Hillary on the Economy
Filed under: 2008 elections, Economy, Hillary Clinton — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on May 30, 2007 @ 2:04 pm CEST
Hillary Clinton, ‘liberal’:
Presidential hopeful
Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”
That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.
“There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed,” she said. “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”
She also said: “We have sent a message to our young people that if you don’t go to college … that you’re thought less of in America. We have to stop this.”
What? Please tell me I interprete this statement completely wrongly. It is wrong to demand of the youth that they go to college? Or at least expect them to do so? Since when? Western economies are increasingly knowledge economies. This means that education is of the utmost importance. This, in turn, means that society must believe in education. This, in turn, means that society must praise those who go to college, and consider it a shame when people do not (go to college). Not because it is ‘wrong’ not to go to college, but because society as a whole benefits from being highly educated.
More:
Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.
Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.
Ed Morrissey comments:
A lot of nations have tried “all in it together” economic policies over the last century. Some used “government policies” to force all economic activity under government management, and places like the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites all collapsed. Others, such as France, have belatedly discovered that collectivism results in economic stagnation and an entitlement mentality that deflates the will to innovate and invest.
I agree with Ed on this: it always worries me to no end when politicians start using this kind of rhetoric. The middle class could do with a little less protection as far as I am concerned. If you want to lower taxes, great, I applaud you for it, do it by spending less. Sadly, Hillary’s plans will cost the taxpayer more. This means that she will have to get the money from somewhere, somewhere being those who arn more than the average person does.
Punishing people for earning a lot: always a great way to destroy the economy.
It never fails.
1 Rich Horton
May 30, 2007 @ 2:30 pm CESTOh I don’t know, I actually agree with her on this. College degrees used to be worth more exactly because not everyone was expected to get one. I’ve taught enough college kids to know that many of them simply do not want to be there. Oh, they are interested in the college social life, but many times they are there to placate a parent. Many are just wasting their time and money. Many would be better off in a post-secondary vocational training situation, which are much more work related than your traditional four year degree.
It doesn’t matter how “information based” the society becomes, we are still gonna need plumbers, electricians, building trades, etc., and as much as I believe the college experience can be a richly rewarding one, you can’t force kids to want it. I mean, thanks to my education I can go on and on about Machiavelli’s conception of Republican Virtue in his Discourses on Livy, but why should my auto mechanic care?
2 domajot
May 30, 2007 @ 3:27 pm CESTi don’t know what the best solution is, but the problems Hillary is addressing are cirically important.
First, there are young people who are simply not equipped to absorb a college education. For them, manufacturing and low-tech (customer services type) jobs used to be an alternative. With the gradual disappearance of those job markets, the only options now are mostly in flipping burgers and the like.
A college education for many means incurring a big debt. For families that depend on help from older children to deal with the needs of younger children and the family as a whole, this is a huge stumbling block.
There are a number of scenarios where ‘ get a college education’ is an order impossible to fill.
In the meantime, there is a growing tendency to look at those not able to become shining examples of economic success in a jusgmental way, as if some prsonality flaw could be the only explanation.
Sometimes I think we will be returning to a rigid class system, with immigrants forming the bottom rung.
This is not good news for the rich, eithher. They would like to see America continue to look and function as it is today, but it won’t if the middle class continues shrinking. The middle class and upward mobility is what holds a society together.
I don’t know, at this point, what the best solution is, but I am sure that ignoring the problem or sneering at those who try to address it is not it.
3 lthomas
May 30, 2007 @ 4:50 pm CESTopen up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.
Talk about Bush spying on terrorists. She wants laws to reveal how much a corporate, private sector employee makes.
I can only shake my head. What people will say to get elected.
4 lthomas
May 30, 2007 @ 4:55 pm CESTDoma if they actually attempted to address it that would be one thing.
They do not. They posture, bluster and make promises that GOD cant keep and then when in office point the finger at the other party and blame it all on them.
They then get you and me arguing about whose fault it is why they slap each other on the back and go out and have a 200 dollar dinner all the while complaining about how bad the poor people have it in this country.
So yes until we actually elect someone that fixes something….then I will sneer, jeer and make fun of them because they are after all…………LIARS. They know full well that campaign promises and reality are two seperate and distinct realities.
5 Interested
May 30, 2007 @ 5:16 pm CESTits a favorite. empty buzzphrase.
everyone would like to earn more and have the rich earn less so they can get more.
course the rich is always someone other than you.
I agree that we have ned and room for all types of professionals and not always just those with a college degree.
6 domajot
May 30, 2007 @ 6:03 pm CESTNo matter how anyone sees ‘the rich’ or what they expect of them, the question revolves more around well paying jobs and unward mobility for the not-currently-rich. I don’t see how the trades like plumbers and electicians can take up the slack left by disappearing manufacturing jobs,burt maybe others know more than I do on the subject. In my area the assistant/trainee to plumbers, etc. jobs are given more to immigrants, and those salaries are decreasing.
——-
I do think the rich should share in the problem solving, as we will all be affected by the results. Bad effects are not contained within a certain class, they spill out. so pitching in can also be self serving.
Besides, prevention is often cheaper than the cure.
We are stingy about drug rehab and other rehabilitation programs in prisons and so we spend more money on building prisons and paying personnel. California announced a big savings in their prison budget after investing in such programs.
I’ll suspend judgment on Hillary’s plan until I’ve had more time to mull it over.