After looking at it, the general has given it very little thought as many of the policy proposals are unserious in nature – at best. Privatizing NOAA is not something that the Congressman is in support of nor will he ever be.
See this page in the PDF
The Export-Import Bank Should Be Abolished
Competitiveness Reports include a table that ranks countries by ECA financing volume. An adjacent map displays the most “competitive” ECAs around the world, implying that the U.S., which ranked eighth in terms of volume in 2019 (the year before the pandemic), is losing ground compared to more “hyperactive” (ranked higher) ECAs.”! The implication is that ECA export financing improves the overall health of the export market and thereby fuels economic and job growth—which it does not do.
• Consider Italy’s hyperactive ECA. In 2019, Italy was ranked first among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in terms of volume and was highlighted in the report as an example for other countries to follow. Yet the Italian ECA’s hyperactivity appears to have had little impact on that country’s economic growth or employment.
• Germany was the second-highest ranked OECD country on this list in 2019. While Germany had respectable economic growth at the time of the report, only 0.7 percent of its exports were backed by ECA financing. These data provide little support for the argument that Germany’s strong economic performance has much, if anything, to do with the German ECA.
• China by all accounts had a hyperactive ECA: It ranked first on the list in 2019. ECA-backed exports in China represented 2.1 percent of exports backed by government financing. Whatever one perceives as China’s economic successes, it is hard to argue that the main driver of China’s exports is its ECA.
• The report highlights the eighth-ranked U.S. for its unusually low level of EXIM-backed exports. At the time of the report, the U.S. economy was thriving, wages and employment were up, and the country still had flourishing trade—but it was also striving when EXIM was mostly dormant. In other words, one cannot argue that the bustling economy was the result of EXIM support.
Even in countries touted as leaders in relying on ECA financing, ECA-backed exports are never more than 4.7 percent of total exports. Moreover, even that is an outlier. For 23 of the 28 countries on this list Gncluding both China and the U.S.), the share of exports backed by ECA financing is less than 2 percent. This fact suggests that—contrary to the claims of EXIM’s advocates—ECA financing is irrelevant to the overall health of the export market as well as to economic growth. This is consistent with what economists know about the impact of subsidies on economic growth.