I think that Stephen Moore is probably right about this at any rate:
Let’s see: she wants more infrastructure spending, higher taxes on the foreign earnings of U.S. Corporations and hedge fund managers, a higher minimum wage, new rules to make it easier to form unions (card check), more child care subsidies, expanded paid medical leave for workers, and renewable energy subsidies.
Sound familiar? It’s more taxes, more regulatory burdens on employers, the green agenda, more government spending paid for with debt. One looks at the list of leftist wish list priorities from yesteryear and wonders: Mrs. Clinton, is this thin gruel really all you have to offer?
There aren’t even hints of her husband’s New Democrat agenda that generated growth and reform of government. The free trade, welfare reform, balanced budget, middle class tax cuts, sound money New Democrat agenda has vanished. Poof. Disappeared.
Well, yes. Sec. Clinton knows which way the winds are blowing, at least in the caucus of Democratic primary voters, and she knows what she needs to do to get the nomination. The more pertinent question is how would she govern?
I think the evidence is that once elected president she’d abandon the left-populist rhetoric and move in a much more corporatist-Wall Street direction. After all, she’ll be raising money for her re-election campaign.
So, if you think that our economic problems are that wages are too high, we just don’t have enough workers with the skills needed to do the work that America needs to do, and that there’s nothing wrong with Wall Street that nationalizing the risks and privatizing the profits won’t cure, then vote for Clinton! Because that’s what we’re probably going to get and it may make no difference who’s elected.
