It’s
difficult to speculate with complete
confidence about what President Hillary’s public policy agenda will look like
because her decades long pursuit of personal status has been a process of
changing positions depending on her reading of the political moods of her
party. In her 2008 campaign for the
Democratic nomination the then
overconfident and “fiscally responsible” Hillary supported the creation of a balanced budget
by passing budget rules that would require new spending
to be funded with cuts in existing spending or new revenues.
Even
in September of 2010 as Secretary of
State, she said this about the national debt:
“it is a question of how we decide
to deal with this debt and deficit . . .There is no free lunch and we cannot pretend
that there is without doing grave harm to our country and our future
generations.”
But the unexpected populist appeal of Bernie
Sanders in the 2016 nomination battle has caused Hillary’s preferred fiscal
policies to “evolve” to match Sander’s “spend our way to happiness and equality”
campaign and Bernie’s unexpected popularity among younger voters required a “
me too” response to his “free” college tuition offer.
Bernie’s
plan is flawed. He would send money to
public colleges and universities and “pay for it” by imposing a series of taxes
on stock market transactions. This
appeals to young voters based on the mistaken belief that only the “greedy rich”
would be impacted. But the resulting
losses of market value as well as the taxes themselves would impact the
retirement accounts of the middle class, private and public employee pension
funds, and the endowment funds of universities as well.
No
problem for Hillary. Her plan as
reported “would have the federal government send
large grants to states, which would then ensure students can pay tuition
without taking out loans. States would be required to increase their
allocations to higher education, and schools would face new constraints on
spending. Families would have to contribute ‘what they can afford’ based on an
individual financial analysis, and students would be required to work 10 hours
per week.
Thus the typical liberal solution to a problem is to create a
huge new bureaucracy to monitor state “allocations to higher education”,
monitor and “evaluate” on a continuing basis “what families can afford”, and
ensure that students are doing the required 10 hours per week of some kind of
meaningful employment. Besides being a
bureaucratic nightmare which would eat up a large percentage of the money
allocated for tuition relief of four year colleges, the plan also includes Bernie’s
free tuition for community college attendance.
The total cost of her plan is conservatively estimated at $350 billion over
ten years. But how to pay for it
without impacting annual federal deficits and keeping in mind her earlier
admonition that “There’s no free
lunch”? Simple; impose the “Bernise”
solution once again; “increase taxes on ‘wealthy taxpayers’.
But there’s much more to Clinton’s “economic
vision”. She
would create an “infrastructure bank” at a cost of $27.5 billion annually; an
Expanded Childcare Plan and an Early Education Plan which would cost an additional $27.5 annually.
An Energy Plan to “reduce carbon
emissions and repair oil pipelines and pay for health care and retirement for
coal miners” who were put out of work by Obama’s EPA regulations, would cost $9
billion annually. The plan no
longer includes her 2008 commitment to the “creation of a balanced
budget by passing “budget rules that would require new spending to be funded
with cuts in existing spending.” All of her new spending proposals depend on
“new revenues” which are new or higher taxes.
Hillary has a proposed and array of
anti-business and investor policies. She would raise the federal minimum wage
to $15 per hour. She would approximately
double the short term capital gains tax for high income earners. She would
impose a 4% “fair share” tax surcharge also on high income earners; and also
impose a “Bernie style” transaction tax on frequent stock trades.
Clinton doesn’t always “evolve”, she sometimes revolves.
On Trade:
As
Secretary of State she enthusiastically supported Obama’s
TransPacificTrade treaty before she
opposed it as candidate Hillary, an obvious response to Sander’s opposition
which was well received by organized labor.
On immigration:
As
a Senator from New York, in 2008, she proposed a two-step process which called
for securing the borders “before legalizing” the 11 million illegals then
currently residing in the U.S. She also supported stricter enforcement of
federal law against employers hiring illegal immigrants even making a
“Trump-like” assertion that, “"A country that cannot control its borders is failing at
one of its fundamental obligations."
But, after
reading the political tea leaves in Bernie Sander’s cup which all pointed to
the Left, her 2016 position was; "I
will do everything I can to protect the president's executive actions and ‘go
further’ to bring more people relief and keep families together."
In her 2008 campaign she said: "As president, I will not
support driver's licenses for undocumented people."
In her 2016 campaign a Clinton spokesman said that she had changed her
mind: "Hillary supports state policies to provide driver's
licenses to undocumented immigrants."
On terrorism:
In
March, 2016 Hillary announced her “three part plan” to defeat the Islamic
State.
1.
“Take out ISIS’s stronghold in Iraq and Syria.”
2.
“Dismantle the global terror network.”
3.
“Harden our defenses at home and prevent attacks”
Of course there’s major difference between a
set of goals and a “plan” to accomplish them. Apparently voters will have to
wait until she moves into the Oval Office to find out what as
Commander-in-Chief, she will actually do to meet these goals since decisions
with regard to the use of military force could offend the Democratic Left and
give Bernie’s struggling campaign new life.
However, a glimpse of “Hillary’s toughness” can
be seen in her December, 2015 outline of her terrorism strategy.
“Clinton would combat
terrorism with improved intelligence instead of troops. For example,
agencies would use social media posts to identify terrorists. Visa applications
would require full screenings for those who had traveled to terrorist
countries. Operations officers and linguists would be added to U.S.
intelligence agencies. (Source: "Clinton Lays Out Policies to Curb
Terrorism," WSJ, December 15, 2015.)”
How exactly “using social media” to “take
out ISIS strongholds in Iraq and Syria” would work is yet to be explained but
for now the “progressive” Left of the Democratic Party is unoffended.
