For John, BLUF: Putting Bill in charge of the economy is a bad idea. If elected, President Clinton would be ultimately in charge. Nothing to see here; just move along.
From the web presence, Nation of Change, and Progressive Opinionated Jim Hightower, we have: This is actually from earlier in the month, 5 June. Here is the lede plus two:
What’s past, as Shakespeare has told us, is prologue.Bill Clinton in Charge? While I think it is a good campaign move, I think it would be less than good in execution. Or has this proposal all slipped into history?2016 has been a wild political season. This year, despite the unnerving presidential freak show the Republicans are putting on, Hillary Clinton is the one who recently stunned me. Attempting to convince very wary working class families that she will stand against the abuses of her Wall Street financial backers, while also lifting up the poor and shoring up the middle class, Clinton made this horrifying, spine-tingling declaration: She’ll Bring Back Bill! Specifically, Hillary promises that her former-president husband will be put “in charge of revitalizing the economy.”
Good grief! Isn’t Bill the big galoot who turned his economic policy over to Wall Street’s Machiavellian, Robert Rubin? Yes. And didn’t Bill break his 1992 campaign promise to raise the minimum wage in his first year, putting it off until his fourth year, and even then providing only a token increase that still left the working poor mired in poverty? Yes, again. And didn’t he push into law a “welfare reform” bill that has shredded the safety net for America’s poorest, most-vulnerable people? Afraid so.
What position will he hold? On the other hand, he did, with help from Republicans, balance the budget.
Regards — Cliff
No comments:
Post a Comment