Ukraine Aid Bill Doubles U.S. Funding of IMF . . . and Weakens U.S. Influence
The U.S. Senate this week moved forward with S. 2124, the “Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014.” As the name suggests, S. 2124 is an aid package for embattled Ukraine that includes measures legislating loan guarantees, sanctions, security assistance. But that’s not the whole story.
S. 2124 also contains some significant changes in the U.S. relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Under the misnomer “reform” the changes were first announced in 2010 by the IMF, but until now, Congress has declined to enact the modifications that the Obama Administration supports. The so-called reforms call for a doubling of our annual funding quota along with a major change in the rules for election of the IMF executive board.
Less Accountability to Americans
Currently, the U.S. appoints our own representative to the executive board (the group tasked with day to day IMF decisions). Under the 2010 proposal, all members of the executive board would be elected by the Board of Governors, which is comprised of representatives of each IMF member country, making it harder for the U.S. to protect our interests. Having a U.S. representative at the table is an important accountability tool for American taxpayers who provide the majority of IMF’s funds, $64.5 billion annually.
The U.S. also contributes the lion’s share of funds to an IMF account called the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). So far, taxpayers have committed $106 billion (18.7 percent of total NAB) to what was supposed to be a temporary, emergency program. Under the proposed 2010 plan, that would be half-true. NAB is going away, but the high price tag is here to stay -- shifted back under our overall IMF quota and putting taxpayers on the hook for an additional $63 billion a year. In addition, subsuming NAB funds into the general quota eliminates our veto on crucial IMF decisions
Little Discussion of Changes
For taxpayers, the IMF reforms mean a lot more money for a lot less influence in how that money is spent. Any way you split it, that’s a terrible deal. Unfortunately, with the focus on Ukraine, the IMF changes aren’t getting the consideration they warrant.
Before agreeing to give billions more to the IMF, lawmakers should be mindful of some big picture concerns. For instance, the IMF suffers from severe democratic deficiency, not unlike the U.N. and other global entities the U.S. is involved with. Without the ability to vote on IMF decisions, taxpayers and U.S. lawmakers alike have little influence on IMF decisions.
Funding for Hostile, Reckless Regimes
Taxpayers should have a say if their funds are to be used to bail out sovereign states such as Greece and Ireland. As it stands, the hundreds of billions of dollars taxpayers have entrusted to the IMF over the years have funded Communist regimes, contributed to fiscal irresponsibility, and increased moral hazard. By doling out credit at rock-bottom prices, the IMF provides little incentive to recipient countries for the reforms they need to avoid economic catastrophe.
Then there is our own national balance sheet with a debt to GDP ratio of 73 percent and on track to hit 100 percent in the next 25 years unless Congress takes action to address out of control entitlement spending and enacts pro-growth policies. In light of our ongoing economic challenges and poor fiscal outlook, lawmakers should prioritize funding domestic needs.
Finally, it’s unnecessary to logroll IMF reform with Ukrainian aid. With an estimated $400 billion available, the IMF doesn’t need a new injection of taxpayer-backed dollars to meet global needs and commitments. Our relationship with the IMF is one that deserves reexamination and the close scrutiny of stand-alone legislation debated on its own merit.
Nan Swift (email@example.com) is federal government affairs manager at the National Taxpayers Union. Used with permission of NTU’s GovernmentBytes blog.