More On "Bucks For Brazil"

First it was a spokesperson for the Export-Import Bank of the U.S to try to deflect attention away from the fact that no one in the Obama Administration had given a satisfactory answer to Sarah Palin's question:

"So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil...?

That tactic having failed, Fred Hochberg, the bank's president and CEO, had his letter to the editor appear in the Thursday edition of The Wall Street Journal:

"The mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that."

"That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that American—not foreign—workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years."

[...]

"Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress."

We think that Mr. Hochberg's language here was carefully constructed. Notice that he says "increases the likelihood" that U.S. workers will be hired by Petrobras. There is no guarantee that the state-owned Brazilian oil company will employ Americans.

Another thing about the Hochberg letter's language that we find interesting is in his claim that the bank is self-sustaining, therefore "does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress." Yet it is entirely possible for Ex-Im Bank to use taxpayer money without needing to get Congress to appropriate the funds. According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law (link):

"The bank is authorized to have outstanding at any one time dollar loans, guarantees, and insurance in an aggregate amount not to exceed $75 billion. The bank is also authorized to have a capital stock of $1 billion and may borrow from the U.S. Treasury up to $6 billion outstanding at any one time. Subsidy costs of the bank's programs are appropriated on an annual basis."

Correct us if we're wrong here, but that money in the federal treasury that Ex-Im can tap came from the American taxpayers, the government not having any real money of its own.

If the bank "does not rely on taxpayer money" -- as spokesman Cogan told Politico -- then someone needs to inform Bernie (emphasis ours):

"The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs."

[...]

"... your Ex-Im taxpayer dollars at work..."

[...]

"Since 1994 the Ex-Im Bank has provided $673 million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to the Enron Corporation, leaving taxpayers exposed to $514 million."

[...]

"American citizens have better things to do with their money than support an agency that provides welfare for corporations that couldn't care less about American workers."

We're sure that Bernie Sanders never dreamed that his op-ed would be used to vindicate a Reagan conservative such as Sarah Palin. The Vermonter is hardly a right-winger. In fact, he's rather proud to be a socialist. And The Nation, the leftist magazine in which his opinion piece appeared in 2002, is one of the former Alaska governor's harshest critics. But the fact remains that at least one sitting United States Senator is under the impression that the Ex-IM Bank uses taxpayer money.

Finally, we have to point out that Sarah Palin's question is still deserving of an answer. This is not Mr. Hochberg's fault. As he said in his letter, neither he nor anyone else working for the bank makes policy. The policy which called upon Ex-Im to make the loan was made by the Obama administration. As we said in our earlier post, the president or someone who is authorized to speak for him needs to answer the lady's question.

Related: American Thinker's Michael Lisle has more on the Soros connection here.

Update: Watchdog Politics Examiner Martha Gore: "Answer the question"

- JP