million of the financing.
Ex-Im clearly doesn’t promote U.S. interests, and it clearly doesn’t combat China’s industrial policy. It subsidizes China’s industrial policy. That’s not helpful to U.S. interests.
Ex-Im should be abolished. But the banks who love taxpayer guarantees and the U.S. exporters who love the export subsidies have too strong of a grip on both parties.
Ex-Im looks likely to be reauthorized this year. But during the debate over Ex-Im, some Democratic congressman are fighting tooth and nail specifically to save subsidies to China’s government. Washington Democrat Denny Heck, who represents Boeing, has made it clear he opposes any provision that could curb Ex-Im subsidies to China’s state-owned airlines. Democrat Brad Sherman of California said that “If China wants to have government-owned utilities, I hope they buy American turbines.”
Yes, some Democrats value subsidizing their corporate allies enough that they’re willing to prop up China’s industrial policy in order to do it. Republicans should have more self-respect than that. Subsidizing the Communist-run government of China does not make America great. |
