She would call for a temporary reduction in the payroll tax, rather than the gas tax (hat tip to an anonymous friend who wishes to remain that way). This would reduce the burden of higher gas prices, while continuing to discourage gasoline consumption, something that is obviously desirable for both the environment and national security.
Worse than her bad policy is her recent fusillade against "experts." I liked her sleazy husband's administration because it actually relied on experts for making policy, and so made the country stronger economically. Moreover, low-income workers did better during the Clinton administration than in any other since the 1960s (and according to Joseph Stiglitz (link coming), better than the 60s, but according to Eric Olin Wright, not quite as well as the 60s). But to have Clintonian ethics without expertise--no thank you.
If Clinton does by some miracle win the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for her. But the clothespin I will need is getting bigger every day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
How would Social Security be funded if the payroll tax were reduced? This is supposed to be a retirement program that helps the poor much more than anyone else. It keeps many of them out of poverty when they get older. The poor get back much more from the program than they put into it. Weakening Social Security is not the way to go if we want to help the poor.
Lowering the cost of living would help much more (lower prices on homes, cars, food, etc...) Eliminate the unnecessary unfunded mandates that needlessly drive up the cost of living if you really want to help the poor.
Also, get rid of inflation, which affects the poor more than the rich. If the poor have pensions, they tend not to be adjusted for inflation. The poor get doubly hurt by a lower standard of living while working, and a slowly destroyed pension when they retire.
Bill Clinton raised gas tax during his term.
To the owner of this blog, how far youve come?
Post a Comment