Thus while Hillary’s long history of
“adjustments”, “evolutions”, and self-contradictions make a shift on any policy
positions once she is in office only a theoretical possibility, she has moved
so far to the Left that she will have great difficulty “revolving” back towards
the political center to work with the Congress. She will gain some leverage if
the Democrats are able to regain control of the Senate in the November, 2016
elections but regaining control of the House of Representatives still seems
well out of reach.
One
way or the other, her new “progressive” identity seems to predict a high level
of continued public policy gridlock over the next four years.
First, a look at the Senate, which
retention of control by the Republicans would ensure such an outcome.
The current Senate has 54
Republicans, 44 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats
(Sanders I-VT & King I-ME) The Democrats need to gain 4 seats to create a
50-50 tie which could be broken in their favor by a Democrat Vice President, or
gain 5 seats for an absolute majority. The Democrats have an advantage in the
November, 2016 election because of the 34 Senate seats up for election, 24 are currently
held by Republicans and only 10 by Democrats.
Credible (non-partisan) analysts currently see the Republicans likely to
control 48 seats after the election and the Democrats likely to control 47 with
5 of the 34 contested seats as “toss ups”. So a Democratic majority is within
reach but would require a near sweep of the toss up contests.
Control
of the Senate is important not only because all legislation requires its
concurrence but because it is the Senate that approves the appointments of all federal
officers including senior military officers, cabinet secretaries and federal
judges. This last power will be critical for the replacement of former Supreme
Ct. Justice Antonin Scalia, which the Republican leadership in the current
Senate has vowed to put off until the new Senate and President are elected. A
Republican minority would still be able to filibuster a Supreme Ct. nominee but
not nominees to other federal appointments including other federal judgeships
which was disallowed by former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
when he employed the so called “nuclear option” to change Senate rules to
facilitate Democratic nominations to the federal bench.
The
election scenario for the House of Representatives looks more secure for the
Republicans. House members represent
much smaller districts than the state-wide constituencies of the Senate and
historically have a very high rate of reelection. Most change in the make-up of the house
involves retirements. In 2016, 42 House
members are retiring; 26 Republicans and 16 Democrats, although all 435 members
are up for reelection every two years.
Since the Republicans currently hold a 247/188 advantage the Democrats
need to pick up 30 seats to gain a majority of 218. Again, credible analysts predict a Democratic
gain of 5-10 seats which indicates continued Republican control for the next
two years.
Thus,
even if the Democrats gain control of the Senate, Hillary’s “progressive”
plans, most of which include higher taxes, will run into a road block in the
House. The Constitution specifically requires that all “revenue bills” (taxes)
originate in the House of Representatives (Article 1 Sec. 7).
Indeed,
unless Hillary abandons her new far Left public policy orientation in those
areas beyond the exclusive powers of the President, she will not even have the
leverage of broad public support for new public policy initiatives to bring
political pressure on a recalcitrant House.
On the major issues, the general public still seems to be closer to
center-right positions than to those of the Left.
A
2015 Gallup Poll found that 37% of poll responders identified as Conservative,
35% as Moderates and 24% as Liberals. Even less than half (45%) of Democrats identified as
Liberals, unlike the Democratic membership of the Congress. Seventy-three percent of Independents
described themselves as Moderates or Conservatives.
This
continuing trend is reflected in responses to specific issues.
ISIS: On dealing with the Islamic State, few
Americans would accept Hillary’s “strategy” of using a “social media” offense
and increased “intelligence” gathering to bring down the terrorists. A poll taken two days after the Islamic State attacks in Paris
found that 65% of Americans “strongly supported” or “somewhat supported”
sending additional ground troops to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria
compared to 31% who wouldn’t. The same poll found 58% believe “using
overwhelming military force is the best way to defeat terrorism.
TAXES: An April, 2016 poll found that more than 53% of Americans said
their taxes are too high including 44% of Democrats. Of course Hillary says she wants to lower
taxes on the “middle class” but she wants to finance her new spending programs
by taxing the “rich”. However the April
poll found those making just $75,000 per year or more, rejecting the
idea of heavy taxes on the rich by a 59% to 40% margin.
CRIME: Hillary has said that she wants to reform the
judicial system because it’s unfair to minorities. But the Gallup Poll found
that Americans' level of concern
about crime and violence is at its “highest point in 15 years. Fifty-three
percent of U.S. adults say they personally worry ‘a great deal’ about crime and
violence, an increase of 14 percentage points since 2014. This figure is the
highest Gallup has measured since March 2001.”
IMMIGRATION:
As mentioned above Hillary’s position on immigration has veered widely
to the Left since 2008. Now she wants to expand Obama’s executive amnesty
program for illegals and include a pathway to citizenship, but a Rasmussen Poll
conducted in early 2016 found that 52% of Americans believe that a “pathway to
citizenship” for illegals will encourage more illegal immigration and most
oppose Obama’s program. Even 51% support
Donald Trump’s call to build a wall on the border with Mexico. Sixty-one percent
believe the U.S. government is not aggressive enough in deporting illegals.
Thus congressional-executive gridlock seems all
but inevitable. Breaking gridlock requires presidential leadership and the
willingness to compromise. Getting two
diverse legislative bodies made up of 535 individuals to initiate compromise is
much more difficult. But unless “flip
flopping” for political advantage becomes the new definition of leadership,
there is little in Hillary Clinton’s political career that would indicate that
she possesses this quality.
Gridlock will be defined as “Republican
obstructionism” by the Democrats and liberal media, no doubt enhanced by adding
“sexist” to the charge. But the
polarization of the Congress and the last eight years of Obama’s dismissive and
at times insulting response to any rejection of the “progressive” policy agenda
by the Republican majorities in Congress and Hillary’s Left turn has paved the
way for a largely ineffective third Clinton administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment