Hillary's false populism as seen on Letterman and a recent speech

hfojvt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-05-08 03:30 AM
Original message

Hillary's false populism as seen on Letterman and a recent speech

So I suffered through a typical dead monologue of David Letterman in order to see Hillary on tonight's show. Other than the friendly meaningless banter I was struck by Hillary's seeming claim to stand up for the poor. Dave mentioned the number of people who are hungry in America and Hillary joined him in shock, as if this would never happen under a Clinton Presidency. Never mind that the number was probably only 20% higher than when Bill left office. Hillary is gonna feed those people.

Earlier in response to an RFK endorsement ad, I went looking on her website for some plans and proposals from her campaign that would help the poor or stand up for the powerless. I think it is important to have some specifics, because that is what forces Congress's hands. Reagan and Bush both had specific tax proposals, and once they took office Congress seemed to feel that the people had approved those policies, and they both were quickly passed.

Her issues list does not specifically mention poverty. The closest it gets is "strengthening the middle class" and a promise that "nobody will be invisible" to President Clinton. Reading through the following speech, it does contain some specifics, perhaps most notably the health care plan, but I found what I expected to find - Republican rhetoric and false populism. Here's the evidence.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=5466

Because, in the end, it is all about people. It is all about the woman in Columbia who grabbed my hand and said that her child was sick and the insurance company wouldn�t pay for the treatment that was necessary. It�s all about the man in Florence some months ago who came up to me some months ago and said, "I just keep working harder and harder and I feel like I�m falling further and further backwards. But I have a small business; I depend on transporting my goods, and the cost of energy just keeps going up." It's about the real lives of real people right here in South Carolina."

Discussion of problems is good. I appreciate that, but what about solutions?

For the immediate problems in the housing market she has a decent plan.

Then, she says this about the current stimulus plan

and that's a load of crap. The Congress has rolled over for another Bush proposal of "Temporary Assistance for Rich Families". Most of the money is going to families above the median income. LIHEAP, unemployment insurance and food stamps - you know, assistance to those who "need it the most" was sacrificed in this compromise. I called her office and told a staffer that. She (and Obama) need to bring those back to the table, but instead she is giving a speech as if that does not need to happen, as if the Bush plan already gives aid to "Americans who need it the most".

After a good discussion about "green energy investment" she switches to Republican rhetoric.

Ah, taxes are too high. The post-Reagan mantra, even after 4 rounds of huge tax cuts. Taxes are, apparently, still too high. Then she talks about the need for "fiscal responsibility" and then proposes a bunch of spending programs. So how will those be paid for? She only mentions increasing taxes on corporations. That sounds nice, but it's not gonna work. For example. In 1998 corporate taxes were 204 billion on profits of 928 billion, for a tax rate of 21.98%. In 2004, they were 224 billion on profits of 1.112 trillion. for a rate of 20.14%. Of course, in 1998, depreciation expenses were about 500 billion, some of which can be added to profit, depending on the laws on depreciation rules. But increase profits by 200 billion and increase the tax rate to 30%. What do you get? Another 200 billion in tax revenue, even under a best case scenario. Nothing to sneeze at, to be sure. However, Bush has recently proposed a budget with a 400 billion deficit, and that is after he slashed a bunch of social spending. Corporate tax increases simply are not gonna close that gap and allow for increased spending. At least not by the numbers I find.

Worse yet, Hillary proposes more tax cuts!

What's wrong with that? Like Republican plans to provide health insurance through tax credits, such a plan only provides benefits to wealthier families. The approximately 50% of families making less than $50,000 do not pay $3,500 in taxes. So that benefit goes to families above the median income. There is a similar problem with her "retirement accounts" as I detailed here
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/62 The same is also true for her defense of the child tax credit. When it went from $500 to $1,000, many lower income families saw zero benefit from that because they were already paying less than $500 in taxes. It buys into the Republican anti-tax mantra, and provides more benefits for those with higher incomes.

Fiscal responsibility, combined with spending increases that we cannot afford under said fiscal responsibility, combined with tax credits for people above the median income. None of that sounds like somebody who is going to stand up for the powerless. It looks like false populism to me, especially combined with a lie about the Bush stimulus package.