Hillary's false claim of concern for working people

[hfojvt]

As the M$M and even some of the blogosphere are pushing how 'gracious' Hillary's closing statement was, here is why I think it was more dishonest than gracious.

She claimed that she got up every day, and her campaign is all about "helping others" to get the same opportunities and blessings that she has enjoyed in her life. I look for evidence of that in her record and her campaign and cannot find it. If you are a Hillary supporter reading this, show me the money.

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.

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

"And it's time we finally had a president who worked as hard for you as you work for America every single day.

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.

"I want to start with a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures. If the bank is about to foreclose on your home, you should have some breathing room to restructure your mortgage. I'm calling for freezing the monthly rate on adjustable rate mortgages for at least five years or until the mortgages have been converted into loans that families can afford. If you have an adjustable mortgage that’s about to skyrocket, you'll have the chance to pay it off with affordable payments."

Then, she says this about the current stimulus plan

"The Democratic leadership in the House and Senate along with the White House appear to be nearing a deal and I am heartened to hear that they are planning to extend assistance to the tens of millions of working Americans who need it the most."

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". With a golden opportunity to help the needy, she did not take it, or fight for it.

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

"Maybe you want to start saving for retirement, but you can't do it because your taxes are too high and your wages aren't high enough."

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 accounting. 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!

"That's why I’ve outlined a comprehensive plan to open the doors of college to young people. It includes a new $3,500 college tax credit that will cover more than 50% of the typical cost of public colleges and universities or the full cost of tuition and fees for community colleges."

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. Her rhetoric 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.

[hfojvt]

1. I like this video, sums it up - Hillary fights for the middle class

the UPPER middle class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7pw0cFRTLE

[Little Star]

2. God is that you? Wish I could read other peoples hearts like you.

[hfojvt]

14. it's not about reading people's hearts

it's about comparing their rhetoric to their policy and their actions.

Do you believe me if I say I love you and then offer to show this love by taking your life savings and using it to buy the latest family history software?

Okay, that's a bad example since we apparently have the same hobby. Suppose instead, I use it to pay for my ex girlfriend's daughter's car.

Like her supporters say about Obama, actions speak louder than words.

[Bucky]

3. I don't agree with everything she advocates, but it's hardly a false claim

Good heavens, populism is always about 80% message and 20% action. Clinton would not screw over the working class.

I still prefer Obama, but Clinton is not the devil.

[hfojvt]

5. it's certainly a false claim to say that's her whole motivation

when I don't see her putting very much effort into it. I didn't really say she was the devil, only that she is not the populist that she pretends to be in order to win the nomination.

I think Bill screwed over the working class for the most part, and Hillary cannot and will not really fight for us (working classers) if she does not propose anything to help us. Populism ends up being 80% rhetoric because forces arise to stop populist policy. With Hillary, they don't really have to though, because she is not proposing anything populist behind her rhetoric of "I really care about ordinary people".

[Bucky]

8. She wants to be president to help people & make this a better country.

Like it or not, that is her core motivation. I'm sorry she can't sell that to you. I'm supporting Obama, but I don't think it's hard to see her sincere desire to be a good leader.

[hfojvt]

12. help which people though?

Those above the median income or those below? If she has big plans to help those below the median income, then I would like to see them. I would like to support them.

My argument is simple - she claims to care about low income, average people, and yet offers no specifics for how she will help them/us. The things she does propose and support, provide most of their help to those above the median income. What policies does she offer that are gonna help the country more than anybody else's policies? She doesn't say. Other than fiscal responsibility, she doesn't openly commit to anything.

Maybe it is just me because I worked two low paying, no benefits jobs in the 1990s and then worked as a temp for three years while Clinton and the Republican press kept bragging about the economy and talking as if everybody was prospering. Everybody was not, and I knew that first-hand. I've already been ignored by one Clinton administration.

[chascarrillo]

18. Clinton screwed over the working class in this very campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23owe.html?ex=1361509200&en=4f466e2b31ff8b50&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[dsc]

4. It is uttterly, totally, and completely false

that most of the money is going to people above the median income. I admit to not knowing all the details of the plan but I do know what median means and enough details to know which side of the median is getting less. The rebate starts to phase out at about 100k for singles, and about 200k for couples. Conversely the rebates go to people all the way down to 3k. The only possible way that more money could be going to those above the median is if more people earn less than 3k than more than 200k and that just isn't true.

[hfojvt]

6. utterly, totally, and completely?

That was a bit of a WAG on my part, but the Brookings Institute agrees with me

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1780&DocTypeID=2

you forget that poor people get $300 and richer people get $600. Two income families get $1200 plus $300 per child.

According to their table 47.1% of the benefits goto the top 40% and only 29.7% goto the bottom 40%. If you split the 23.1% that goes to the middle quintile then the bottom 50% gets 40.2% and those above the median income get 58.6%.

It was close, but I think "over 50%" qualifies as "most". Worse yet if you compare the 47.1% to the richer people and 29.7% to the poorer people.

[dsc]

10. The middle 20 doesn't split the way you say it does

the upper part of that middle 20 starts to get phased out.

