Why Is Hilary Clinton Stooping So Low?

[Hope And Change]

Monday, December 03, 2007

Why is HRC stooping So Low?

I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. "There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk." Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O’s character, she said: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."

I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.

All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up.

Robert Reich is the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. This is his personal journal.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

[jefferson_dem]

1. Great piece. Puts things into proper perspective and Reich is one who knows...

:kick:

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Oooh! More feigned outrage

over the fact that politicians go after each other when they're running for the same office!

[ronnykmarshall]

4. That's NOT true.

Well if Obama or Edwards do it they "aggressive". If Hillary does it "CIRCLE JERK TIME"!!! BRING OUT LUBE!!

[jefferson_dem]

9. Dayum, Ronny...

That ain't right.

[sniffa]

3. She Stoops To Conquer

[maddiejoan]

5. He has the Courage and Conviction

To sit out all the important votes!

[jgraz]

6. Ooh! That's gotta sting

One of Bill's own coming out against her. Remind me again which members of the Clinton cabinet have endorsed Hillary?

[Bucky]

10. Reich has been kvetching about the Clintons for years. They payloaded him in 96.

Reich thought he was getting McGovern redux rather than the Beta version of Tony Blair.

[Bucky]

7. Damn. I was hoping this was about her cleavage again. Hubba hubba, Senator!

[mod mom]

8. important coming from a former Clinton Secretary of Labor

[Perry Logan]

11. It's kind of like swatting a fly.

[IADEMO2004]

12. So the media can hear

[Scriptor Ignotus]

13. O > HRC EOM

[AtomicKitten]

26. in a nutshell

:thumbsup:

[Catherine Vincent]

14. She stooped low to get Reich's attention.

Isn't he about 4 feet tall? :evilgrin:

[rufus dog]

15. don't attack the messenger

Attach the message! Glad to have Robert call it as he sees it.

[frazzled]

16. His points about the SS cap and Obama's health care plan are compelling

Being willing to lift the SS cap is the progressive thing to do. What is new here is his contention, as a former trustee of the SS fund, that this adjustment, although minor, is needed. That's not something we've been willing to say before ... and why? Because of Republican privatization schemes. But Reich has a more compelling reason, given that privatization is dead: a "commission," such as the one Clinton is talking about, is far more likely to either raise the retirement age or put a payroll-tax raise on everyone, not just the wealthy.

And the more I read about mandates vs. no mandates, I'm interested he's come down on the no mandate side, and has looked closely at the strong points of Obama's plan. This is what Robert Reich does for a living, so it's a pretty good endorsement. It's also an interesting counterpoint to Krugman's views ... we need a good debate on this subject from both of these qualified people.

I don't think these policy decisions are dispositive in any way--I still maintain that neither a Clinton or Obama (or anyone else's) plans are going to be the ones we see put forward after 2008. But it does ask the question: why are these policies being painted as bad or being mischaracterized.

[madrchsod]

19. who ever told her to use the word "commission" should be fired

she was savaged in the 90`s because of her commission that resulted in the failed health care plan...just fix the problems in the old plan

[madrchsod]

17. mark penn is running her campaign right down the center

because he does`t want her offending the right but by doing so she is losing creditability from the left. there`s is no reason what so ever that she has to stay in the center. does she think she`s going to attract enough right wing voters offset her loss from the left? maybe obama is doing something correct because his numbers are slowly catching her.

i certainly do not like her but if she becomes the nominee then i`ll support her but i will never stop criticizing something that i feel is wrong. if she becomes president she`ll be treated the same way..course this goes for anyone who takes the nomination and presidency

[Truth2Tell]

20. right down the center ??

right down the center of the Republican Party maybe. Not right down the center of American values. A majority of Americans - not Democrats, Americans - support single payer Health insurance. A majority of Americans - again, not Dems, but Americans - support immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Hillary isn't even in the "center," She's in the middle-right.

[dsc]

18. I fail to see why raising the cap to 115k makes SS so much more progressive

I think we should reverse the Bush tax cuts and use those funds to replace what was taken. That is way more sensible and fair than raising the cap. After all many of Bush's tax cuts weren't on wages but on dividends and inheritances. Those cuts were subsidized by raiding the SS trust fund.

[ClarkUSA]

21. Because pigs like rolling around in the mud...

And so do the Clintons.

[Beacool]

22. Your old friend?

She was more than that Shorty, you dated her in college until she probably got back pains from bending down to be at eye level and dumped you. :eyes:

[rateyes]

24. Good counter argument...

NOT.

[tammywammy]

23. As I said in the other thread "verrry interesting"

[mzmolly]

25. Fear. That's why.

She fears Obama getting the big MO in Iowa and having an actual "race" on her hands.