Hillary Clinton's Not-So-New, Not-So-Worker-Friendly Economic Plan
Tuesday, 23 August 2016 00:00 By Elizabeth Schulte, Socialist Worker | Op-Ed
Hillary Clinton's economic plan reads a lot like the policies of the Bill
Clinton administration -- and Clintonomics repurposed many of the GOP
proposals that came before it. (Photo: Ronald Woan / Flickr)
Hillary Clinton is having a lot of fun taking shots at Donald Trump's
economic plan to make America "great" again. She calls it an extreme version
of the Republicans' failed theory of trickle-down economics.
The Trump plan would, of course, be a disaster for working people -- and
another windfall for the rich, with its proposals for eliminating the estate
tax and opening up new tax loopholes for the wealthy.
But Clinton's own economic plan isn't very new, much less positive for
working people. It reads a lot like the policies of the Bill Clinton
administration -- and while Hillary denounces the failed Republican policies
recycled by Trump, the truth is Clintonomics repurposed many of the GOP
proposals that came before it.
Providing targeted tax breaks to corporations, cutting "red tape" and doing
away with regulations on business were all hallmarks of the Clinton-era
policies that successfully made a break from the Democrats' past image of
the party of social welfare spending.
And no matter what she says on the campaign trail to appeal for votes, a new
Clinton administration -- like the Clinton administration she served in the
1990s -- will have little to offer in the way of policies to improve the
lives of working-class Americans. But when it comes to Corporate America --
well, that's a different story.
***
At a stop on the Clinton campaign's "jobs tour," the candidate addressed
reporters at the Futuramic plant in Detroit, where they make nose cones for
the F-35 fighter plane.
The choice of a manufacturer of parts for the U.S. military as the site of
her speech sent a little message about what Clinton has in store in terms of
her administration's spending priorities.
But beyond that, Clinton had a message to send to her supporters in the
corporate boardroom:
And here's something that you don't always hear enough of from Democrats: a
big part of our plan will be unleashing the power of the private sector to
create more jobs at higher pay. And that means for us, creating an
infrastructure bank to get private funds off the sidelines and complement
our private investments. $25 billion in government seed funding could unlock
more than $250 billion and really get our country moving on our
infrastructure plans.
What should we make of this happy talk?
First off, Barack Obama promised an infrastructure bank back in 2008 -- a
federal fund to create jobs rebuilding the country's infrastructure, such as
bridges, transportation system, dams, etc. Obama promised a different amount
-- $60 billion to create 2 million jobs -- but it didn't matter much,
because the proposal never happened.
So when Hillary Clinton makes the same promise, we should remember two
things about her former boss's record: First, when Republicans had control
in Congress, they stopped at nothing to obstruct Democratic legislative
proposals. And second, even when the GOP was in the minority during Obama's
first two years, the Democrats didn't fight for what they promised.
That's why Hillary Clinton can promise the moon, knowing that she'll never
have to deliver.
As Doug Henwood, author of My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency,
said in a Real News interview:
I just really am very skeptical that anything will come of a lot of these
proposals ... [D]uring the primary campaign, people said about the Bernie
Sanders proposal: well, how would he get it through Congress? I have the
same question for Hillary, but she doesn't seem to get the same question
with the same frequency or intensity: How would she get that through
Congress?
***
As for Clinton's call for Democrats to start "unleashing the power of the
private sector," that idea isn't new either. The "New" Democrats of the
Democratic Leadership Council, with Bill Clinton at the helm, were pushing
this line decades ago.
Under the Clinton administration, Vice President Al Gore was put in charge
of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, which set out
"reforms" of government programs that really meant cutting federal spending
and embracing market-based solutions, such as privatization.
So for example, "reinventing" the Occupation Safety and Health
Administration meant slashing funds for enforcement of regulations that stop
workers from getting injured or sick on the job -- and instead focusing on a
"partnership" where management policed itself.
So Democrats talking about "unleashing the power of the private sector"
isn't novel, nor has it been a good thing for workers. The results of the
federal "partnership" with the private sector overall were as expected --
funding for social programs were cut in the interest of market-based
solutions.
Between 1992 and 2000, support for education decreased by 24 percent;
science by 19 percent; income security by 18 percent; and transportation by
10 percent, according to Robert Pollin writing in the Nation.
The theory behind the New Democrats' neoliberal policies was that their
party shouldn't seek to curb corporate influence over every aspect of life,
but to increase it. So when Hillary Clinton talks about all the jobs that
are going to be created in the U.S., her focus is on what the government can
give to corporations to create them -- but with no guarantee that business
will do what's asked of them.
For instance, the Clinton campaign touts its proposal to spend $10 billion
on "Make it in America" partnerships -- a jingoistic effort to bribe
U.S-based multinational corporations to manufacture in the U.S.
