Once there was a time… when we knew what it meant to be a Democrat. I remember it. It was the party of the working and middle classes, not another party of Big Business and Wall Street. I can't pinpoint the exact change but one inflection point was when George H.W. Bush was unable to pass NAFTA and Bill Clinton went to Wall Street and said he could do it for them-- the political birth of Rahm Emanuel… and the beginning of a downward spiral for Democrats.Friday, David Sirota pointed out that there was a time when the Export-Import Bank was supported by Republicans and opposed by most Democrats. We came to similar conclusions here at DWT last month by where we mostly castigated corrupt Republicans, he has an equally bad set of villains. He suggests that following the money-- i.e., the corruption in the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- will explain the shift. He begins with Bernie Sanders' failed 2002 amendment to reform the Export-Import Bank, supported by 111 Democrats but only 22 libertarian-leaning Republicans. Sanders correctly explained how what was once a good idea had morphed into "one of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare."
The first lesson may be the most jarring because American politics is typically portrayed as a principled battle between two ideologically divided parties. But as the Export-Import Bank debate proves, money often trumps those purported principles to the point that parties will suddenly trade ideologies based on their perception of short-term interests.In this case, the Republicans see an opportunity to humiliate Obama, and so they are momentarily ignoring their business benefactors who benefit from taxpayer subsidies. Meanwhile, Democrats are dropping their populist platitudes in favor of a chance to attract fundraising support from GOP-leaning business interests. As New York’s Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer told National Journal about his efforts to use the Export-Import debate to court cash from the Chamber of Commerce: “I’ve said this to [chamber President] Tom Donohue and others: In many ways mainstream Democrats are closer to you than many Republicans.”But, then, as dizzying as all these opportunistic partisan shifts may be, what hasn’t yet changed is the power dynamic. If in fact the Export-Import Bank debate ends up with the same results as years past (read: no reform), then it will be a reminder that the corporate lobby still calls the shots in a principle-free legislative arena.It will be a reminder, in other words, that Big Business is still able to shape party politics to make sure its permanent interests remain Washington’s permanent interests-- regardless of what is the best policy for the country as a whole.
Corporate shills on both sides of the aisle-- Democrats like Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Jim Himes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, all the sleazy, corrupt New Dems and Blue Dogs plus the Chamber of Commerce Republicans are hoping progressives and libertarians can't cobble together a coalition with teabbaggers to derail this. This week, The Hill covered the bipartisan corporate push led in the Senate by Big Coal puppet Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Chamber of Commerce whore Mark Kirk (R-IL). Their 5-year reauthorization increases the bank's credit exposure limit from the current $140 billion to $160 billion and-- thanks to Manchin-- reverses restrictions that Ex-Im officials passed in December preventing the bank from financing overseas power plants that won't adopt greener technology. Progressives are opposed because the proposal exacerbates Global Warming and because it is pure crony capitalism, granting all kinds of rotten loans on projects American taxpayers are not in favor of funding, particularly ones that ship U.S. jobs overseas. Big very profitable companies-- with executives who pay out massive bribes to politicians in the form of campaign contributions-- like Boeing and big energy companies, get the bulk of the benefits. It really is primarily a Big Business subsidy fund with corrupt politicians getting a cut in the form of kickbacks. The bank invests in coal mining projects all over the world, including environmentally sensitive sites like the Great Barrier Reef and they routinely invest in companies with terrible employment and civil rights practices, including in government-sponsored companies where the governments benefitting are terrible human rights violators. I asked Alan Grayson why he was opposed to the Manchin/Kirk proposal and he said "The Export-Import Bank subsidizes foreigners who buy American products. Why don’t we take exactly the same money, and use it to subsidize Americans who buy American products?"