[hfojvt]

11. I don't believe that's true

The rebates start to phase out at $75,000 for an individual and $150,000 for a couple. According to the most recent info on Wiki the 3rd quintile is households with income from #34,738 - $55,331. Thus almost 100% of those households should get a rebate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_quintiles

[jillan]

7. What's the matter? Did the gop convince you that Schip is a bad thing?

[hfojvt]

13. I do have mixed feelings about it, but nice of you to bring in the GOP

Also, I was not especially aware of her involvement in it. So I did some googling and found this

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/06/clinton_claims_credit_for_child_program/

Kudos to her then, except for a couple troubling details.

"The effort nearly went off the rails when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Republican, said it violated the balanced budget agreement. President Clinton, eager to preserve the agreement, actually phoned lawmakers to kill the legislation when it came to the Senate floor.

Hillary Clinton defended her husband's action at the time. "He had to safeguard the overall budget proposal," she told one audience. But she insisted he would find other ways to provide health coverage for kids."

So Bill Clinton, anyway, put a balanced budget ahead of the needs of sick kids, and Hillary defended him.

Then I remembered something even more ironic. At the same time Bill Clinton was saying that we could not afford SCHIP at a cost of $24 billion over ten years, he was proposing a tax cut which favored the wealthy and would cost over $100 billion over ten years.

http://www.cbpp.org/clinttax.htm

"Analyses by the Treasury Department indicate that when fully in effect, the Clinton plan would give the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes about the same amount in tax cuts as the bottom 60 percent combined. This is an unusual characteristic for a tax plan proposed by a Democratic President."

So, according to Bill Clinton, we could not afford health care for children, but we could afford a much larger tax cut favoring the wealthy. Amazing what gets sacrificed when fiscal responsibility is made a priority.

Granted, this episode makes Bill look much worse than Hillary, but she also enabled and defended his bad decision. It's hardly an episode that proves that she puts the needs of ordinary people first and further illustrates that I do not want a President who has Bill Clinton as one of her closest advisors.

[moriah]

9. Refundable vs non-refundable credits

A refundable tax credit, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, as long as your income is over the threshold to qualify for EITC, you get the money in your refund regardless of if you end up owing 0 tax. Apparently the Child Tax Credit is a non-refundable credit, although you can qualify for some (not all) of that tax credit as refundable depending on how much you make (I did calculations for a single parent with one child, at 12,000, 15,000, 18,000, and 25,000 -- all ended up with a positive amount with 0 net tax after the EITC, but it seemed like the child tax credit was maximized at 18,000 compared to 15k or 25k since at 25k your regular tax is over 1000, at 18k 2/3s of the Child Tax Credit was refundable.)

If the $3,500 tax credit she proposes is fully refundable like the EITC, it should benefit even the lowest income families.

Hillary also proposes eliminating the tax cuts given by Bush to those who earn more than $250,000 (it may have been $200k, but I'm trying to be fair here), not just corporate taxes.

According to this fairly recent article, the Democrats in Congress haven't rolled over quite yet on their demand for the rebate to be applicable to all families (ie fully refundable).

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/22/news/economy/rebate_negotiations/

"Strengthening the middle class" is rhetoric to a significant degree, I'll admit. Most families, even if they are below the poverty line, still see themselves as middle class. Most people who are making a fairly good deal of money but are still working for that money don't see themselves as "wealthy", but middle class as well -- even those who may make well over $200k a year. It's a talking point that works to draw in voters, and Hillary isn't the only person to use it.

You are 100% right by saying (or at least saying it with your focus in this post if not in so many words) that the way we need to look at candidates is by their proposals and not their rhetoric.

I do wish, however, that these tax rebate debates in Congress had come at a time when two of our best Democratic Senators were able to dedicate their full strength to fighting for the tax rebate to apply to all. As it stands neither Hillary or Barack have the time to give this issue their full support in Congress (they may be able to schedule showing up for a vote, but both of them have been very strong voices in the Senate floor debates in the past, and it'd be wonderful if they were able to dedicate more time to this issue.)

Take care, and thanks for a good post, even if I disagree on some points.

Edited to fix grammar.

[hfojvt]

15. the child tax credit is not refundable

and neither is the proposed college credit as far as I can tell.

My point about the child tax credit is this. When it was $500 per child a single parent with one child was paying no tax at an income of $19,650 and a single parent with two children was paying no tax at an income of $28,050. For a married couple the threshholds were $25,900 and $34,300 for one and two children respectively.

Then when Bush and the Republicans increased it to $1,000 per child, those families making less than that threshhold got no benefit from that tax cut. In order to get the full $500 more per child benefit, those families would need to make more than $24,650; $35,100; $30,900; and $42,850.

By promising to keep the credit at the $1,000 level, Hillary is promising to preserve a credit that benefits higher income families more than it benefits lower income families. It's a tax cut of $1,000 for a family of four making $50,000 a year and a tax cut of $0 for a family of four making $30,000 a year.

[anamandujano]

16. Sick and twisted.

Applause to the posters who have taken it on. I wouldn't know where to start.

I think I'm about to try the disappear thread function.

[Enrique]

17. Hillary is a leader on LIHEAP

Do you acknowledge that she has been a strong and effective advocate for funding that program?