She also proposes a new tax credit for companies that adopt a profit-sharing
plan for their workers, calling it "a more progressive, more patriotic tax
code that puts American jobs first." Clinton emphasizes how the
profit-sharing scheme "gives everyone a stake in the company's success can
boost productivity and put money directly into employees' pockets. It's a
win-win."
In other words, Clinton wants to encourages "cooperation" between workers
and bosses by tying wages to how well a corporation is doing. That's a win
for bosses, not workers.
Clinton calls for tax credits for companies that agree to offer
apprenticeships. Translation: Give corporations money for hiring young
workers at bargain-rate wages. Clinton will also offer national initiatives
to "cut red tape" and expand access to credit to small businesses and
entrepreneurs.
So Clinton's plan for creating jobs isn't actually about creating jobs, but
about providing incentives -- federal funding, tax breaks, eliminating red
tape, etc. -- that will supposedly encourage businesses to create jobs.
Sounds more and more like a variation on the trickle-down plans of the
Republicans that Clinton loves to denounce on the campaign trail.
As for workers, Hillary Clinton suggests more education and job training. In
order to help with crushing student loan debt, she's proposing -- no, not
debt forgiveness -- to make it "easier to refinance and repay what you owe
as a portion of your income, so you don't have to pay more than you can
afford."
But if you're in college and decide to become an entrepreneur, then Clinton
might forgive your student loans.
***
So if Hillary Clinton is rehashing many of the same policies that she
supported during the Clinton-Gore administration, they must have worked out
well, right?
If you ask Corporate America, the Clinton years went swimmingly. As Lance
Selfa, author of Democrats: A Critical History, wrote:
From Wall Street's point of view, Clinton's eight years in office have to be
viewed as a smashing success ... Inflation dropped to imperceptible levels,
and in May 2000, unemployment hit a 30-year low of 3.9 percent. Between 1992
and 1997, corporate profits grew by an average of 15 percent annually. The
U.S. had clearly zoomed ahead as the world's leading economy.
Jobs were created during the Bill Clinton administration, Selfa points out,
but the majority of them were low-wage. Half paid less than $7 an hour, and
many workers seeking full-time jobs couldn't find anything but part-time.
Workers felt another hit after Clinton-era economic boom went bust in the
early 2000s, and then more spectacularly with the Great Recession in 2008.
More than ever, working people needed social services -- but they had been
"reinvented" by the Clinton administration and were no longer there.
Then again, maybe we don't need to worry about what Hillary Clinton is
promising to do -- since she's hardly high on the list of promise-keeping
politicians.
Take the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the economic deal that she
promises as a candidate to oppose. But she not only vocally supported it in
the past, one of her top surrogates, Terry McAuliffe said during the
Democratic convention that she would flip-flop once she got into the Oval
Office.
That wouldn't be much of a surprise, since the TPP is in keeping with the
Clinton Democrats' decades-old philosophy toward trade deals like the North
American Free Trade Agreement: What's good for business is good for Clinton.
Another example. Clinton talks about creating green jobs -- but it's worth
recalling that as Secretary of State, she promoted the use of
environmentally devastating hydraulic fracturing -- fracking -- as she
visited governments around the globe.
Likewise, Clinton says she supports unions. But supporting unions at
campaign events is easy, especially if you know the union leadership is
solidly behind you and the heads of corporations know you're just talking.
On paper, Clinton supports the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would
require businesses to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers
signed cards saying they wanted to join. But she doesn't talk about it, and
we shouldn't expect her to start in the White House.
Barack Obama promised to make passing EFCA a priority when he was
campaigning in 2008, but even with a Democratic supermajority in Congress
during his first two years, the measure was allowed to die on the vine.
And nowhere in her economic plan is there even the most basic defense of the
idea of a social safety net -- because Hillary Clinton doesn't really
support one.
After a Democratic primary in which Bernie Sanders highlighted rising income
inequality and argued for a return to the so-called core values of the
Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton's economic program appears almost
unchanged by the discussion. Clinton could hardly wait to turn the page on
Sanders so she could focus on Trump.
That's the inevitable outcome of the dead-end of lesser-evil politics in the
U.S. -- where a Democrat who positions herself just to the left of an
increasingly right-wing Republican Party can be called a "friend of working
people" because not quite as bad as the "greater evil."
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
ELIZABETH SCHULTE
Elizabeth Schulte is a journalist and reviews editor for the Socialist
Worker, writing frequently on low-wage workers, the Democratic Party and
women's liberation.
RELATED STORIES
Did Companies and Countries Buy State Department Access by Donating to
Clinton Foundation?
By Juan González, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
Why Did Clinton Just Tap a Pro-TPP, Pro-KXL, Pro-Fracking Politician to Head
Her Transition Team?
