Another debt-ceiling battle is brewing in Congress, but this one may be too obscure to grab much attention. The decision on whether to allow the Export-Import Bank of the United States to increase its lending cap ought to get more scrutiny as an example of the unintended consequences of government-backed intervention in the economy.

A policy of encouraging exports, and even of using taxpayer resources to build a stronger export economy, is a worthwhile endeavor. Michigan exports were up 25 percent last year, with the state's manufacturing base accounting for most of the gain.

The Ex-Im Bank is charged with helping American businesses develop customers in foreign markets primarily by guaranteeing loans for purchases.

Since the loans are backed by the federal Treasury, Congress must authorize the bank's charter, which is up for renewal in a House vote expected this month. The House is also considering raising its lending cap to $160 million from $100 million.

The bank is coming off a record setting year, having issued $32 billion in new loans, a one-third increase over 2010 and nearly triple the amount of lending in 2007.

As the bank's chairman and president, Fred Hochberg, told the Detroit Economic Club Tuesday, that lending went to help American businesses, including many in Michigan, open new overseas markets for their goods.

Hochberg also announced Monday the opening of a satellite office in Detroit.

Unlike, say, the Energy Department, the Ex-Im bank has an excellent risk record, losing just 1.5 percent of its loans to default, and requires no taxpayer funds.

But nearly half of the Ex-Im loan guarantees went to foreign customers of Boeing to help them buy aircraft from the U.S. manufacturer, and that's the source of considerable controversy.

Some of those loans go to small regional carriers that buy smaller aircraft to service local routes. No problem there.

But loan guarantees also go to back the purchase of wide body aircraft used by foreign airlines that compete directly with U.S. carriers on transcontinental routes.

That's troublesome and merits more discussion of how to mitigate the impact.

Delta Airlines, the largest carrier at Detroit Metro, contends the Ex-Im loans give its foreign competitors a capital advantage of $5 million per aircraft on competitive routes, and that often closes markets to U.S. airlines.

For example, when Delta opened a route from New York to Mumbai in 2007, it set the fare at $1,200. A year later, Air India, operating with aircraft purchased with subsidized Ex-Im bank loans, set the fare at $800, forcing Delta to drop the route.

Competition is always healthy, but it should also always be fair.

The bank's authorizing act requires that loans be examined for their impact on U.S. companies and employment. Clearly, the loans to some Boeing customers negatively impact domestic businesses.

Hochberg counters that if his bank didn't back the loans, Boeing's customers would instead turn to France's Air Bus for their aircraft, retaining the advantage of subsidized loans but costing jobs in the U.S.

It's a tough balancing act. The ideal solution would be to keep pressing the European Union to end subsidies for wide-body aircraft purchases and allow the private credit markets to work. So far, the EU has refused to back off the Air Bus subsidies.

Exports are critical to the U.S. economy. Government efforts to encourage them are welcome, as long as they don't play favorites in the marketplace.

REPRINTED FROM THE DETROIT NEWS