Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Hillary’s Big Economic Speech Forgets About Obamanomics

 

052114hillary-600x298There was a weird moment during Hillary Clinton’s big-think economic speech the other day. The former Obama Secretary of State and current middle-class warrior had just finished ticking off a bunch of worrisome stats on income growth, income inequality, and social mobility. She really focused on how Canada’s middle-class is now supposedly richer than America’s in an economy with both more equality and a stronger safety net. Then Clinton continued:

That’s not how it’s supposed to be. We often think that we invented the middle-class. So what can we do about it? Of course, a lot depends on our leadership here in Washington and across our country. The 1990s taught us that even in the face of difficult, long-term economic trends, it’s possible through smart policies and sound investment to enjoy broad-based growth and shared prosperity. My husband gave a lecture at Georgetown recently …

Stop the tape. Wasn’t that the moment she was supposed to start trumpeting the achievements of the Obama administration and how Obamanomics has begun to turn around those bad trends? Shouldn’t that have been the “stay the course with Hillary” moment (assuming a 2016 White House run)? Instead, she skipped right back to Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Actually, Hillary Clinton had little to say about the sitting president. About 20 minutes into to the speech, she said this and then almost nothing more about #44:

It’s taken years of pain-staking work and strong leadership from President Obama to get our economy growing again. But it is growing. And there are reasons to be optimistic about our future.

Stop the tape. No mention of the stimulus, or Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank? And those reasons for optimism she went on to list — such as Big Data, shale energy, clean energy, strong US universities — have either nothing to do with Obama or are only tangentially related at best. It was like Hillary was placed in suspended animation in 2008 and just recently revived to give a stump speech about the evils of the Bush tax cuts. Of course, her problem is that the glacial Obama recovery hardly makes the case for the wisdom of Democratic economic policy or a de facto third Obama term. Imagine if Hillary could have said this:

But now, after seven years of hard work, we have righted ourselves. We have weathered the storm. Our economy has recovered to become the strongest in history. And once again, our flag is recognized as a force for good in the world.

We have righted ourselves — the platform is firm again, the base is stable — and from this strong platform we can now launch the great endeavors of the future. We don’t need radical new directions — we need strong and steady leadership. We don’t need to remake society — we just need to remember who we are. We are a great people in a great nation. We have earned our optimism, we have a right to our confidence — and we have much to do.

Now that is how you make the case for a de facto third presidential term, which Vice President George Bush did in 1987 with those words. But Hillary Clinton would likely be laughed off the stage if she said anything like that. And this is the inherent vulnerability of a potential presidential run: All the long-term problems she’ll mention haven’t really gotten any better under the current Democratic president. So, to use Bob Dole’s 1996 phrase, she needs to be a “bridge to the past,” to the bubbly, booming 1990s. And that creates an opportunity for her GOP opponent (again, assuming she is the Democratic nominee) to make the forward-looking, “bridge to the future” case that Bill Clinton effectively did that year against Dole.

There are 14 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Michael Stopa Contributor

    According to the IMF, for 2013 the income per capita for the USA was $53,101, for Canada $43,472.
    According to the World Bank, for 2011-2012, USA $51,749 and Canada $41,298.
    According to the CIA (!?) for 1993-2013, USA $52,800 and Canada $43,100.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

    It is true that if you are willing to reduce the rate at which people on the whole
    grow more wealthy, you can narrow the distribution. You can do all sorts of things
    if you don’t care about or are unaware of the existence of the market.

    • #1
    • May 23, 2014, at 2:46 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. barbara lydick Inactive

    It looks like she – and most likely the other Dems – will be hanging their hats on the dreaded phrases ‘income inequality’ and ‘social justice.’ Several of us have noted this in previous threads, and as James Lileks said, we mustn’t follow suit and use these phrases ourselves. But we do need to get creative and develop some arguments that people can easily understand in order to show that it is the free market that helps the most people. That and some creative destruction of the morass of regs that stifles innovation.

    • #2
    • May 23, 2014, at 4:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. AIG Inactive

    barbara lydick: But we do need to get creative and develop some arguments that people can easily understand in order to show that it is the free market that helps the most people.

     I think it is far too late for that. One has to consider what the average swing “independent” voter understands, and how they operate. Basically, they understand nothing. They operate on the bases of “I have to look out for #1.” 

    Simple populist messages like “you will get richer, remember the 90s?” are perfect for this sort of demographic. There’s little the GOP can do to get to this level of “absurdity”, while all Hillary has to do is not screw up and say “remember the 90s.” She doesn’t need complicated economic arguments. She’s talking to a certain type of demographic which wouldn’t understand anyway. 

    • #3
    • May 23, 2014, at 5:16 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge

    Yes, the economy is recovering – despite what Barry has done. Yes, her husband was president during a time of economic growth – after HillaryCare was shot down and a tax reduction package was foisted on a President who knew a veto would be overturned.

    So, yes, please continue the standard Dem talking points about the economy. Soon she’ll tout the stat about increased oil production that has zero to do with federal policies, and in fact her administration has done all it could to prevent additional capacity from coming online.

    I like to call these things politicians say “lies”. Because that’s what they are. And these idiots’ balloons need to get popped every chance they float another stupid statement skyward.

