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 interpret 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 earn more than the average person does.
Punishing people for earning a lot: always a great way to destroy the economy.
It never fails.
Cross posted at my own blog.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.