Home > Perspective

The Socialism of Hillary Clinton

by John F. Tamburo, Editor in Chief, Publisher
Originally Posted: 5/30/2007 10:26:36 AM

Hillary Clinton has been packaged as a "moderate" by the socialists in the news media who are hell-bent upon electing her to the presidency.  Her rhetoric has, as is usual for a Clinton, wavered between each crowd with whom she speaks.  However, under that variable veneer of pandering-as-art-form, Mrs. Clinton has let her pure Socialism slip out.  In a speech she recently gave, Mrs. Clinton uttered the following remarks:

"It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an ’on your own’ society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ’we’re all in it together’ society."

This remark belies Mrs. Clinton’s alleged belief in personal liberty, and makes it clear that her disastrous 1993 attempt to hijack American health care, to the point of criminalizing the act of hiring your own doctor, was indeed reflective of her core values.  Those values share far more with Hugo Chavez, Castro, Lenin and Hitler than they do with the "Democrat" party’s putative intellectual father, Thomas Jefferson.  "Shared Prosperity" is code for governmental redistribution of wealth.  Do you think I exaggerate?  Let’s read some more of the latest Hillary Manifesto:

"Unfortunately, for the past six years it’s as though we’ve gone back to the era of the robber barons. Year after year the president has handed out massive tax breaks to oil companies, no-bid contracts to Halliburton, tax incentives to corporations shipping jobs overseas, tax cut after tax cut to multimillionaires, while ignoring the needs and aspirations of tens of millions of working families."

First, a factual correction or two... The President has no power to hand out any sort of tax breaks at all.  Tax law is created in the Congress, specifically the House, and is passed and then signed into law.  The tax cuts that the President urged and the Congress passed led to prosperity that is hard to comprehend in its profound scope.  Into the face of a terrorist attack on our financial nerve center, followed by a major war, the economy is booming even as I type these words.  The tax rate cut has led to tax revenue increases.  No tax cut has targeted oil companies, whose net margins are roughly the same now as before the price hikes (ironically caused by leftist pressure against building oil refineries to meet demand).

As to the notion that our President "ignor[ed] the needs and aspirations of tens of millions of working families," I note that the child tax credit is a brainchild of our President.  I have personally seen thousands of dollars come back to my family since this credit was enacted; that money has benefited my family directly and has further benefited the economy as we spent some and saved some. 

Mrs. Clinton derides our present prosperity.  To wit:

"Now, in past economic expansions, that’s not the way it was. In the past, about 75% of net corporate revenues have gone to employee compensation, and only 25% to profits. However, for the past five years, the comparable figures are 41% going to employee compensation and 59% going to profits. Think about this: last year, the share of America’s national income going to corporate profits was the highest since 1929 -- while the share going to the salaries of American workers was the lowest.

"The inescapable reality is that globalization, modern technology, economic policy, are creating new conditions that threaten our middle class families and make it harder to achieve a middle class lifestyle."

I am tempted to dissect this part of the speech and argue that Mrs. Clinton embraces some sort of Luddite rebellion.  However, it’s easier to simply dissect her faulty premise.  Mrs. Clinton appears to condemn corporate profitability.  The ratio of employee expenses to profits has changed from a past figure (the time frame is nebulous) of 75-25% to 41-59%.  These percentages mean nothing.  What was the number of inflation-adjusted dollars per capita going to employees?  Now that figure means something.  I venture to say that Mrs. Clinton fails to cite that figure because it puts the lie to her "corporations are robber barons" premise.  Net inflation-adjusted dollars per worker have consistently risen for over 35 years running.  Each person is becoming more prosperous.

Furthermore, the corporate profits which Mrs. Clinton derides are paid back to stockholders, in increased share value and dividends.  All of those workers who have 401(k) plans are watching their mutual funds skyrocket.  Those who invest directly in stocks are trading in a market which is presently recording numerous successive record highs.

Employee compensation as a percentage of net revenues has decreased, primarily due to technology.  Touch-tone replaced switchboard operators.  Supermarkets replaced milkmen.  Telegram messengers gave way to email, FAX and Federal Express.  Times change.  It is ironic that the Left argues that we conservatives wish to hold people back, as they decry the after-effects of progress.  Liberals would preserve the buggy-whip industry and force every car to be equipped with a buggy-whip, in order to give people their older jobs.  Conservatives, who would conserve your freedom, would help train you to a new industry, where you may just end up making more money.

Mrs. Clinton wants to "reject the idea of an ’on your own’ society" and replace it with a government-mandated, government-centric, government-controlled Orwellian nightmare that would leave Stalin bright green with envy.  The founders would retch at the notion.  Thomas Jefferson once said that "A government big enough to give you all that you want, is powerful enough to take all that you have."

Mrs. Clinton continued:

"Now, our founders knew that inequality wasn’t good for our country. They believed that vast concentrations of wealth were a threat to democracy. They believed America should give everyone, not just the children of the landed gentry, the chance to fulfill their God-given potential."

Mrs. Clinton dangerously warps the founders’ statements and thoughts.  Jefferson, for example, wanted to encourage small land ownership over land barons, a direct effort to avoid the European system, which still had shades of feudalism in the late 1700’s.  The founders wanted many Americans to own their own land, and in the same way, we continue to this day to encourage home ownership, giving wings to Jefferson’s 1785 thought:  "[T]he small land holders are the most precious part of a state."

Again, we see the word "democracy" used to describe our republic.  This is a dangerous PR trick, to identify the Democrat party (now more truly a Socialist party) with the founders.  Articles around the Internet attempt to remake our founders into early socialists in order to attempt to make the Democrat policies of 2007 more palatable to those who love freedom.  However, the tactic is given lie by what Jefferson said.  The founders wanted a small government, with no peerage.

Finally, there is little more telling of Mrs. Clinton’s near-Marxist philosophy than this passage:

"It’s also important to understand these policies are consistent with the administration’s theory about how we should manage our economy: leave it all up to the individual.

"That’s why they want to privatize Social Security and let individuals bear the risks. It’s why their answer to the health care crisis is limited to creating health savings account, which allows the healthiest people to get the best deal, with little concern if the sickest get worse.

"They call it the ownership society. But it’s really the "on your own" society.

You bet we want to be on our own!  Government regulation and control is a monkey on the back of every American.  Social Security in the government’s hands collected taxes from both of my wife’s parents from ages 18 through 61 and 62 respectively; they died; they got back nothing for their forced contributions.  As to "risk," the stock markets are booming and have never lost money over time.  Miserly estimates of retirement benefits on a privatized plan are more than triple the governmental dole.

Home ownership is at an all time high.  We expanded our economy to record levels and near-full employment even after a massive terrorist attack and the resulting major war. People are more prosperous than ever.  Why on Earth would we change our way of life to cede our precious liberty to the government and let a bunch of bureaucrats tell us how to live our lives?

Mrs. Clinton, you can keep your Socialism and share it with Lenin and Stalin and Hitler.