At least she's consistent
Yesterday I wrote how Hillary Clinton a few years ago was advocating what could only be described as a high-tax social-democratic economic and social policy, with the government as the main vehicle for wealth redistribution.
She proved yesterday that she hasn't changed a bit. In a speech at a New Hampshire trade school, she was again preaching the politics of class warfare and envy, and disguising it all as "fairness:"
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.
Let me count the ways this is crocked. First, "ownership society" does not mean "you're on your own, pal," but that each person takes responsibility for his or her own future, rather than relying on the government. Whether that's building a future through savings in investments in stocks, bonds, property -- whatever, the idea is that the individual is the best one to decide how his or her money is allocated, not some bureaucrat in distant Washington. And "ownership" gives the citizen a tangible stake in society and a sense of independence, rather than being a passive dependent of the government.
Of course, passive dependence may be just what Hillary and those like her want. The post-war social democratic settlement in Europe evolved because of a fear of the passions of the crowd and a desire to control it. "Cradle to grave" economics were a way to guarantee social peace at the cost of economic growth by ensuring that the government provided everything people needed: guaranteed jobs, universal health care, open-ended welfare benefits, &c. By making everyone dependent on the government, they hope to ensure no one will rock the boat.
This, of course, was at the price of slow or no economic growth, stagnant and high unemployment, and declining birthrates that have ensured that fewer and fewer people will bear the increasingly heavy tax burden to pay for those benefits.
As for CEO salaries, sure, many are outrageous. But firms are paying what it takes to get managers they think will grow the company to new heights. It's the market system: demand is high and the supply of top CEOs is seemingly short. A lot of people agree that something's whacked here --witness recurring shareholder revolts against high salaries for mediocre execs-- but this is a private transaction, Hill! Do you really want the government introducing what are, in effect, price controls for corporate pay?
Never mind. Of course you do.
Her last statement sums up her economic paradigm in a nutshell:
"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 doesn't trust free markets, nor does she trust the people to govern themselves. Washington must mediate and regulate --"the right policies"-- lest someone be too successful or, God forbid, someone who makes the wrong choices be allowed to fail.
Some rules are needed to protect an open and fair trading environment, to make sure that financial reports are as honest and complete as can be, to guard worker safety. But, I don't think that's what Hillary has in mind.
And the line about "special privileges for none" is just rich. Take a look at the Clintons' history to see just how thoroughly she and Bill have benefited from "special privileges" available only to the few.
No thanks, Hillary. If I wanted this garbage, I'd move to Europe.
LINKS: Captain Ed wonders why the news media is so silent about the socialist part of Hillary's message. (Probably because it would cost her the election? --ed. Gee, ya think?)
Recent Comments