By Juan González, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
The Shameful Foundation of the Clintons' Power
By Eric Ruder, Socialist Worker | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton's Not-So-New, Not-So-Worker-Friendly Economic Plan
Tuesday, 23 August 2016 00:00 By Elizabeth Schulte, Socialist Worker | Op-Ed
font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton's economic plan reads a lot like the policies of
the Bill Clinton administration -- and Clintonomics repurposed many of the
GOP proposals that came before it. (Photo: Ronald Woan / Flickr)
Hillary Clinton is having a lot of fun taking shots at Donald
Trump's economic plan to make America "great" again. She calls it an extreme
version of the Republicans' failed theory of trickle-down economics.
The Trump plan would, of course, be a disaster for working people -- and
another windfall for the rich, with its proposals for eliminating the estate
tax and opening up new tax loopholes for the wealthy.
But Clinton's own economic plan isn't very new, much less positive for
working people. It reads a lot like the policies of the Bill Clinton
administration -- and while Hillary denounces the failed Republican policies
recycled by Trump, the truth is Clintonomics repurposed many of the GOP
proposals that came before it.
Providing targeted tax breaks to corporations, cutting "red tape" and doing
away with regulations on business were all hallmarks of the Clinton-era
policies that successfully made a break from the Democrats' past image of
the party of social welfare spending.
And no matter what she says on the campaign trail to appeal for votes, a new
Clinton administration -- like the Clinton administration she served in the
1990s -- will have little to offer in the way of policies to improve the
lives of working-class Americans. But when it comes to Corporate America --
well, that's a different story.
***
At a stop on the Clinton campaign's "jobs tour," the candidate addressed
reporters at the Futuramic plant in Detroit, where they make nose cones for
the F-35 fighter plane.
The choice of a manufacturer of parts for the U.S. military as the site of
her speech sent a little message about what Clinton has in store in terms of
her administration's spending priorities.
But beyond that, Clinton had a message to send to her supporters in the
corporate boardroom:
And here's something that you don't always hear enough of from Democrats: a
big part of our plan will be unleashing the power of the private sector to
create more jobs at higher pay. And that means for us, creating an
infrastructure bank to get private funds off the sidelines and complement
our private investments. $25 billion in government seed funding could unlock
more than $250 billion and really get our country moving on our
infrastructure plans.
What should we make of this happy talk?
First off, Barack Obama promised an infrastructure bank back in 2008 -- a
federal fund to create jobs rebuilding the country's infrastructure, such as
bridges, transportation system, dams, etc. Obama promised a different amount
-- $60 billion to create 2 million jobs -- but it didn't matter much,
because the proposal never happened.
So when Hillary Clinton makes the same promise, we should remember two
things about her former boss's record: First, when Republicans had control
in Congress, they stopped at nothing to obstruct Democratic legislative
proposals. And second, even when the GOP was in the minority during Obama's
first two years, the Democrats didn't fight for what they promised.
That's why Hillary Clinton can promise the moon, knowing that she'll never
have to deliver.
As Doug Henwood, author of My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency,
said in a Real News interview:
I just really am very skeptical that anything will come of a lot of these
proposals ... [D]uring the primary campaign, people said about the Bernie
Sanders proposal: well, how would he get it through Congress? I have the
same question for Hillary, but she doesn't seem to get the same question
with the same frequency or intensity: How would she get that through
Congress?
***
As for Clinton's call for Democrats to start "unleashing the power of the
private sector," that idea isn't new either. The "New" Democrats of the
Democratic Leadership Council, with Bill Clinton at the helm, were pushing
this line decades ago.
Under the Clinton administration, Vice President Al Gore was put in charge
of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, which set out
"reforms" of government programs that really meant cutting federal spending
and embracing market-based solutions, such as privatization.
So for example, "reinventing" the Occupation Safety and Health
Administration meant slashing funds for enforcement of regulations that stop
workers from getting injured or sick on the job -- and instead focusing on a
"partnership" where management policed itself.
So Democrats talking about "unleashing the power of the private sector"
isn't novel, nor has it been a good thing for workers. The results of the
federal "partnership" with the private sector overall were as expected --
funding for social programs were cut in the interest of market-based
solutions.
Between 1992 and 2000, support for education decreased by 24 percent;
science by 19 percent; income security by 18 percent; and transportation by
10 percent, according to Robert Pollin writing in the Nation.
The theory behind the New Democrats' neoliberal policies was that their
party shouldn't seek to curb corporate influence over every aspect of life,
but to increase it. So when Hillary Clinton talks about all the jobs that
are going to be created in the U.S., her focus is on what the government can
give to corporations to create them -- but with no guarantee that business
will do what's asked of them.
For instance, the Clinton campaign touts its proposal to spend $10 billion
on "Make it in America" partnerships -- a jingoistic effort to bribe
U.S-based multinational corporations to manufacture in the U.S.
