Clinton’s Plan: New Taxes, New Investment, Same Challenges
Hillary's plan is incremental and certainly achievable with the most bold proposal being the addition of a public option to the ACA, which was part of President Obama's original proposal, and a Medicare buy-in, which Bill Clinton proposed in 1998 and Bernie Sanders himself proposed in 2009. In other elections, those might have been fairly bold, but with Bernie and Trump still in the mix, she is not selling a truly transformational vision.
Trump is promising to both eliminate the deficit in 8 years while also cutting $9 trillion in tax revenues:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/23/Trump-s-Tax-Cuts-Would-Add-245-Trillion-Debt
Bernie is promising 5 percent growth through a series of tax and spending increases:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/02/18/the_sanders_campaign_is_living_in_an_economic_fantasy_world.html
Five percent growth would put the U.S. on par with emerging growth countries like the Philippines, which has about 6 percent growth.
By comparison, Hillary's plans are pretty boring. Achievable, yes, but where is the sizzle? With Trump as the Republican nominee, we need more pizazz! With the five percent growth that Bernie is promising, unemployment will dwindle to practically zero.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton%E2%80%99s-plan-new-taxes-new-investment-same-challenges/ar-BBt1Hhc?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
While Republican Donald Trump and others in the presidential sweepstakes went big and bold with their tax and spending plans this year, Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton opted for a far more cautious, pragmatic fiscal path.
* * *
First, she embraced the “Buffett rule” – the argument that the wealthiest Americans should have to pay at minimum a higher effective tax rate. Second, Clinton wanted to signal to Sanders and her other sharp critics in the liberal wing that – despite her reputation for coziness with Wall Street and acceptance of large speaking fees from Goldman Sachs – she wasn’t reluctant to slap big banks, hedge fund operators and other wealthy investors with higher taxes and fees.
Third, she underwrote most of the cost of her social and economic agenda by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, without driving up the debt too much or rocking the economy. Clinton was something of a piker compared to Sanders in promoting her agenda. Even so, her long term programs include new infrastructure construction, paid family leave, early childhood education, college tuition relief and expanded health care coverage, just to name a few.
According to a Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis, Clinton’s social and economic programs would cost $1.8 trillion over the coming decade. She devised a strategy to offset $1.6 trillion of the total cost, including $1.3 trillion of new tax revenue. The remainder of the overall cost would be added to the debt.
