ection 2016: If nothing else, the release of secret transcripts from Hillary Clinton's speeches provides some valuable insights into how she views economic growth. Unfortunately, the picture it paints is deeply troubling.
In a talk she gave in January 2014 given at a General Electric leadership meeting in Boca Raton — for which she was paid $225,500 — Clinton explained to the business leaders how government spending will boost economic growth.
She said that a GOP push to "cut off food stamps" was "unfortunate because, you know … economic growth will take off when people in the middle feel more secure again and start spending."
Well, let's review the evidence.
Between January 2009 — President Obama's first month in office — and the day Hillary gave that speech, 14.5 million people were added to the food stamp program, and had shot up 59%, according to the Department of Agriculture.
Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Investors.com. Try us free for 4 weeks.
More broadly, Obama boosted overall government payments to individuals by 25% — after accounting for inflation — during those four years. In dollar terms, the federal government spent $456 billion more on direct payments to individuals in 2014 than it did in President Bush's last year in office. And all of it was financed through deficit spending.
If Clinton were right, all this extra cash flowing into people's pockets courtesy of Uncle Sam should have turned everyone into spendthrifts. Instead, the country endured the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.
The real problem is that this is how Clinton views the economy in general. In her world, economic growth and prosperity doesn't come from the private sector, it results from government spending, mandates, and regulations.
Her jobs program, for example, consists entirely of a massive $275 billion increase in infrastructure spending, plus more subsidies for "clean energy," and another $10 billion to support manufacturing.
Her plan to raise incomes in American rests on the government forcing companies to pay workers more, either through a sharp increase in the minimum wage, a $20 billion effort to force more "profit-sharing," stiffer overtime rules, and more unionization.
Instead of encouraging entrepreneurship, risk taking and innovation, Clinton would stifle it with higher taxes on investors and corporations. Her idea of spurring innovation in spending federal funds on public schools, more federal job training programs, more government spending on R&D, "universal" broadband.
You will look in vain for Hillary's plan to cut corporate income tax rates and simplify the tax code, or harmonize the U.S. corporate tax laws with the rest of the world, or open up the country's vast energy supplies to development — policies that even the Harvard Business School list as essential to accelerating growth.
To be sure, Clinton is merely reflecting her party's shocking drift to the far left.
But she clearly shares these views. It was Hillary, remember, who said in a speech in Massachusetts that same year: "Don't let anybody tell you that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs."
Her campaign tried to amend that comment, saying that Clinton was referring to corporate tax cuts. But it's pretty clear from her secret speeches and her public campaign promises that Clinton meant what she said.
If You Liked Obamanomics, You'll Love Hillarynomics
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarynomics-more-food-stamps-will-grow-the-economy/
In a talk she gave in January 2014 given at a General Electric leadership meeting in Boca Raton — for which she was paid $225,500 — Clinton explained to the business leaders how government spending will boost economic growth.
She said that a GOP push to "cut off food stamps" was "unfortunate because, you know … economic growth will take off when people in the middle feel more secure again and start spending."
Well, let's review the evidence.
Between January 2009 — President Obama's first month in office — and the day Hillary gave that speech, 14.5 million people were added to the food stamp program, and had shot up 59%, according to the Department of Agriculture.
Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Investors.com. Try us free for 4 weeks.
More broadly, Obama boosted overall government payments to individuals by 25% — after accounting for inflation — during those four years. In dollar terms, the federal government spent $456 billion more on direct payments to individuals in 2014 than it did in President Bush's last year in office. And all of it was financed through deficit spending.
If Clinton were right, all this extra cash flowing into people's pockets courtesy of Uncle Sam should have turned everyone into spendthrifts. Instead, the country endured the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.
The real problem is that this is how Clinton views the economy in general. In her world, economic growth and prosperity doesn't come from the private sector, it results from government spending, mandates, and regulations.
Her jobs program, for example, consists entirely of a massive $275 billion increase in infrastructure spending, plus more subsidies for "clean energy," and another $10 billion to support manufacturing.
Her plan to raise incomes in American rests on the government forcing companies to pay workers more, either through a sharp increase in the minimum wage, a $20 billion effort to force more "profit-sharing," stiffer overtime rules, and more unionization.
Instead of encouraging entrepreneurship, risk taking and innovation, Clinton would stifle it with higher taxes on investors and corporations. Her idea of spurring innovation in spending federal funds on public schools, more federal job training programs, more government spending on R&D, "universal" broadband.
You will look in vain for Hillary's plan to cut corporate income tax rates and simplify the tax code, or harmonize the U.S. corporate tax laws with the rest of the world, or open up the country's vast energy supplies to development — policies that even the Harvard Business School list as essential to accelerating growth.
To be sure, Clinton is merely reflecting her party's shocking drift to the far left.
But she clearly shares these views. It was Hillary, remember, who said in a speech in Massachusetts that same year: "Don't let anybody tell you that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs."
Her campaign tried to amend that comment, saying that Clinton was referring to corporate tax cuts. But it's pretty clear from her secret speeches and her public campaign promises that Clinton meant what she said.
If You Liked Obamanomics, You'll Love Hillarynomics
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarynomics-more-food-stamps-will-grow-the-economy/