    • #4
    • May 23, 2014, at 5:27 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. Zafar Member

    Michael Stopa:

    According to the IMF, for 2013 the income per capita for the USA was $53,101, for Canada $43,472. According to the World Bank, for 2011-2012, USA $51,749 and Canada $41,298. According to the CIA (!?) for 1993-2013, USA $52,800 and Canada $43,100.

     

    Do you know if they’re comparing mean income or median income?

    Also – are claims like Hilary’s based on a view that factors in what the middle class in each country pays for a basket of goods and services? Meaning if they earn less in Canada but can buy more than the average person in the US (or vice versa) then it should be relevant.

    • #5
    • May 23, 2014, at 7:39 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. AIG Inactive

    Zafar: Meaning if they earn less in Canada but can buy more than the average person in the US (or vice versa) then it should be relevant.

     The numbers given are PPP, so they capture precisely that. 

    • #6
    • May 23, 2014, at 8:10 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. Profile Photo Member

    Has anybody questioned the premise that Hillary really understands economics? Obama doesn’t and I don’t think the philanderer-in-chief did either. This idea that she’s so smart is ludicrous. Somebody, please show me any accomplishments that she did on her own? Please show me how smart she is. What has she done as Hillary Rodham? She’s a celebrity, not a leader. I think she’s a fraud in the same mold of Obama.

    • #7
    • May 23, 2014, at 8:58 PM PDT
    • Like
  8. Michael Stopa Contributor

    Zafar:

    Michael Stopa:

    According to the IMF, for 2013 the income per capita for the USA was $53,101, for Canada $43,472. According to the World Bank, for 2011-2012, USA $51,749 and Canada $41,298. According to the CIA (!?) for 1993-2013, USA $52,800 and Canada $43,100.

    Do you know if they’re comparing mean income or median income?

    Also – are claims like Hilary’s based on a view that factors in what the middle class in each country pays for a basket of goods and services? Meaning if they earn less in Canada but can buy more than the average person in the US (or vice versa) then it should be relevant.

     They are simply dividing GDP by population, I believe.

    • #8
    • May 23, 2014, at 9:08 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. AIG Inactive

    3rd angle projection: I think she’s a fraud in the same mold of Obama.

     And he won two presidential elections. Imagine what she can do. 

    • #9
    • May 23, 2014, at 10:39 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. profdlp Inactive

    Old 1990s Joke Alert

    The good news is that Bill Clinton is building a bridge to the future. The bad news is that Ted Kennedy is going to drive us across.

    2014 Update

    …and Hillary is the backseat driver who only figures out that someone took a wrong turn AFTER we got hopelessly lost.

    • #10
    • May 24, 2014, at 12:20 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy WeivodaJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I tried to listen to the whole speech but could only take it for a few minutes. It’s the same old claim that the poor are poor because the rich are hogging all the money. Greedy business owners are underpaying their employees. Blah, blah, blah.

    Here’s the solution, Hillary. Forget about government. Open your own business. Not a law firm, something that employs low skilled people. Make it your policy to pay yourself and any other executives no more than say seven times what the lowest paid employees get. Make sure that the men are paid no more than the women, even if they do put in 10-20% more hours. Make sure that even a high-school kid with no experience, living at home gets paid a “living wage”. Run it the way lefties say businesses should be run. I don’t care if it’s a chain of gas stations, coffee shops, or dry cleaners, just DO IT. Don’t tell us the right way to run a business, Hillary. Show us. Put your own money on the line.

    • #11
    • May 24, 2014, at 11:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Ray Kujawa Coolidge

    But you argue against yourself, James. Hillary is sensitive to things that haven’t worked. She’s not campaigning for a third term of Obama’s policies, and she ought not to be, if she wants to give herself a real shot at the presidency. Her words indicate more moderate policies than Obama, meant to attract independents and moderates. But I think those independents and moderates will have a hard time taking the bait, now that the Obama administration has illustrated all the worst outcomes of Progressive policies. I think they’ll be more comfortable choosing Republican at every level until we’ve rebalanced the country, reigned in the run amok bureaucracies and unleashed America’s economic engine once more.

    • #12
    • May 24, 2014, at 1:21 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge

    7 years of hard work? Has that chick ever lifted a shovel, other than a ceremonial one?

    Hard work in tripling record deficits and hard work in setting a record for national debt, and hard work in, well, an abdication of your sworn duty to protect the people under your care as SecState.

    Hillary’s got huge clankers if she thinks she can go on TV and tout things she clearly doesn’t understand and then thinks she has the moral authority to lecture us on what we should do. What we should do is rid ourselves of people just like her, and let Americans lead the country – and you don’t need a Senate, House, or WH to do that. People do that every day without the patriarchy’s leave – it’s called living their lives. We don’t need her to do that. We need her and people like her to get as far away from us as possible so we CAN live our lives.

    Galling. She can’t go away fast enough. A caterwauling hack.

    • #13
    • May 25, 2014, at 9:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Freesmith Inactive

    The themes of the Clinton 2016 campaign are competence and consolidation. Get used to hearing variations on both.

    Hillary and her veteran team will promise to consolidate the awkward gains made by the current administration of youthful novices. They will promise a “return of the grown-ups.” Compromise. Reasoning together. Reaching across the aisle.

    Conflict and partisanship, Hillary will tell us, do not define America. That is not who we are.

    Get ready, folks. A billion dollars will bring that message to a big-screen near you.

    Obamaism: She will mend it, not end it.

    • #14
    • May 26, 2014, at 8:42 AM PDT
    • 1 like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.