She also proposes a new tax credit for companies that adopt a profit-sharing
plan for their workers, calling it "a more progressive, more patriotic tax
code that puts American jobs first." Clinton emphasizes how the
profit-sharing scheme "gives everyone a stake in the company's success can
boost productivity and put money directly into employees' pockets. It's a
win-win."
In other words, Clinton wants to encourages "cooperation" between workers
and bosses by tying wages to how well a corporation is doing. That's a win
for bosses, not workers.
Clinton calls for tax credits for companies that agree to offer
apprenticeships. Translation: Give corporations money for hiring young
workers at bargain-rate wages. Clinton will also offer national initiatives
to "cut red tape" and expand access to credit to small businesses and
entrepreneurs.
So Clinton's plan for creating jobs isn't actually about creating jobs, but
about providing incentives -- federal funding, tax breaks, eliminating red
tape, etc. -- that will supposedly encourage businesses to create jobs.
Sounds more and more like a variation on the trickle-down plans of the
Republicans that Clinton loves to denounce on the campaign trail.
As for workers, Hillary Clinton suggests more education and job training. In
order to help with crushing student loan debt, she's proposing -- no, not
debt forgiveness -- to make it "easier to refinance and repay what you owe
as a portion of your income, so you don't have to pay more than you can
afford."
But if you're in college and decide to become an entrepreneur, then Clinton
might forgive your student loans.
***
So if Hillary Clinton is rehashing many of the same policies that she
supported during the Clinton-Gore administration, they must have worked out
well, right?
If you ask Corporate America, the Clinton years went swimmingly. As Lance
Selfa, author of Democrats: A Critical History, wrote:
From Wall Street's point of view, Clinton's eight years in office have to be
viewed as a smashing success ... Inflation dropped to imperceptible levels,
and in May 2000, unemployment hit a 30-year low of 3.9 percent. Between 1992
and 1997, corporate profits grew by an average of 15 percent annually. The
U.S. had clearly zoomed ahead as the world's leading economy.
Jobs were created during the Bill Clinton administration, Selfa points out,
but the majority of them were low-wage. Half paid less than $7 an hour, and
many workers seeking full-time jobs couldn't find anything but part-time.
Workers felt another hit after Clinton-era economic boom went bust in the
early 2000s, and then more spectacularly with the Great Recession in 2008.
More than ever, working people needed social services -- but they had been
"reinvented" by the Clinton administration and were no longer there.
Then again, maybe we don't need to worry about what Hillary Clinton is
promising to do -- since she's hardly high on the list of promise-keeping
politicians.
Take the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the economic deal that she
promises as a candidate to oppose. But she not only vocally supported it in
the past, one of her top surrogates, Terry McAuliffe said during the
Democratic convention that she would flip-flop once she got into the Oval
Office.
That wouldn't be much of a surprise, since the TPP is in keeping with the
Clinton Democrats' decades-old philosophy toward trade deals like the North
American Free Trade Agreement: What's good for business is good for Clinton.
Another example. Clinton talks about creating green jobs -- but it's worth
recalling that as Secretary of State, she promoted the use of
environmentally devastating hydraulic fracturing -- fracking -- as she
visited governments around the globe.
Likewise, Clinton says she supports unions. But supporting unions at
campaign events is easy, especially if you know the union leadership is
solidly behind you and the heads of corporations know you're just talking.
On paper, Clinton supports the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would
require businesses to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers
signed cards saying they wanted to join. But she doesn't talk about it, and
we shouldn't expect her to start in the White House.
Barack Obama promised to make passing EFCA a priority when he was
campaigning in 2008, but even with a Democratic supermajority in Congress
during his first two years, the measure was allowed to die on the vine.
And nowhere in her economic plan is there even the most basic defense of the
idea of a social safety net -- because Hillary Clinton doesn't really
support one.
After a Democratic primary in which Bernie Sanders highlighted rising income
inequality and argued for a return to the so-called core values of the
Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton's economic program appears almost
unchanged by the discussion. Clinton could hardly wait to turn the page on
Sanders so she could focus on Trump.
That's the inevitable outcome of the dead-end of lesser-evil politics in the
U.S. -- where a Democrat who positions herself just to the left of an
increasingly right-wing Republican Party can be called a "friend of working
people" because not quite as bad as the "greater evil."
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Elizabeth Schulte
Elizabeth Schulte is a journalist and reviews editor for the Socialist
Worker, writing frequently on low-wage workers, the Democratic Party and
women's liberation.
Related Stories
Did Companies and Countries Buy State Department Access by Donating to
Clinton Foundation?
By Juan González, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video InterviewWhy Did
Clinton Just Tap a Pro-TPP, Pro-KXL, Pro-Fracking Politician to Head Her
Transition Team?
By Juan González, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video InterviewThe Shameful
Foundation of the Clintons' Power
By Eric Ruder, Socialist Worker | Op-Ed
Show Comments
