Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, October 24, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s speech on Monday morning outlined her intention to make closing the income gap the cornerstone of her economic policy. Raising incomes for the middle class, she said, is the “defining economic challenge of our time.”

You can imagine how that might have rubbed the right wing the wrong way.

Clinton’s remarks were an apparent rebuke to GOP candidate Jeb Bush, who said last week that Americans needed to work longer hours, but made no mention of raising wages. “He must not have met many American workers,” Clinton said in her speech, which acknowledged that growth is important, but GOP promises of “growth” leave middle-class Americans behind.

In a video released by his campaign Monday afternoon, entitled “4 percent,” Bush called Clinton and her Democratic allies “defeatist” and asserted his own plan to achieve 4 percent economic growth and create 19 million jobs, while decrying the “deeply pessimistic view that is embraced by the progressive liberals in our country.”

The National Review‘s Charles C. W. Cooke accused Clinton and her ilk of being “stuck squarely in 1938.” Cooke took particular issue with what he characterized as her Luddite and statist attitude toward the so-called “sharing economy” or “gig economy,” in which people patch together their income from a series of self-employed side jobs. The gig economy is powered by a host of websites (like Airbnb, Uber, and Etsy, to name just a few) that make it possible for anyone to become an independent contractor as a hotelier, cabbie, or stay-at-home tchotchke maker — but without any job security, insurance, or full-time benefits. Hers is an “intolerably prescriptive perspective,” Cooke says, that unfairly cracks down on would-be freelancers.

The country of the “Clinton-Sanders-Warren-O’Malley project,” Cooke writes, is one “in which our heinously outdated, grossly illiberal, neo-Prussian educational system is to be set more firmly in place — even as it crumbles and falls. It is a country in which the state must determine which firms are Good and which firms are Bad, and reward or punish them according to its whim. It is a country in which Upton Sinclair is an up-and-coming writer, and in which anybody who doubts the efficacy of federal control is in danger of falling headfirst into a rendering vat.”

Stephen Moore from Fox News accused Clinton of caving to pressure from far-left Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and “slamming the door on the successful centrist agenda of her husband” in favor of recycling a tired, bankrupt economic agenda that has no chance swaying “everyday Americans.”

Clinton had said in her speech that she intended to strengthen regulation “beyond Dodd-Frank,” and Republican presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, took this as an indication that Clinton “doesn’t actually understand how the economy works.”

In a video posted on BreitbartFiorina said that Clinton’s speech was “a bundle of contradictions and a litany of progressive prescriptions,” which exposed Clinton as a “card-carrying member of the political class” since she failed to call out the federal government for its incompetence and corruption. Clinton’s proposals, she said, were an example of “crony capitalism at its worst.”

 Photo: mSeattle via Flickr

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The National Memo
  • greenlantern1

    Remember when WALL STREET was outraged that Senator Warren claimed to have SOME Indian blood?
    Did it EVER express any outrage when President Calvin Coolidge claimed to be “THE GREAT WHITE FATHER”?
    Who is WALL STREET really financing?

    • Bill

      Wall Street is financing the GOP, because the GOP wants to give them free rain to do anything they want to make money no matter who they hurt. The same GOP that won’t raise the minimum wage or give women equal pay for equal work, if your not rich you don’t count.

  • bobnstuff

    We know that the republicans economic programs are good for there big donors and the people who are making $250,000 per year which is who they believe are middle class. We know that the republicans believe that tax cuts for the rich and removing safeguards for the environment is good for the economy even if it poisons the peoples water and air. And last we know the republicans aren’t scientists because they have told us that. So why does anyonethink they can improve the economy for the average US worker that
    makes $50,000 per year.

  • palsifar

    Our basic economic assumption since Ronald Reagan has been that if government takes care of the B’s … the billionaires, banks and big businesses … through preferential treatment in tax, trade, subsidy and regulation then the B’s would then turn around and take care of the rest of us … unfortunately, what we’ve found in reality is that the B’s really only care about taking take care of themselves and that the rest of us can essentially go hang …

  • GraceAdams830

    I wish federal government would run the cost/benefit analysis needed to find out whether over ten years it would be cheaper to house the homeless, feed the hungry, tend the poor sick (Medicaid), and clothe the naked, or on the other hand to neglect them. And then act on the results of the cost/benefit analysis rather than on ideology for at least ten years.

    • Allan Richardson

      History already shows that a cost benefit analysis would contradict the right wing ideology and support the “liberal ideology.” The problem is the right wing tells their non-billionaire base that “liberals are against enterprise” when in fact the right wing is against allowing working class people any means of support EXCEPT enterprise. The rise in the “gig” economy is a result of the FAILURE of the regular “job” economy. And that failure is not a “bug” but a FEATURE, designed in by the retrograde business ruling junta since Reagan’s day.

  • David

    Of course Hiilbag now wants to “increase regulation”, she can’t find any cattle futures to invest in.