A new month; a new federal fiscal year; a last-second approval of a federal budget; but still no movement on getting the Export-Import Bank back into business.
As for why you should care about this seemingly beyond-boring topic, please see the previous messages collected on this page. On what it all means, a few more installments from readers — plus this headline just now from the Dallas Morning News, about complaints from businesses in Texas to one of the GOP hardliners opposing the bank.
Now let’s hear from the readers.
It’s all about infrastructure. A reader who had heretofore been spared thoughts about ExIm now says it connects to bigger governance questions:
I join the ranks of your readers who know next to nothing about the Ex-im Bank. I didn't even know there was a controversy before your first post, and had no clue what it does or why.
But from what I've gleaned from these posts, the Ex-im bank sounds like it plays the same role as infrastructure, and the argument against it seems to be consistent with arguments against rebuilding our highways, railroads, power grids and telecommunications systems.
Any rational being alive before Reagan and the Roberts Court would have understood that the government had a role in creating a viable structure within which commerce could function. (cf. Constitution Article 1 §8 "The Congress shall have the power to...provide for the...general welfare of the United states... to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...")