The Court Case That Proves Boeing Doesn't Need Export Subsidies (excerpt)
(Source: The Washington Examiner; posted November 12, 2019)
By Timothy P. Carney
Actions often reveal more than words. But as far as words go, those written for a federal judge are often more telling than those peddled in lobbyists' talking points.

Boeing, the aircraft giant, is lobbying this week to extend and expand the Export-Import Bank of the United States, a federal agency that subsidizes Boeing’s foreign customers along with other overseas purchasers of U.S. goods. Boeing’s lobbyists and executives say the company needs the Ex-Im Bank's financing to compete overseas.

But Boeing’s actions tell a different story. In recent years, when conservatives blocked the Ex-Im Bank’s ability to finance aircraft exports with taxpayer backing, Boeing went out and assembled a consortium of financiers to provide private-sector financing for aircraft.

This consortium is now a matter of legal dispute. A would-be competitor to this consortium is suing, arguing that Boeing stole its idea. The filings in this case, on all sides, provide us with an honest assessment of the whole industry, and they make a great case for why Congress should end federal subsidies for Boeing exports.

Xavian Insurance v. Boeing Capital lays bare the workings of aircraft financing and makes very plain a fact that Boeing and most members of Congress have never admitted in public: U.S. government subsidies for Boeing exports distort the market and crowd out private financing that would be abundant if Uncle Sam just got out of the way.

What's more, Boeing knows this to be true. (end of excerpt)

Click here for the full story, on the Washington Examiner website.


prev next

Official reports See all