No, their accounting practices are not “deficient.” There’s a literal difference in accounting practices at work here, both of which are valid.

Ex-Im uses an accounting method called Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA) accounting, which factors in raw numbers. The Ex-Im claims it generates a surplus for the government because it literally does – this is because the fees and interest paid by foreign buyers (and their lenders) often exceed the cost of providing the financial support.

The Congressional Budget Office uses a method called Fair-Value Accounting, which factors in the risks taxpayers take by backing Ex-Im loans and guarantees. In short, if the considered risks were to actually happen, the Ex-Im’s activities could result in a cost of $2 billion to taxpayers. For de Rugy to claim outright that one method is correct and the other is deficient is disingenuous and misleading. The debate isn’t about who is right, the debate is about whether or not one should account for the full-market risk that taxpayers are exposed to. It’s kind of a glass-half-full v. glass-half-empty scenario.

Full contextual analysis of Section 4.3: Export-Import Bank here.