May 22, 2012 8:39AM

PPI Considers Ex‐​Im Debate ‘Senseless’

What is the proper role of government in a free society? That is not an unreasonable question to debate in the public square – and to revisit with great frequency. Our era of $4 trillion federal budgets, debt‐​to‐​GDP ratios above 100 percent, and policymakers betting big on particular industries – even particular firms (check the WH visitor’s log) – renders that question all the more urgent.

Apparently, the Progressive Policy Institute disagrees. Last week, PPI’s managing director for policy and strategy condescendingly characterized the “protracted battle over the reauthorization of the Export‐​Import Bank” as “senseless,” as though the serious questions raised about Ex‐​Im’s operations, raison d’etre, costs, and externalities were simply unworthy. 

But on what grounds is it senseless to ask Ex‐​Im apologists to explain why that boondoggle is not corporate welfare that puts taxpayers and “unchosen” businesses at risk? Why is it senseless to force a debate on the merits of earmarking $140 billion for the benefit of a select few companies, when in the “mother of all budget battles” that transpired last year, only $38 billion was cut? Why is it not appropriate to raise questions about the sustainability of a subsidy race that effectively outsources U.S. policy to Beijing or Brussels?

Debate is illuminating. It can be reinforcing and it can raise fresh doubts. And it is essential to the eternal vigilance we must exercise to protect our liberties. Unfortunately, at least one scholar at PPI is so convinced that the questions raised in the debate over Ex‐​Im are so irrelevant that she recommends a much longer reauthorization period (5, 10, or 15 years) to avoid debate in the future. 

Progressives tend to have an abiding faith in the goodness of government, but this proposal would make a dictator blush.