BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. President, the American economy is the envy of the world, primarily because it is still seen as a place where anyone--regardless of who you are or where you come from--can work hard, play by the rules, and succeed. That belief is predicated on the notion that America has a thriving, competitive, and free enterprise economy in which the best ideas and hardest workers win the day, while those who are less successful always have a fair chance to try again.
The free enterprise system is not perfect, by any means, but it is fair. Unfortunately today, Americans increasingly believe our system is rigged. In President Obama's America, they have good reason. From the stimulus to Cash for Clunkers, from the bailouts to cap-and-trade, from Dodd-Frank to ObamaCare, every namebrand initiative of the President's term of office has distorted public policy to privilege well-connected insiders and elites at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.
The Export-Import Bank is another taxpayer-funded example of distorted public policy that further erodes Americans' confidence in our markets and our system. In short, the Ex-Im Bank exists to dole out taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to help American exporters. Most of the benefits go to large corporations that are perfectly capable of securing private financing anywhere in the world. That is to say, Congress allows Ex-Im Bank to risk taxpayer money unnecessarily to subsidize well-connected private companies.
This kind of public policy privilege, best described as crony capitalism, is a threat to the free market and to its moral underpinnings. Crony capitalism corrupts the free market by rewarding political connections over competitive excellence. It subverts the rule of law by codifying inequality. It undermines social solidarity by pitting citizens against one another, twisting cooperative communities into rival special interests.
That is why in Obama's crony economy, we are seeing record corporate profits but stagnant middle-class wages and an anemic, jobless recovery. Cronyism has promoted and exacerbated inequality. It has isolated the poor and it has squeezed America's middle class.
There are three principal reasons why we should start making this discussion part of the public debate and why we should start doing it right now: First, we should do this to fix the economy. Nearly all of our Nation's net job creation comes from firms that have existed for 5 years or less. But cronyist policies tilt the playing field against those very firms, and make it next to impossible for those companies to succeed, to grow, and to create new jobs that we so badly need, and that the American people so significantly deserve. Leveling the playing field creates competition in both directions. It allows smaller, younger firms to compete, and it forces larger, older firms to do the same. That dynamic competition is what creates new jobs. It is what creates new economic growth. It is what gives rise to new opportunities up and down the economy on every step on the economic ladder.
Second, this is a matter of basic justice. The American people have a fundamental right to equal opportunity under the law, and it is the job of the government to protect equal opportunity. If the very people who work hard and play by the rules are forced by government to bail out, prop up, and subsidize elite insiders who do not, then the land of opportunity, well, is not.
Third, as those who most support free enterprise and equal opportunity, Republicans must bear the burden of reform. We believe in the power of free markets and a voluntary civil society to expand, lift people out of poverty, and support a secure and prosperous middle class. So it is our responsibility to follow through on our own convictions and close our own branch of the beltway favor bank. It starts with conservatives having an agenda to reform government and to end cronyism. Fortunately, some of us have already started working on it.
These proposals focus on protecting the American people from the economic harm that comes from the collusion of big government, big business, and big special interests.
For example, we have policy reforms that force Congress to periodically reevaluate expensive regulations; level the playing field for all energy producers; open our higher education system to new students, teachers, and competition; give Americans the right to choose whether to join a union; cut out the bureaucrats who waste critical infrastructure funding; and, yes, eliminate taxpayer subsidies to organizations such as the Ex-Im Bank.
This agenda will create jobs, grow the economy, increase opportunities by allowing small businesses and forcing big businesses to compete on a level playing field where success depends on customer service and not on political connections. A conservative agenda to get right on cronyism will be good for jobs, for the economy, and above all it will be the right thing to do.
Eventually, later this year, the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank will be before the Senate, and I hope my colleagues will keep these points in mind. But before us today is the nomination of Wanda Felton to be First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank. This is a position she already holds, but it is being renominated so that she can continue holding that position.
Ms. Felton, significantly, sat on the board of the Ex-Im Bank, and she did so at a time when the Ex-Im Bank declined to take several recommendations from its own inspector general to lower its risks, which, in turn, put taxpayers at greater risk.
The Ex-Im Bank has also continued to make claims about the importance of Ex-Im on job creation without necessary caveats or references to the bank's methodology--claims the GAO has heavily criticized.
I cannot support putting someone back into this position after that person largely ignored these recommendations by government watchdogs.
For all the reasons I have mentioned, I respectfully and strongly ask my colleagues to oppose the renomination of Wanda Felton to be the First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT