The charter of the US Export-Import Bank is set to expire on June 30 unless it is reauthorized by Congress. Scare tactics aside, the end of Ex-Im would not mean the loss of thousands of American jobs. Economists have long understood that subsidies doled out by government credit agencies such as the Ex-Im Bank are not merely unnecessary: they can actually harm the economy. In their quest to keep the subsidies flowing, proponents of the bank are claiming that failure to reauthorize its charter would lead to massive job losses. This blatant fearmongering has succeeded in causing concern among some lawmakers.
The cause of last week’s tragic crash of Amtrak train 188 in Philadelphia remains unknown. Some policymakers and pundits immediately pinned the blame on a lack of federal funding for the government-owned and -managed passenger rail operator. This week’s chart shows the annual amount of federal operating and capital funding that Amtrak has received since it was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, including a generous allocation in 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The existence of a CON program is detrimental to the welfare of the residents of the state, regardless of the number of restrictions. Even for states with only a few restrictions, Stratmann and Russ find that the presence of a CON program in a state is associated with fewer hospital beds, Computed Tomography (CT) scanners, and MRI machines.
Using the bank’s own data, the chart shows that, of the total amount of financing authorized by the Ex-Im Bank from FY 2007 to FY 2014, only 23 percent benefitted small businesses. Minority-owned and women-owned firms received a paltry 2 percent and 1 percent, respectively. While government programs should operate on the principle that everyone is “equal under the law,” it would seem that this principle does not apply to the Ex-Im Bank’s export subsidies.
The chart this week shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the debt-service ratio of household consumer debt has not risen over time. In fact the debt-service ratio is actually lower today than in 1980.
This weeks’ charts use data from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) FY 2014 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance report to display the agency share, type, and number of reported federal information security incidents for FY 2014 and over time.
In spite of their complaints about federal overreach, state policymakers are addicted to handouts from Washington because it allows them to spend “free” money instead of asking their constituents to come up with funds via higher taxes. Unfortunately, federal money is not “free,” and the consequence of the federal government’s funding what are properly state and local responsibilities is excessive growth of government at all levels.
This week’s chart uses data from federal websites and budget documents to display the federal offices whose missions are directly dedicated to cybersecurity monitoring, provision, and preparedness. Information in a 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, “Cybersecurity: National Strategy, Roles, and Responsibilities Need to Be Better Defined and More Effectively Implemented,” provided the names of several agencies and high offices tasked with coordinating both internal federal cybersecurity and public-private coordination.
This week’s chart shows total funding for the Department of Defense from fiscal year 1948 to fiscal year 2015 in inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars. Funding for the OCO account, first delineated following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is separated out.
This essay examines the sources and the scope of federalism’s failures. It provides a trenchant, constitutionally grounded analysis with profound implications for a range of current policy debates. Federalism’s restoration requires not merely rebalancing the federal-state relationship through decentralization. Rather, we must restore the structure of federalism to competitive federalism—which encourages states to compete to enhance freedom and economic growth—in response to the rise of cartel federalism, which squashes competition between the states and makes states dependent on the federal government.