Some of the American media currently suggests that
Mrs Clinton and Senator Sanders may well fight in a contested Democratic Convention.
I am no psephologist but I find it difficult to believe that Bernie will garner
enough delegates and super-delegates to stop Hillary on the first ballot and
prevent her from achieving what she has wanted for so long. Let us assume she
wins the Democratic nomination. I have looked at some of the policies advocated
by her, as well as where she stands politically.
Let’s start with campaign finance. Mrs Clinton
wants to overturn the Citizens United
ruling, as well as requiring corporations to disclose donations to Super PACS. There
is no mention of placing such a requirement on trades unions. Assuming the
Democrats could win control of both Houses of Congress in November, she might
get the disclosure issue onto the statute books but to reverse Citizens United, which removes all
political donation limits on individuals, corporations and unions, will take
more than statute. Legislation will be challenged all the way to the Supreme
Court, which will have to reverse its previous decision. This is possible but
it will take a lot of time and a huge amount of politics. This is a process
issue and I suspect it will be left on the back burner until her administration
can see a “slam-dunk.”
On foreign policy, there will probably be a
seamless continuation of most of the Obama administration policies. Hillary
advocates strong US involvement to defeat ISIS but without the use of American
ground troops. She says she would combat terrorism with improved
intelligence instead of troops. For example, agencies will use the social media
to identify terrorists. Visa applications would require full screenings for
those who have travelled to terrorist countries and Operations officers and
linguists would be added to U.S. intelligence agencies. I cannot say what
discussions she has had with the Joint Chiefs but I would be interested to know
whether they approve her stance. Those who know about these things don’t
believe ISIS can be defeated by bombing alone. As for terrorism, let’s see what
results from the recent conference, hosted by President Obama but I fear Mrs
Clinton would have to take much stronger positions than presently advocated.
What of the American economy? Mrs Clinton’s plan
focuses more on increasing middle-class incomes than helping the poor. The plan
seems to have three distinct stages. First, boost growth. Tax cuts for middle income
earners and small businesses, establish an infrastructure bank, and fund more
scientific research. Help women enter the workforce by requiring corporations
to pay for family leave. The College Affordability Plan would spend $35 billion a year
to refinance student debt and pay states to guarantee tuition payments. The National Infrastructure Plan would allocate $27.5 billion
annually to improve roads, bridges, public transit, rail, airports, the
Internet, and water systems. The Expanded Childcare Plan and the Early Education Plan would spend $27.5 billion a year
for states to make pre-school available to all 4-year-olds and expand Early
Head Start. Expanded Funding for IDEA would spend $16.6 billion a year
to identify and treat children with disabilities. The Energy Plan would pay $9 billion
annually to repair oil pipelines, reduce carbon emissions, and fund health and
retirements for coal workers.
Next, Mrs Clinton would create fair growth. She wants
to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. She says she wants to protect
Social Security but is vague on her plans to expand it. She advocates increases
in workers' benefits, expansion of overtime, and will seek to encourage
businesses to share profits with employees.
To pay for her initiatives, Mrs Clinton would
impose a fair share 4% surcharge on incomes greater than $5 million a year,
raising $15 billion a year and affecting 34,000 households. That is in addition
to other tax increases that would raise $80 billion a year. However the
spending plans amount to $120 billion a year. The gap is significant.
Hillary’s third limb is to support long-term growth
by raising short-term capital gains taxes for those earning $400,000 or more a
year. Investments held between one and two years would be taxed at the maximum
income-tax rate of 39.6%. Assets held for longer would be taxed on a
sliding scale. She would also tax high-frequency traders. She would extend the
statute of limitations for financial crimes, and require CEOs personally to pay
part of any fines levied on their corporations.
Will a Clinton administration balance the books? My
suspicion is that the Democrats will continue the spending deficit, relying on
foreign countries and investors to buy American government bonds. I have found
no plans from the Clinton campaign to address America’s debt problem. I cannot
understand how the mammoth trillion dollar debt can be allowed to rise every
year. President Obama inherited a severe banking and manufacturing crisis and
after only two years in office faced a Congress so hostile that it would simply
not do business with the White House. But the debt has been allowed to rise
after several conflicts between the two branches. President Obama did nothing to
resolve the problem. Mrs Clinton cannot expect to ignore the debt for another four
or perhaps eight years. So, her economic plans may have to be changed. As her husband
said famously in his first State of the Union address, “you play the cards
you’re dealt.”
Whoever wins the Presidency in November will find a
large docket of problems when he or she enters the Oval Office the following
January and that’s without considering issues that may subsequently arise.
People might argue that security is the biggest issue facing America and that
the Taliban, ISIS and other terrorist groups have to be destroyed as a priority,
or perhaps there may be more vacancies to fill on the Supreme Court. This would
be a very big issue.
But for me, debt is the most pressing issue, not
just for America but for the West. Here in the UK, our government practices
austerity, a policy followed since 2010, but it will need huge strokes of good fortune
to balance the books before 2020. Common sense tells me that nations cannot
borrow indefinitely without paying a fierce price for doing so.
Who will contest the Presidency? It looks like
Clinton v Trump. I did not think it was possible to unite the pro-life and
pro-choice lobbies but last week, Mr. Trump performed this sleight of hand with
his stance on abortion, which he has now changed three times. With the
Republicans now in disarray and so disunited, it is tempting to assume the
Democrats will have an easy ride into the Oval Office. But there are months to
go and the saying, “a week is a long time in politics,” will no doubt prove
relevant. For me the Presidency is a side-show. The battle for control of Congress
has far more importance.
I hope that the next President decides to make reduction
of debt a top priority. Will it be Hillary? She is now an experienced
campaigner and she seems to be a capable administrator. But will she overcome
the 40% problem? She cannot seem to galvanise more than 40% of any sector of
American voters to her cause. The black vote, so supportive of Bill, seems to
be turning its back on Hillary, as are many women under 40 years of age.
Hillary is not liked by many voters and not trusted either. The FBI could put
the election process into turmoil should a decision be made to prosecute Mrs
Clinton for using a private e-mail server when Secretary of State. However, if
she can overcome all these pitfalls, she will likely be the first President to
have a First Man in the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment