Hillary’s economic address revealed a policy of old rehashed Democrat strategies that are responsible for us being mired in a no growth economy.
She is for wealth redistribution and higher taxes. Have you ever heard of a Democrat that didn’t want to increase taxes no matter how high they already are? (JFK).
Add to that mammoth increases in the minimum wage that will put millions of people out of work, new overtime rules, more federal regulations, equal pay for women and billions for infrastructure improvements (wasn’t Obama supposed to do that?).
She also endorsed Crony Capitalism where federal subsidies pick winners and losers in the business field.
After months of discussion with 200 economic advisers, Clinton’s plan had all the markings of a political document aimed at women, the middle-class, minorities, labor unions and other parts of the electorate that form the base of the Democratic Party.
Her speech was filled with political lines about “upward mobility,” “equal opportunity” and “trickle-down” attacks on Republicans, but it was far short on specifics about how to create more jobs, boost incomes and economic growth. – Donald Lambro
In her economic-policy speech on Monday — more of an economic-mood speech, really, being very much on the fluffy side — Mrs. Clinton dug deep into the turn-of-the-century catalog of political clichés. She dishonestly attributed to Republicans a belief in “trickle-down” economics not held by any economic thinker of any consequence; she indulged in discredited wishful thinking about the role of unionization; she leaned upon lies about the mythical pay gap between the sexes; she called for big-ticket infrastructure spending as though the nation hadn’t recently tried that with Barack Obama’s failed stimulus program and its nonexistent bounty of “shovel-ready jobs”; she railed against “loopholes,” with “loopholes” here acting as a synonym for “the federal tax code.”
Consider her views on the tax code, and the so-called loopholes that allow some high-income Americans to pay lower rates on investment income than middle-income taxpayers pay on their salaries. This isn’t the result of a “loophole,” but a result of the fact that Congresses and presidents of both parties have long held that a combination of factors (double taxation of corporate profits, the desirability of investment) argue for taxing some investment income at lower rates than wages or salary. Mrs. Clinton was around for this, though her memory seems to be spotty on such inconvenient issues: In 1993, President Clinton sought and secured a tax increase on wage and salary income, with the top rate going from 31 percent to 39.6 percent; a few years later, he signed into law a bill reducing the top rate on investment income from 28 percent to 20 percent; which is to say, under Clinton we went from taxing investment income at a few points less than wages to taxing it at half the rate of wages. Mrs. Clinton says that she intends to close such “loopholes.” She also said in her last presidential campaign that she would fight raising the capital-gains rate above 20 percent, and that she is skeptical of raising it at all; she then supported the Affordable Care Act, which added a surcharge raising the top rate above 20 percent. She gives the distinct impression of having only the weakest grasp of the policy in question.
But then she often is confused about her own mind. For example, she lambastes Jeb Bush for suggesting that one way to increase Americans’ incomes is for Americans to work more and at the same time complains that women’s work-force participation in the United States has declined relative to other countries — which is to say, she complains that Bush wants some Americans to work more and complains that some Americans don’t work more. As with her position on taxes, she does not seem quite to know what she’s talking about — and, worse, doesn’t seem to know that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
The staleness of Mrs. Clinton’s ideas is remarkable. The United States is, thanks in some part to the president Mrs. Clinton served, suffering from economic stagnation. Wage growth has not been strong. Mrs. Clinton’s answer to weak wage growth is . . . to pass a law mandating stronger wage growth, as though the economy were the junior-prom decorating committee, with its executives and institutions simply awaiting their orders from the president. This view is without justification, but it has been a long time since Mrs. Clinton had a serious interest in ideas. She briefly considers innovations in the Internet-powered “gig economy,” only to shrink immediately back into fear about “what a good job will look like in the future.” Instead of seriously considering the future or even the present, she’s reaching back to the Truman show: “Our party record of the past is assurance of its policies and performance in the future,” as the Democrats’ 1948 platform said. Put that promise on a mutual fund and you’ll go to jail.
Then you have a company like Uber come along, a free market approach to services, and Hillary and the rest of the Left go bonkers over its freedom and effect on “entitled workers.”
Charles W. Cooke explains how she commented on this as part of her economic policy:
It is a supreme irony of modern American life that the political movement that terms itself “progressive” is, in the economic realm at least, increasingly passionate about the status quo. Speaking today about the burgeoning “gig economy,” presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton could not help herself but to set modernity firmly within aging ideological tram-lines. Developments such as AirBnB, Zaarly, Uber, DogVacay, and RelayRides, Clinton conceded, are not likely to “go away” any time soon. But they are worrying nonetheless. Indeed, the “sharing economy,” she proposed, is “polarizing” and it is disruptive — guilty of no less than “displacing or downgrading blue-collar jobs.” Technological advances, she concluded, must not “determine our destiny.”
And who should “determine our destiny”? Why, Hillary Clinton of course!
In the eyes of us free-marketeers, the teams behind the host of new peer-to-peer services are no less than digital liberators. For us, the arrival of a system such as Uber is salutary, not scary: It is an end to waiting in the rain for a state-approved cab; it is the key to a transportation experience a cut above that which is provided by the cartels; it is the source of golden opportunities for those who wish to construct odd or custom-built work schedules or to make money without answering to a boss. That a few ingenious programmers have found a way around the artificial scarcity, state-union collusion, and high barriers to entry that The Man has seen fit to impose is, in our view, an extremely positive development. More of this, please.
But for Hillary Clinton? It is a death knell. Like Bill de Blasio before her, Clinton has seen the list of newly available iPhone apps, and she has grasped her own obsolescence.
Economically, the Clinton-Sanders-Warren-O’Malley project is stuck squarely in 1938. Theirs is a country in which tax rates can be set without reference to global competition; in which the taxi commission and the trade union are the heroes while the entrepreneurs and the dissenters are a royal pain in the ass; in which families can simply not be trusted to determine which services suit their needs and which do not. It’s a country in which our heinously outdated, grossly illiberal, neo-Prussian educational system is to be set more firmly in place — even as it crumbles and falls. It is a country in which the state must determine which firms are Good and which firms are Bad, and reward or punish them according to its whim. It is a country in which Upton Sinclair is an up-and-coming writer, and in which anybody who doubts the efficacy of federal control is in danger of falling headfirst into a rendering vat.
Most important, perhaps, it is an America in which one’s opportunity to customize one’s life is reserved to the social and sexual spheres. Sure, the freelance writer in Brooklyn and the on-off driver who picks him up might think that they are entering into a mutually beneficial contract. The backpacking student from California and the Chicago apartment owner who hosts him might think that they have been liberated by technology, and the stay-at-home parent who makes knick-knacks and sells them on Etsy might think that he has a sweet deal. But from Hillary Clinton’s intolerably prescriptive perspective, they have failed to think through the consequences of their arrangements. One can tell a great deal about a person’s broader worldview by asking them a simple question: “Should one person who hopes to pay another person to perform a legal service be restricted from doing so by the state?” That Clinton used the words “crack” and “down” when attempting to answer that inquiry should worry you.