Ex-Im bank, part 2

Listening to the liberal Diane Rahms (sp?) show on NPR this morning.  Long talk about the Ex Im bank.  They chatted on and on.  Not once did anyone say how much running Ex-Im cost us taxpayers.  General agreement that Ex-Im helped US industry.  All the lefties on the panel decried Ex-Im because it helped companies, they feel companies should be burned to the ground rather than helped.  Trouble with that sentiment is that most of us make our living working for companies.  What's good for our company is good for us. 
   The real issue, as I said last week, is the cost to taxpayers.  If Ex-Im makes a profit, or doesn't use much taxpayer money, it's a good thing.  If it is swallowing billions of tax payer dollars it's a bad thing.
  One number did come out.  Ex-Im finances $30 billion worth of exports a year.  For that, I would fund Ex-Im with perhaps $30 million a year and call it a good deal for the country.  A thousand fold return on investment isn't bad business. 
  Does anybody know what Ex-Im really costs us to run?

So sue me.

Trouble is, they want to sue Obama over something that I (and many others) approve of, namely delaying the evil day of employer mandates.  Far as I am concerned, we ought to scrap employer mandates entirely.  Delaying them for a year or two isn't as good, but it isn't a bad thing.
   Obama's methods, pure executive orders, are not kosher, no doubt about it.  But, do we really want to bet the government on a matter of process?  What he did has broad support.  How he did it has broad disapproval.  But do we want to make a last ditch stand over methods (how he did it) rather than substance (what he did)? 
   Most of the unkosher things he has done amount to easing a little of the pain of Obamacare, implementing the Dream Act by executive order after Congress voted it down, sicking the IRS on the Tea Party, Fast & Furious, and Solyndra.  The first two have a lot of support.  The last three, not so much. 
   Thomas Sowell, writing in the Union Leader editorial page today, suggests that suing Obama (or impeaching him) will merely distract the easily distracted newsies from covering the Obama administration's real problems (Iraq, Israel, the economy, the deficit, unemployment, Ukraine, China, etc, etc).

Shepherd Smith never took chemistry

Good ole Shep is reporting on the kid that claims the nickel in his IPod/IPad causes his allergy.  Listening to Shep it is pretty clear that Shep doesn't know what nickel is, the difference between compounds and elements, or even what an element is. Pretty serious ignorance in a newsie.  Looks like he skated thru high school and college and never had a single course in chemistry.
  I like Shep, he is witty.  But you gotta watch out for a guy that is that ignorant.

Ukraine tries to suppress separatist rebels.

Nice article in the Economist.  There is a photograph at the top of the article, showing a senior officer, in uniform, addressing his troops.  The senior (let's guess he is a colonel) is wearing nice new American style digital cammies, desert tan combat boots and no hat.  Which is against Anglo American military custom.  You are supposed to wear a hat out of doors, in uniform.  His troops are standing in line, at attention, and to a first glance seem well equipped.  Look a little harder, all except one man are wearing combat boots.  The man in the middle is wearing Adidas running shoes, with the white stripes.  Half the combat boots are the desert tan and the other half black leather.  The men in the front rank (except for one) are wearing hats, but every man is wearing a different hat.   The men all carry their rifles American style, clipped to web gear on their fronts, muzzle down.  Of the front rank of eight men, I see three different styles of rifle. 
   These guys might have a chance against separatist rebels, but I think Russian regular troops could eat them alive. 

How secure is secure?

Next time someone says "We must secure the border", ask 'em what they mean.  You can't just say "Secure means  nobody gets thru."  That won't happen, there are always leaks.  Let talk real world. 
In the real world we can put up a standard, commercial chain link fence,  8-10 feet high, three strands of barbed wire on top.  For extra  security we can set it on concrete to make it harder to dig underneath. 
For such a fence to do much good, you have to patrol it, and pursue those who climb it or break it.  It will keep out horses, mules, motorcycles, and passenger cars.  With a truck, you can push it over, and the young and athletic can climb it. 
Next step up is a wall like the Berlin wall, or what the Israelis have put up to keep Arab terrorists out.  That will stop nearly anything.  Looks really ugly, but effective.
Then to be serious about it, you have to inspect all motor vehicles and rail cars as they cross the border.  Make drivers open their trunks, look inside trucks.  That will slow border traffic, a lot. 
   Ask 'em which option they want, and will pay for. 

Collision Warning System for RAF fighters.

No electronic counter measures, no ejection seats,  but collision warning is seen as the needed safety improvement on RAF Tornado fighters.  The safety people (Military Aviation Authority) are bashing the Ministry of Defense for stalling the installation of collision warning systems on the aging Tornado fleet.  RAF kicked this off with a dreadful mid air collision between two Tornadoes in 2011.  Three of the four air crew were killed, the one survivor cannot remember the accident.  The accident occurred at 900 feet altitude over the Moray Firth. 
   Surprising statistic comes out.  RAF has lost 42 aircraft to mid air collisions between 1979 and 2001.  That's like two a year.  In six years in USAF I don't remember a single mid air collision.  We lost aircraft, landing accidents, enemy action, mechanical failure, head up and locked, and others.  I don't remember a single mid air collision story. 
   The collision warning system being pushed is a "co operative" system.  It only works if both aircraft have the equipment.  If the other guy doesn't have the gear, your warning system won't warn against him.  RAF is planning to equip all the Tornado fighters, even though they are scheduled for retirement in five years.  Which seems odd.  I would think a Tornado's chances of hitting a civilian aircraft as much higher than it's odds of hitting another RAF aircraft, on the thinking that there are more civilian aircraft in the air than jet fighters.

So what is the real deal on Ex-Im bank?

Export Import bank was set up in the 1930's.  It provides low cost loans to finance American exports.  Boeing is the biggest user and Caterpillar is number two.  On the face of it, assisting US companies exporting stuff seems OK.  The companies employ people, more sales is good, and what's wrong with that?
   The un answered question is where does the Ex-Im money come from?  Is it just my tax money going to Boeing?  Or does the bank make enough on the loans to show a profit?  I have not seen anything in the media about just how well or how badly Ex-Im is doing.  At a guess, Ex-Im borrows money from the US treasury at the T-bill rate (very low, 3%) and loans it at close to the commercial rate (6%).  With a margin like that, they ought to make money, unless they make a bunch of loans that go bad.  Bad, means the borrower goes bankrupt and never pays off. 
   We need a public audit of Ex-Im to make an intelligent choice.  If Ex-Im makes enough to pay the staff and the rent, and doesn't get tax payer subsidies, and doesn't commit the taxpayer to paying off it's liabilities, and it makes export sales happen, it's OK.  Sales are a good thing.
   If Ex-Im looses money, gets subsidized by the taxpayer, and commits the US to bailing out the entire world, it's not OK.  Kill it.
   We need to know what's really happening, and we don't.  You cannot make good decisions unless you know the facts.  We don't know the facts.  Thanks newsies.